The Lay’s and Pringles maker’s decision is part of a broader shift across industries, driven by shareholder activism, evolving consumer expectations, and a changing regulatory landscape under the new US administration. While the $240bn food and beverage giant’s commitment directly impacts its operations, the ripple effects are likely to influence the entire snacks industry and beyond, especially as social media marketing continues to dominate brand engagement strategies.
The state of free speech, misinformation and fake news
In the US, the debate over free speech, misinformation, and fake news has reached a boiling point, with significant consequences for media, corporations, and public discourse.
On one side, there’s growing concern over the unchecked spread of misinformation on social media platforms, from false election claims to vaccine conspiracy theories and global crises. This has fuelled the rise of fact-checking organisations and initiatives designed to curb harmful content.
However, critics like Elon Musk and figures aligned with Donald Trump argue these efforts often cross into censorship, targeting specific political ideologies under the guise of combating ‘fake news’.
This polarised environment has fragmented the media landscape, turning free speech into both a rallying cry and a flashpoint. For corporations reliant on advertising, the stakes are high – balancing brand safety with respecting diverse viewpoints remains a minefield that reflects America’s larger cultural divide.
The PepsiCo decision
PepsiCo’s adoption of viewpoint neutrality follows sustained pressure from shareholders, including advocacy by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal organisation dedicated to free speech and religious freedom. This shift aims to prevent politically or ideologically charged ad-buying decisions that could alienate consumers and investors.
PepsiCo’s pivot comes in the wake of its involvement in the now-defunct Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an organisation accused of suppressing conservative and religious viewpoints under the pretence of promoting ‘digital safety’. Critics – including ADF and shareholders like financial advisor David Bahnsen – allege that GARM engaged in censorship. For example, GARM reportedly pressured Spotify to remove content like Joe Rogan’s podcast, claiming it violated content standards. Additionally, GARM supported tools like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard, which labelled conservative outlets as sources of misinformation.
The group dissolved in 2024 after Elon Musk’s lawsuit accused GARM of conspiring to pull advertising dollars from his platform, X (formerly Twitter). By committing to neutrality, PepsiCo seeks to shield its brand from such controversies, foster inclusivity, and maintain a broad consumer base in a deeply polarised cultural climate.
Shareholder activism on the rise
PepsiCo’s decision underscores the growing power of shareholder activism in shaping corporate governance. ADF-backed shareholders, along with figures like Bahnsen, have successfully used resolutions to demand greater transparency and neutrality. Their efforts have delivered wins not just at PepsiCo but at other corporate giants like AT&T and Apple, Inc.
At AT&T, resolutions prompted clarity on government-mandated supplier diversity requirements. Meanwhile, Apple’s upcoming proxy ballot includes resolutions addressing ethical AI, religious discrimination in charitable giving, and transparency on its removal of a tool to detect child sexual abuse material.
The SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) recently denied Apple’s request to block one of these shareholder resolutions, illustrating a regulatory environment increasingly supportive of shareholder engagement. This shift empowers investors to hold corporations accountable to societal values while steering clear of divisive or ideological extremes.
The role of social media marketing
Social media has become a critical advertising platform, offering brands unmatched reach and engagement. However, it also serves as a flashpoint for ideological and political conflicts, posing significant challenges for companies.
PepsiCo’s previous involvement with GARM highlights the difficulties of navigating social media’s complexities. GARM’s efforts to promote ‘digital safety’ often led to brands pulling ads from platforms or content deemed controversial. While these moves aimed to protect brand reputations, they frequently alienated audiences who felt censored or marginalised.
Platforms like X and Spotify became battlegrounds in these disputes. For instance, GARM’s influence allegedly led to advertising boycotts and content removal efforts targeting prominent conservative voices like Joe Rogan. This underscores the delicate balance companies must strike between protecting their image and upholding free speech principles.
Under its new policy, PepsiCo’s social media marketing is likely to focus on inclusivity and neutrality. By steering clear of contentious political and social issues, the snack giant can appeal to broader audiences while mitigating backlash. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube – where relatability drives engagement – will central to this strategy.
This approach could set a precedent for other brands in the snacks industry. Companies like Mondelez International and Kellogg’s may follow PepsiCo’s lead, reassessing their advertising strategies to prioritise inclusivity and neutrality in response to increasing demand for corporate responsibility.
Consumer expectations and brand loyalty
Today’s consumers expect more from brands than just products. They seek alignment with values like inclusivity, transparency, and sustainability. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean alignment with political or ideological stances. Many consumers prefer to engage with brands that avoid polarising narratives altogether.
PepsiCo’s shift to viewpoint neutrality positions the company to meet these evolving expectations. By emphasising universal values – such as environmental sustainability, community engagement, and health – the New York-headquartered conglomerate can deepen its appeal to a diverse audience. This is especially critical in the highly competitive snacks industry, where emotional connections often drive brand loyalty.
PepsiCo’s decision is also emblematic of a broader trend in the F&B sector. Shareholders, consumers, and regulatory bodies are pushing companies to re-evaluate their roles in societal and political discourse.
In a divided cultural environment, overtly political stances can alienate significant portions of a brand’s audience. By adopting viewpoint-neutral policies, companies can better navigate these challenges, focusing on shared values rather than divisive issues.
One unifying area for the industry is sustainability and health. Initiatives such as reducing plastic waste, promoting plant-based products, and offering healthier snack options resonate widely with consumers and position brands as forward-thinking leaders in addressing global challenges.
Under the current US Administration, regulatory policies are fostering transparency and shareholder engagement. This environment encourages companies to adopt inclusive and ethical practices. While this trend creates opportunities to build trust with stakeholders, it also presents risks. For example, increased scrutiny may expose companies to public criticism if they fail to align with societal expectations.
PepsiCo’s commitment to viewpoint-neutral advertising is more than a strategic pivot; it’s a reflection of broader cultural and business trends. This move signals a new era of corporate responsibility, where inclusivity, transparency, and ethical governance are paramount.
As social media continues to shape the relationship between brands and consumers, PepsiCo’s policy offers a roadmap for balancing brand safety with free speech. By focusing on universal values and avoiding divisive narratives, PepsiCo is setting a precedent not only for the snacks industry but for corporations worldwide striving to navigate an increasingly interconnected and polarised world.
