Most people in the UK judge a company’s brand based on the behaviour and reputation of its leadership, according to new data from Raconteur and Attest. What’s more, nearly half (49%) feel uncomfortable purchasing a product or service if they disagree with the CEO or founder.
Companies, such as Target and Nestlé, have faced consumer backlash after winding down diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, while controversial CEO statements have sparked boycotts. Global crises, including the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, have also led shoppers to reconsider where they spend – and the data shows many are doing just that.
Among those who disagree with the statements or actions of a CEO, the vast majority (92%) have altered their behaviour: 48% reduced how often they purchase from that company and 44% stopped buying altogether. Only 7.6% continued as normal.
When brand identity becomes a liability
This tension between leadership behaviour and consumer perception becomes most visible when brand identity itself starts to work against the business.
Owning a Tesla once symbolised progress and sustainability – a narrative that justified premium pricing and fuelled rapid adoption. “For a long time, Tesla’s identity was its advantage,” says Ben Cleaver, founder of Big Small, a London-based brand strategy and creative agency. “The brand stood for disruption, conviction and a visible alternative to the status quo. Now, the product risks taking a back seat as the identity grows louder.”
Chief executive Elon Musk’s personal brand is inseparable from Tesla’s. His outspoken public persona can boost engagement and loyalty, but it also amplifies backlash when controversy arises. Musk’s increasingly polarising political positions, including his associations with US President Donald Trump and involvement in the controversial US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have intensified scrutiny, with reports of Tesla dealerships being vandalised in multiple locations.
Financially, Tesla remains strong, generating significant cash flow while investing heavily in AI, robotics and energy. Yet automotive revenues fell 11% year-on-year, and vehicle deliveries dropped 16% in Q4 2025, suggesting that brand identity may no longer fully shield the core product.
When a leader’s public persona clashes with a customer’s values, it directly influences purchasing decisions. Experts describe this phenomenon as identity discomfort. “When customers start buying into an identity that feels volatile or polarising rather than progressive and future-facing, friction enters the decision-making process,” explains Cleaver. “Buyers move from asking, ‘do I like the car?’ to ‘what does owning this say about me?’ At that point, brand identity stops accelerating growth and begins quietly taxing it.”
Pros and cons of identity-driven brands
Identity-driven brands can be powerful when they create a sense of belonging. Tesla built enormous value by aligning with widely shared ideals, such as sustainability and innovation, giving customers something to identify with beyond the product itself.
That connection still matters. A majority (80%) of consumers say their personal identity influences the brands they choose, highlighting how values and self-image increasingly shape purchasing decisions.
But the same dynamic carries risk. When a brand becomes tightly bound to a single individual, it can shift from an inclusive platform to a signal of alignment with a particular viewpoint. “Customers are no longer invited to see themselves in the brand; they are implicitly asked to agree with it,” says Cleaver.
At that point, identity can start to limit rather than expand appeal, Cleaver continues, shrinking addressable markets, increasing reputational volatility and tying commercial performance more closely to personal narratives than to product fundamentals.
What triggers the strongest consumer backlash?
What, then, pushes consumers from discomfort into outright rejection?
The data suggests it is not just what leaders say, but how they behave behind the scenes. Poor employee treatment emerges as the single biggest trigger for backlash, cited by 60% of respondents. That potential fallout of this is evident in cases such as BrewDog. Its co-founder and former chief executive, James Watt, faced severe criticism, including open letters from former employees alleging a toxic culture of fear, bullying, sexism and intense pressure, leading to damaged reputation, staff turnover and an independent culture review.
Ethical misconduct (56%) and poor customer treatment (56%) rank close behind, suggesting consumers prioritise how leaders treat stakeholders over what they say publicly.
Personal scandals still carry significant weight (47%), as do political statements (41%), while social or cultural positions (38%) rank slightly lower.
Meanwhile, environmental practices (41%) and financial fairness decisions (39%) demonstrate that operational choices carry nearly as much influence as values-based messaging.
Just 1% of respondents said none of these factors would affect their purchasing decisions, indicating near-universal sensitivity to leadership behaviour.
Board oversight: managing leadership identity risk
Boards must treat leadership identity exposure as a measurable business risk. “When a founder’s personal identity becomes indistinguishable from the company’s, it creates concentration risk,” stresses Cleaver.
“If one person’s behaviour can materially shift customer trust, employee confidence, or regulatory scrutiny, boards should actively govern it – not to silence the founder, but to manage where influence turns into exposure.”
High-profile founder-led companies need distinction, not distance, he continues. The brand must have its own centre of gravity: a clear purpose and values that do not shift with any single leader. That means establishing a belief system that outlives individuals, elevating other leadership voices beyond the CEO, and introducing board-level oversight of brand and reputation. “The aim isn’t to dilute identity,” Cleaver says. “It’s to make it resilient.”
Most people in the UK judge a company’s brand based on the behaviour and reputation of its leadership, according to new data from Raconteur and Attest. What’s more, nearly half (49%) feel uncomfortable purchasing a product or service if they disagree with the CEO or founder.
Companies, such as Target and Nestlé, have faced consumer backlash after winding down diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, while controversial CEO statements have sparked boycotts. Global crises, including the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, have also led shoppers to reconsider where they spend – and the data shows many are doing just that.
Among those who disagree with the statements or actions of a CEO, the vast majority (92%) have altered their behaviour: 48% reduced how often they purchase from that company and 44% stopped buying altogether. Only 7.6% continued as normal.
