Sustainability is one of the most topical and prominent issues in contemporary public debate.
Its growing importance has prompted—and continues to prompt—an increasing number of companies to communicate and promote their commitment to sustainability.
However, what companies say about social issues—such as diversity, equity and inclusion, labour standards, human rights, data security and privacy—does not always reflect reality. This is where socialwashing comes into play.
Much like the better-known phenomenon of greenwashing, socialwashing consists of making exaggerated, misleading or false claims about social sustainability in order to appear socially responsible, without those claims being matched by corresponding policies and practices within the organisation.
Within the still underdeveloped ESG framework, the S for Social is not only often given insufficient attention; at times, it is even used to conceal irresponsible behaviour.
To what extent does this happen, and how? It is difficult to say. Unlike greenwashing, socialwashing is a less clearly defined and codified practice, and in some cases a lack of awareness may also play an important role.
Mario Calderini shares this view, arguing that part of the problem stems from “an inability to grasp the systemic nature of social issues”.
The topic is explored in greater depth in an interview conducted by Giampaolo Cerri for an issue of Vita Magazine dedicated to socialwashing.
Professor, socialwashing is the exact opposite of impact: “fluff”, as they say in Milan, as opposed to intentionality and measurable impact.
Just like greenwashing, socialwashing is also a form of irresponsible behaviour, albeit one presented in a socially acceptable guise. When faced with a problem that needs to be addressed, the worst thing is not necessarily failing to address it, but pretending to do so.
In some form, socialwashing has always existed. Under the broad umbrella of sustainability or ESG, we tend to group environmental and social issues together as though they belonged to the same category.
It is sometimes said that companies engage in social window-dressing without even realising it. Others, aware of the potential risks, paradoxically prefer to remain silent.
I think that is true. I have always tended to take fairly radical positions, but in this case I try to look at the issue from a longer-term, more systemic perspective.
What do you mean, Professor?
It is clear that this growing awareness of social and environmental issues is part of a long-term transition, and we have to accept that such a transition has its own life cycle.
There is an initial phase of enthusiasm, followed by a phase in which people merely pretend to act; then comes a backlash, followed by a phase of inaction, when people become afraid of getting into trouble. What really matters is what all these phases leave behind in the long run.
And how do you see that developing?
I am fairly optimistic. Ultimately, what will remain after these transitions and distortions is greater social awareness. We need to look at the overall effect, which, frankly, is positive.
It was a phase we had to go through. Many people thought they could benefit from socialwashing, but in my view it ultimately achieved very little because, as it became widespread, it quickly turned into something of a commodity—something every company was doing.
So no one really gains a competitive advantage from socialwashing. Indeed, some companies today are moving away from communicating their social commitments precisely because this is no longer a distinctive element of their positioning.
Credits: Giampaolo Cerri for VITA MAGAZINE