IN an era where corporate responsibility is increasingly valued, businesses often highlight their commitment to social and environmental causes.
However, not all corporate social responsibility claims are genuine. “Carewashing” is a term that describes the practice of companies promoting themselves as caring and socially responsible without making substantial changes or contributions to those causes.
This phenomenon, akin to the well-known “greenwashing”, where companies exaggerate or falsely claim their environmental efforts, is a growing concern in corporate ethics.
Several scholars have claimed that this term grew rapidly during the Covid-19 pandemic, driven by reputational and broader legitimacy concerns around the role of corporations in society, leading to attracting customers, investors and employees who prioritise ethical practices.
Carewashing allows companies to appear aligned with important social issues, such as diversity, equity and inclusion as well as mental health or community support, without genuinely investing in or committing to these causes.
For example, a Gallup survey conducted lately revealed that overall employee well-being has decreased dramatically from 49% in 2020 to 21% in 2024, indicating that employees agreed that their employers care less about them.
Carewashing can be observed in various forms. One common type is selective reporting, where organisations publicise only the positive aspects of their social impact while ignoring or downplaying any negative behaviours.
Another form is misleading certifications, where companies use questionable or self-awarded certifications to create an impression of a greater commitment to social responsibility than actually exists.
False advertising is also prevalent, with some entities making unsubstantiated claims about their social initiatives to enhance their image.
Additionally, tokenism is often employed, where minimal or insignificant efforts are highlighted to give the appearance of being socially responsible without making substantial contributions.
Several factors drive the prevalence of carewashing in the corporate world. Competitive pressure is a significant cause as companies may feel the need to appear committed to social causes to stay competitive with genuinely committed organisations.
Regulatory pressure also plays a role, with companies using carewashing as a way to appear compliant with social and environmental impact reporting requirements without making substantial changes.
Reputation management is another factor – companies may engage in carewashing to mitigate negative publicity or distract from harmful practices or scandals.
Additionally, shareholder pressure influences companies as investors increasingly prioritise Environmental, Social and Governance factors. Carewashing can attract or appease socially conscious investors.
The cost of genuine change is another driving factor as implementing real changes to support social causes can be costly and complex.
Carewashing offers a way to gain some benefits without significant investment. Public relations and marketing efforts also drive carewashing as companies seek to enhance their public image and differentiate themselves from competitors by appearing socially responsible.
Consumer demand for socially conscious brands further encourages carewashing, with companies superficially meeting these expectations without making real changes.
Lastly, the lack of accountability is a contributing factor, as the absence of rigorous standards and accountability mechanisms makes it easier for companies to engage in carewashing.
To effectively mitigate carewashing, a multifaceted approach involving government, organisational and public measures is essential.
At the government level, enforcing mandatory transparency and reporting standards is crucial. This includes strengthening laws to require detailed disclosure of social responsibility initiatives, standardising reporting formats for consistency and mandating third-party audits to ensure authenticity. Implementing penalties for false claims, such as fines and public disclosures, alongside whistleblower protections, can further deter carewashing.
At the organisational level, conducting regular internal audits and using third-party assessments are key to verifying the authenticity and impact of social responsibility initiatives.
Training employees on genuine social responsibility and encouraging their involvement helps ensure meaningful efforts and fosters a culture of transparency.
Organisations must also commit to clear and honest communication, avoiding exaggerated claims and providing evidence-based reports.
For public and consumer engagement, education campaigns are vital to inform individuals about carewashing and guide their brand choices.
Providing tools and resources for verifying social responsibility claims empowers consumers. Supporting and promoting companies with proven records of genuine responsibility and highlighting their successes can drive positive change.
Developing public accountability platforms allows for reporting and discussing carewashing practices and creating pressure on companies to uphold high standards.
In conclusion, addressing carewashing requires comprehensive strategies across all levels. By implementing robust policies and fostering transparency, we can promote genuine social responsibility and discourage superficial claims. Through a collective effort, we can ensure companies truly commit to meaningful social responsibility.
The writer is a senior lecturer at the Uniten Business School, Universiti Tenaga Nasional. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
