Cognitive dissonance and the rainbow parade
The meme-ified phrase ‘there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism’ has been circulating the internet for a while. I’ve come across it more than once on social media, sometimes it is even plastered across an image of Sonic the Hedgehog, for reasons that I do not understand. My initial impulse is to reject the idea – as a business owner and entrepreneur, it’s something that’s not only uncomfortable to sit with, but also difficult to consider. What exactly is ‘ethical consumption’ and why would it be impossible in a capitalist world?
I’m very lucky to work with informed young people who genuinely care about social issues and keep their fingers far closer to the figurative pulse of things than I do. And with it recently being Pride Month, I’ve heard and learned about some of the larger discourse (primarily from within the LGBTQ+ community) regarding rainbow-washing (yes, pun colourfully intended).
The problem with rainbow washing
If you, like me, have been previously unaware of this term, it’s for when companies gleefully slap rainbow-coloured schemes on their logos and/or products each June (or during Mardi Gras). Naturally, this is followed by making a very big, very self-congratulatory (and goodwill-seeking) public show of sharing pro-LGBTQ+ social media posts all while doing very little to meaningfully support the LGBTQ+ community.
In fact, many of these same companies have been called out for being tokenistic while simultaneously donating to politicians and organisations pushing legislation that actively harms the LGBTQ+ community. In other words, it comes down to yet another example of companies using value-based branding to market themselves, and in this case, to also make money off of a marginalised community – while betraying those values and harming that very same community with their actions. Essentially, these companies are attempting to capitalise on ethics without having any ethics, which is about as hollow as it sounds. And it’s not a good look.
This is also where the quandary over ‘there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism’ begins. No matter who you financially support, your business has been tainted by either your own actions or by other unethical actors in the supply chain. These actions can include sweatshops, blood diamonds, prison labor, or – as in the case of ‘rainbow washing’ – providing extensive financial donations to politicians openly committed to the effective removal of LGBTQ+ people from everyday life. It’s not only incredibly wrong and dishonest, but it’s also a surefire way to step right into a PR disaster.
Risking brand credibility
Companies need to be extremely aware of the risk they’re taking with both their brands and their credibility. One of the most critical rules of branding is that however you choose to market yourself, your actions must be in alignment with them. To do otherwise appears inconsistent, dishonest and untrustworthy – and frequently leads to viral public call-outs and PR crises.
Additionally, brands will have to consider the potential cost of losing access to a global trillion-dollar market colloquially referred to as ‘pink money’. And those considerations are on top of the moral questions – and how you’ll sleep at night – which, I know, is just a rhetorical convenience where real people’s lives are involved, which cannot be separated from those same moral questions.
Moreover, younger generations are proving to be hyperconscious about the ethics of the brands they support. For example, Millennials – the largest single purchasing demographic in the United States and a steadily growing force in the Australian economy – have long placed a premium on buying from companies that reflect their values, including their strongly pro-LGBTQ+ ones.
Companies can’t have it both ways. Exploiting Pride imagery and language to gain easy public goodwill, while simultaneously financially backing politicians who are working to further marginalise the very same community, is a recipe for disaster.
CVS, a US pharmaceutical retailer, for example, both signed a Human Rights Campaign pro-LGBTQ+ statement and donated to politicians who are actively working to infringe upon and reduce transgender rights (including those who support criminalising providing minors with trans-affirmative care). The same can be said about AT&T, Comcast, and Walmart. And General Motors. And UPS. And Home Depot (the list goes on).
Financial support equals endorsement?
To be clear, I’m not saying (and as far as I know, no one else is either) that these businesses are necessarily acting out of bigotry and malice. Corporations are essentially machines that were designed to make as much money as quickly as possible. Everything is in service of the cash register. Corporations don’t really have principles beyond whether any given action will generate the most possible value for shareholders. Which is why they donate to politicians who seek to lower corporate taxes even further (even when those same politicians also seek to undermine marginalized communities’ human rights). So it’s not exactly malice; it’s simply brute indifference to the suffering of others in pursuit of wealth, helpfully mediated by a couple of degrees of removal.
Now, the “there is no ethical consumption” claim does go both ways: many of these businesses justify their financial donations by claiming that they don’t necessarily endorse all of the stances of the political candidates they support. Which, fair enough, I suppose. There is some space to be drawn between a specific individual or organization and those they do business with. When I buy some bread, it doesn’t amount to an endorsement of the person who made it, even though my purchase is indirectly financially supporting those actions (and potentially allowing them to continue). That’s exactly what “no ethical consumption” means. That said, there is an obvious difference between buying a loaf of bread even when the baker happens to be a jerk and backing lawmakers despite the material harm they continue to inflict as a matter of public policy.
Remember, there are no secrets anymore (at least not where the Twitterati are concerned), and conscientious young people have no problem dropping companies who have been “cancelled” because of unethical actions. Know that your donations will be made public, your values will be scrutinized, and your villainous bona fides reified in dollars and cents regardless of the why. If your company supports a politician because you like his stance on tech policy, but he also happens to be supporting bigoted anti-transgender legislation, know that his tech policy doesn’t erase the very real consequences of such legislation’s passage. Nor does it erase the memories of those who may have once supported you before the disclosure and now, in good conscience, cannot. If your actions do not align with your stated values, your customers will rightfully feel betrayed, lied to, and manipulated, damaging the very brand you’ve worked so hard to build.
Can you see how nuclear the risk of such complacency is? Values, integrity, transparency, authenticity, honesty—these things actually do matter. So if you’re going to slap a rainbow over your logo, do your homework first: identify what else your political donations are being used for and cut that relationship off if it goes against your stated values (as quickly as possible). There’s actually quite a lot of good publicity to be gained from that. A public statement of stopping donations, financial support, or doing business of any kind with anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and organizations followed by clear, decisive action to that effect will boost your standing, improve public perception, and encourage conscientious buyers who are all too aware that “there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism” to mentally file you away as a Good Company™, and it may even earn you a new customer for life.
To put it simply: stop saying one thing while doing another. No one likes a hypocrite, and today, it’s death for brands.
Eric Yaverbaum is the CEO of Ericho Communications and author of ‘Public Relations for Dummies’ and ‘Leadership Secrets of the World’s Most Successful CEOs’.