Pinkwashing is a controversial practice that has become increasingly more common in recent years. A combination of “pink” and “whitewashing,” it was originally derived from companies using the pink ribbon while hypocritically using products that can cause breast cancer. Now, it is a term describing efforts to cover up or gloss over unfavorable aspects of a situation. Involving the strategic use of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) rights awareness and advocacy to divert attention and bolster a company’s image, pinkwashing raises important questions about corporate social responsibility, government accountability, and public understanding of human rights as a whole. While some may argue that pinkwashing can still be seen as a way to raise awareness, albeit at a superficial level, I believe that pinkwashing fundamentally disrespects the movements for the rights of all human beings by focusing solely on the more conveniently marketable “brand” that the LGBTQ+ has become.

The fight for LGBTQ+ rights has persisted for decades, and it seems to appear that Western society has made significant strides in securing the rights of the marginalized. Especially in the West, such as in the United States (U.S.) or Europe, the economy is full of corporations that make use of Pride and LGBTQ+, indicating that LGBTQ+ has become mainstream in a way. H&M and Levi’s introduced “Pride collections” produced in countries where homosexuality was still illegal until only recently or still today. BMW changed its logo to rainbow colors in Germany, but not in more oppressive countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia. Private enterprises are all for LGBTQ+ marketing, but the problem with pinkwashing extends beyond such mere glaring hypocrisy.

The current method of disproportionately underlining LGBTQ+ rights over others is problematic due to the underlying premise along the lines of We’re supporting LGBTQ+, and therefore, we are ethical, modern, and progressive. In Western culture, “LGBTQ+ rights,” as important as it is, has become a buzzword of the Western zeitgeist that is fervent about liberal ideals, which have sacrificed nuance and intersectionality for marketable simplicity. While this is not to discount the struggles that many LGBTQ+ communities still face, it becomes a problem when the use of this is to conceal or eclipse other human rights issues that are seemingly, not as popular, implying the distorted vision that some human rights are worth more than those of others.

Governments also similarly weaponize their inclusion of LGBTQ+ issues in their agenda to shift focus away from other controversies, most prominently the Israeli government that promotes LGBTQ+ rights yet commits many human rights abuses against Palestinians. “Homonationalism” is a theory presented by the scholar Jasbir K. Puar, which is a phenomenon that describes the nationalist ideology being linked to the support of the rights of LGBTQ+ people. The Israeli government incorporates queer subjects and their public support for queer people into their national identity and image, notably their tourism industry making claims of being “gay-friendly,” while simultaneously committing atrocious human rights violations against Palestinians.

Of course, at the end of the day, the main interest of private enterprises is that of higher profits and satisfying their shareholders, and thus the limitations of their “socially aware” marketing are all too easy to understand based on this context. However, to uphold values of social responsibility, companies as well as governments should be mindful of the communities they serve and hurt, and we, as consumers, must also be critical of the public campaigning practices in support of LGBTQ+.