A bit of history: from ‘gates’ to ‘washing’
US President Richard Nixon became the first – and only – president to resign from office due to the Watergate scandal. It seemed the suffix ‘gate’ became synonymous with scandal on an international level. Has the suffix ‘washing’ become the new ‘gate’ when it comes to the world of Environment, Social and Governance?
On 31 May 2024, the FCA’s anti-greenwashing rule came into force. It applies to all FCA-regulated firms, governing communications with UK clients and the environmental and social claims in their promotions of financial products and services in the UK. The FCA’s guidance is available here: FG24/3: Finalised nonhandbook guidance on the AntiGreenwashing Rule (fca.org.uk)
However, greenwashing is not the only “washing” being quoted in the media, by consumers, investors, shareholders, employees, and society as a whole.
So what is “Social Washing”?
Social washing is the overarching term for the attempt by companies to create the illusion of social or environmental responsibility to improve their image. Whilst, in reality, they can have working practices that result in the opposite.
Social washing can:
- Pose reputational and financial risk
- Bring regulatory sanctions
- Result in legal reprisals
- Lose the trust of all stakeholders
- Lose customers and investors
- In the extreme, result in company failure
It can take the form of, for example:
- Spreading false information
- Paying for positive media coverage or reviews
- Hiding negative information
- Spreading false positive information
What other “washing” examples are there?
Whilst it is difficult to pinpoint the exact first use of these terms, they are rooted in mainstream and social media criticism of the commercialisation of social justice movements.
Here are just a few examples:
- Rainbow washing – This term originally began circulating online and in activist communities around 2017, as public awareness of allyship grew. Social media further popularised the term, allowing critics to call out companies when their public LGBTQIA+ messaging didn’t align with their internal policies or actions.
- Purple washing – This became widely quoted in the media from 2010 and gained momentum as more companies and institutions started branding themselves as champions of gender equality without meaningful action. It refers to the practices of using gender equality or feminism as a marketing or public relations strategy, while failing to make substantive contributions to women’s rights or gender equality. It draws from the colour purple used during the Suffragette movement.
- Privacy washing – This refers to the practice of companies promoting themselves as protectors of privacy or emphasising their commitment to user privacy, while engaging in practices that compromise or undermine it. The term began to appear in the early 2010s, particularly in response to growing concerns about data collection, surveillance, and privacy violations by technology companies.
- Pink washing – This term was first used in the media in the early 2000s, although its meaning and application have evolved over time. Originally, the term was associated with breast cancer awareness campaigns, referring to companies that used pink ribbons or other breast cancer-related symbols to market their products, with little or no substantial commitment to supporting the cause or addressing the issues surrounding the disease. Critics argued that this was using breast cancer for profit, without contributing meaningfully to cancer research or support for survivors.
In the mid-2000s, the term took on a second, more political meaning in the context of LGBTQIA+ rights. This version of pink washing critiques how promoting LGBTQIA+ rights is sometimes used to shift focus from other oppressive policies or actions. - AI washing – This term refers to companies marketing their products, services, or operations as being powered by artificial intelligence (AI), even when the AI involved in minimal, non-existent, or not central to the offering, often to capitalise on the hype surrounding AI to attract customers or investor attention. The term emerged in the mid-2010s as AI technology like machine learning, natural language processing and neural networks become more prominent in public disclosures.
- Blue washing – This refers to the practice of companies presenting themselves as socially responsible by aligning with organisations such as the United Nations, or adopting sustainable and ethical practices, while failing to live up to those commitments. The term “blue” refers to the colour of the United Nations flag, as companies can claim affiliation with the UN Global Compact or other global initiatives.
- Bee washing – This refers to the practice of using the imagery of bees, pollinators, or related environmental themes to promote their products as eco-friendly or sustainable, while not actually contributing meaningfully to the protection of bees or biodiversity. The term began to surface in the late 2010s as the awareness around the decline in bee populations and the importance of pollinators to ecosystems and agriculture grew.
These are the tip of the “washing” iceberg and it could only be a matter of time before regulation and legislation catches up with societal expectations of corporate responsibility.
What can companies do to avoid accusations of social washing?
On the surface, the answer sounds simple – commit to an ethical ESG strategy and be transparent in corporate reporting.
Some actions a company can take:
- Align actions with messaging – clearly communicate how the company supports social causes, both publicly and internally. This includes being open about the company’s goals, practices and progress related to social initiatives.
- Ensure that marketing campaigns, public statements, and internal practices are consistent. For example, if a company promotes gender equality in its advertising, it should also demonstrate equitable hiring, pay and promotion policies.
- Make long term commitments – rather than making token gestures during high-visibility periods (such as Pride Month or International Women’s Day) companies should invest in long-term, ongoing initiatives that drive real change.
- Partnerships with relevant organisations – collaborate with credible non-profit organisations, advocacy groups or community organisations working on the issue.
- Data driven accountability – set meaningful goals related to social causes the company is advocating for and regularly report progress. This transparency helps show the company’s genuine commitment.
- Third party audits – engage independent organisations to audit and verify the company’s social responsibility claims, providing objective validation of the company’s work.
- Get insight and feedback from employees and ensure that internal practices on employee policies align with the social values it promotes, fostering an inclusive workplace culture that reflects the company’s commitment to diversity, equality, and inclusion.
- Engage with the communities most affected by the issues that the company supports and listen to their feedback.
- Avoid purely symbolic gestures (e.g. changing logos, making short-lived donations) without substantive follow-through. Symbols can be powerful, but they should be accompanied by meaningful, long-term action.
- Be careful not to exploit social causes purely for marketing purposes, such as using stock photography that isn’t aligned to actual company practices.
Authentic support involves contributing to systemic change, not just brand awareness. By following practices like these, companies can avoid accusations of social washing and demonstrate genuine commitment to the causes they align with, ultimately earning public trust. To go back to Richard Nixon, ignoring ethical practice could result in a lasting negative reputation that overshadows good work and real accomplishments.
Time to plan, and put words into action
Most organisations are somewhere along the path to improving their organisation’s approach to ESG. Wherever you are, along this path, it’s worth considering your business’ ESG strategy and actions, and considering how transparent your organisation currently is, in its communication of ESG commitments and action.
Next, start considering how you could better align stakeholder messaging with action. And how you could go about communicating tangible, measurable, and meaningful change.