The turn of a new decade has been a rocky one and many causes have been brought to the ‘mainstream' by brands – for some, to change public perception, others as a representation of their guiding principles. Rather than looking at the causes themselves, why, when some brands take a stand does it land, and when others try, it falls flat?

Many brands have been called controversial, some have even embraced it and built their reputation on it, like Vivienne Westwood bringing punk to mainstream or Apple encouraging audiences to 'think differently.’ But there seems to be a fine line that brands toe – especially when that controversy is entrenched in current affairs and the day-to-day culture audiences are a part of.

So when a brand makes a stand, they’re expecting a reaction – whether applause or backlash – to create conversation. 

In sport, we see athletes align themselves with brands through sponsorships, endorsements, the clubs they represent or the 'tools of the trade' that they choose on-field. So, what makes a brand’s decision to endorse – or not – a cause different?