New study examines Oatly's controversial milk campaign in Finland

One of the authors of the study  is Pia Polsa, associate professor at Hanken School of Economics. Together with her fellow researchers Meri Frig, Laura Olkkonen and Salla-Maaria Laaksonen, she examined Oatly’s milk campaign in Finland in 2020 and the public discussion it generated in both traditional and social media during 2020 and 2021. As part of the campaign, the company distributed material to families with children and promoted the message that milk is not as healthy as it is often claimed to be. 

"Milk has a very strong position in Finnish culture and is an important part of the national identity. What surprised me most was how intense the debate became and how quickly it evolved from a discussion about diet into a broader debate about agriculture, national identity and almost a kind of rivalry between Finland and Sweden," says Polsa. 

Research as a foundation 

Unlike many companies, Oatly did not simply launch the campaign and step back. The company also actively engaged in the ensuing debate and was able to support its arguments with scientific research. 

"The campaign was launched after the renowned journal The Lancet had published a comprehensive meta-analysis on healthy and sustainable diets. The conclusion was that a predominantly plant-based diet is best for both human health and environmental sustainability." 

Polsa emphasises the importance of grounding brand activism in robust research and expert knowledge, particularly as EU regulations on environmental and sustainability claims have become stricter and consumers are better informed than ever before. 

Risky and resource-intensive 

According to Polsa, brand activism involves significant risks and requires considerable investments of both time and money. If the objective is simply to increase sales, this is not necessarily the most effective approach. There is a substantial risk that a company may alienate certain customer groups. 

Once a public debate gains momentum, companies no longer have full control over it. Campaigns of this kind continue to require resources long after their launch, as companies must remain active in the discussion, including on social media. 

Four response strategies identified 

The researchers identified four types of tactics in which Oatly responded to the debate surrounding the campaign. The first was to challenge inaccurate claims. Whenever incorrect arguments were presented, the company sought to refute them. The second strategy was to draw comparisons with similar past cases when the discussion drifted away from the original issue. 

"For example, if critics argued that the campaign targeted children, Oatly could point out that similar campaigns have existed before, including milk promotion campaigns in schools," says Polsa. 

The third strategy was to redirect the discussion back to the core issue, namely plant-based versus animal-based diets, while the fourth involved reinforcing the company's own message and continuing to advocate for its position even in the face of opposition. 

"We do not know whether these strategies were used deliberately, but for companies interested in activism they may be valuable to study as strategic tools." 

For further information: 

Pia Polsa, associate professor of marketing, Hanken School of Economics,  
tel. +358 40 352 1419, email: pia.polsa@hanken.fi