A bright change is taking place every June in the whole world. Corporate logos on social media are replaced with rainbow colored versions, storefronts are covered with Pride flags, and special Pride collections of products (glittery sneakers, sandwich wraps of different colours) flood the market. This, to an ordinary viewer, indicates that LGBTQ+ rights have been shifted to a more core position rather than the periphery, in the mainstream. But, behind this bright veil, there is a complicated and usually cynical phenomenon called pinkwashing. This is the term that is used to refer to the tendency of a corporation to foster LGBTQ+ friendliness as a distraction technique to pursue another, more frequently negative, agenda or to monetise a community without providing any type of support to it. Within a business setting, it is an inability to tie the outside marketing to the inside policy. Although a brand can spend thirty days under the rainbow, the other eleven months can be marked with either silence, political donations to the anti-LGBTQ+ lawmakers or working conditions in which queer employees do not feel supported or safe.

The trend of corporate Pride practice did not always emerge due to the sudden moral awakening; instead, it was market data that triggered the shift. The Pink Pound or Rainbow Dollar is a giant worldwide market that has high buying capacities, and studies have always indicated that the younger generations, especially Gen Z and the Millennials, tend to make purchases in brands that are socially aligned with their values. In the case of a corporation, being rainbow in June is a low-risk, high-reward marketing strategy. It enables them to access an affluent group of people and indicate progressiveness without the strenuousness of systemic transformation. The history behind this commercialisation is the history of Pride itself, which was initiated as a riot by marginalised groups of people, such as Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, against state-approved police brutality. It was an extreme request for the right of existence. When a multi-billion-dollar corporation commodifies said struggle into a mass-produced t-shirt that is made in a country where being gay is a criminal offence, the radical idea of the movement is watered down to a fashion statement.

The worst case of pinkwashing is where the marketing department of a company and its government relations department are operating in opposite directions. The investigative journalism of recent years has shown a shocking pattern of a large number of major Pride sponsors giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to political action committees that fund anti-trans bills sponsored by politicians or oppose marriage equality. This makes it a predatory cycle that a corporation gains money on the need of the LGBTQ+ community to represent themselves in June, only to then invest that money in political systems that actively discriminate against the same people. This is not merely a failure to support, but it is a covert support in the undermining of queer rights. Corporate allyship must be authentic, and any rainbow logo must be treated like a follow-the-money strategy because a rainbow logo will be a mask of political aggression when a company also funds the campaigns of politicians who would like the identity discussed in classrooms to be banned.

In the field of politics, pinkwashing is experienced directly in the confines of the corporations themselves. Some companies may post an emotional video on how to bring your entire self to work, but may not provide a health care policy that covers transition-related care or may not have strong policies against harassment of employees. The marketing budget does not define true allyship, but the human resources handbook does, along with extensive healthcare, including gender affirming treatments and explicitly stated non-discrimination policies, which are actively being implemented. It demands robust internal Employee Resource Groups who are at the executive table and parental leave policies that celebrate the various family formations. The lack of these internal mechanisms makes the external Pride campaign look to the queer employees as worker bees, like a betrayal. They are basically requested to become the faces of a diversity movement of a company that does not really care about their basic dignity or safety.

Thankfully, the rainbow-washing age is being reckoned with due to the fact that the contemporary consumer is more knowledgeable and jaded than ever. Social media has simplified this to an easy cross-reference of what a company has posted on its social media and its records on the amount of donations. For accountability watchdogs and activists, lists of companies that practice hypocritical branding have become a routine to expose what seemed to be a safe PR win into a potential reputation disaster. This scepticism is also pushing the change in the approach of the brands to social issues, which creates the concept of year-round allyship. Other brands have not done the temporary logo-switch in June, instead entering into long-term collaborations with LGBTQ+ non-profits, publishing reports on diversity indicators, and taking a public position against discriminatory laws. These businesses know that Pride is not an event and that it is an ongoing commitment to social justice and civil rights.

In order to overcome pinkwashing, the onus of responsibility should be on the companies to earn the privilege to be part of the movement by doing it. This entails total openness of political contributions, investment in the businesses that are owned by queers in its supply chains and absolute commitment to the safety and development of the LGBTQ+ employees. Pinkwashing is not criticised because it is believed that the rainbow should be taken out of the public square, because representation is important, and when a big brand understands the community, it can be influential in the area where it is often not visible. Nevertheless, hollow and deceitful is the representation that lacks resources. So long as the corporate world does not match its corporate activities with its corporate expressions, the rainbow will remain the reflection of a lost chance of real justice. Pride is a festival of perseverance and of insistence, and companies that want to reflect in the festival must be ready to react to the struggle even in those times when it is no longer lucrative.

References:

• GLAAD. (2024). Accelerating acceptance 2024: A survey of American acceptance and attitudes toward LGBTQ people.
• Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (2023). Corporate equality index 2023-2024: Rating workplaces on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality.
• Judd, L. (2024, June 3). The "Pride Corporate Accountability Project" 2024. Popular Information.
• National Geographic. (2023, June 1). The first Pride was a riot: The origins of Pride month.
• Rollins, A. (2023, June 12). The rise and risk of "rainbow capitalism". Forbes. 

.    .    .