Many organisations falsely present themselves as socially responsible
Nowadays we often see that companies are engaged towards launching mental health awareness campaigns while maintaining toxic work environments or failing to provide meaningful employee support; at times companies celebrate diversity during cultural moments without addressing systemic inequities, such as unequal pay or a lack of diverse leadership. But the question arises are the employees getting benefitted or are still victims?
In an age where ethical responsibility and social consciousness are increasingly demanded of corporations, governments and individuals, a troubling phenomenon termed carewashing has emerged. The term refers to the practice of falsely presenting an organisation, business or individual as socially or ethically responsible, particularly in areas of caregiving or support, to improve their reputation or deflect criticism. Much like its environmental counterpart greenwashing, carewashing also exploits emotional appeals to mask the absence of genuine commitment to caregiving causes.
Several factors such as modern consumers increasingly seeking brands that align with their values, create pressure for organisations to appear socially conscious or social platforms that provide both positive as well as failures, thereby encouraging companies to capitalise on social causes for visibility and if that not enough then such organisations outshine its competitors by attracting customers and talent with minimal investment in genuine reform contribute to the rising of carewashing. While these pressures reflect positive shifts in societal values, they also incentivise performative actions over authentic efforts. It is believed that when carewashing is exposed, it damages trust between organisations and their stakeholders as it is often when the dissonance between claims and actions becomes apparent. Employees who witness discrepancies between an organisation’s statements and its actions often feel disillusioned.
This alienation leads to reduced morale, engagement and retention, especially among those drawn to the organisation by its purported values. Quiet often we hear once the trust is lost, rebuilding it is a slow and costly process. Exposure to carewashing through whistleblowers, investigative journalism, or public criticism can lead to significant reputational harm. By co-opting social causes for profit, carewashing trivializes important issues, potentially reducing the urgency of addressing them authentically. To counteract carewashing, organisations must prioritise authenticity and accountability. This involves providing measurable, verifiable data on social and environmental efforts rather than vague claims; including employees in shaping policies and initiatives to ensure alignment with internal realities; conducting regular audits and feedback loops that will help organisations stay true to their commitments and correct shortcomings and public statements should be backed by tangible actions, such as policy changes or resource allocation.
There is no denying that carewashing is a symptom of the growing demand for ethical behaviour in business and society, but it represents a shortcut that sacrifices trust and authenticity for superficial gains. While it may offer short-term visibility, its long-term consequences are overwhelmingly negative, eroding credibility and alienating stakeholders. Organisations must recognise that true social responsibility requires meaningful actions, transparency and a commitment to sustained progress. Only by moving beyond carwashing can businesses and institutions genuinely contribute to a better world while earning the loyalty and respect of their communities.
(The writer is an educator; views are personal)
