My own awareness of what I like to call the “corporate wokeness” trend started with an email from Airbnb entitled “How you can help us fight discrimination”. Known as Project Lighthouse, the multi-billion-dollar company’s newest initiative seeks to “uncover, measure, and overcome discrimination when booking or hosting on Airbnb.”
The language surrounding the Project appears intentionally vague. In order to track perceptions surrounding race, Airbnb will share “profile photos and the first names associated with them with an independent partner”, adding that this partner will remain anonymous, as per their confidentiality agreement.
Once the partner has determined the perception attached to a certain profile, which will also remain anonymous, Airbnb will use this information to design new features aimed at fighting prejudice with the help of various civil rights and privacy organizations.
The “Airbnb Effect”
Despite being a commendable initiative on the platform – especially after reports of #airbnbwhileblack – Project Lighthouse fails to address another form of off-line discrimination, one of Airbnb’s own making. The company’s role in the housing crisis – increasingly known as the “Airbnb effect” – has indirectly contributed to the gentrification of cities around the world.
Given that short-term rentals tend to be more lucrative than long-term contracts, an increasing number of property owners – many of whom are disproportionately white and wealthy in the US according to Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) – are choosing to “professionally” let out their apartments on Airbnb rather than pursue tenancies.
Due to the reduced number of long-term rentals available, many city residents have seen a significant spike in the cost of housing, which is rising faster than both the cost of short-term accommodations and consumer goods. This pushes poorer tenants – who tend to come from disproportionately ethnic and immigrant backgrounds – out of “up and coming” neighborhoods.
The company’s role in the housing crisis – increasingly known as the “Airbnb effect” – has indirectly contributed to the gentrification of cities around the world.
For example, Inside Airbnb reported that the “loss of housing and neighborhood disruption due to Airbnb is six times more likely to affect black residents”, even though hosts are “5 times more likely to be white” in predominantly black neighborhoods in New York City (NYC).
Furthermore, whereas hotels must adhere to certain zoning regulations in order to separate “party-going tourists” from residents, Airbnb has no such restrictions. This has had a particularly devastating effect in Europe, where over-tourism has transformed some cities into “party destinations” at the expense of community life.
For example, Palma de Mallorca, which is known for its bustling nightlife, saw a 40% rise in the cost of residential rents following a 50% increase in tourist lets, sparking a vote in favor of banning many of Airbnb’s listings.
Taking Action
In 2019, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Bordeaux, Brussels, Krakow, Munich, Paris, Valencia, and Vienna asked the EU to address the “explosive growth” of short-term accommodations. Externalities caused by this growth include “noise and stress on neighborhood infrastructure like trash pickup”, which can have detrimental effects on the health of working-class families.
NYC also took action against Airbnb in 2018, demanding “user and listing data on approximately 20,000 apartment listings”, which led the short-term rental company to sue. Airbnb finally agreed to a settlement in 2020, which states that if hosts do not agree to provide their data to the city, they will be “barred from listing their properties on the platform”.
If Airbnb were truly concerned with “corporate wokeness”, perhaps they could start by paying their fair share of taxes – instead of suing cities – or by offering aid to the communities they have helped to displace. While other forms of tourist accommodation, such as hotels, have to pay a city tax, Airbnb continues to find new ways to avoid taxation, mainly through a number of so-called tax agreements.
If Airbnb were truly concerned with “corporate wokeness”, perhaps they could start by paying their fair share of taxes instead of suing cities.
Another solution in the fight against gentrification, which can often renew discriminatory attitudes and policies if left unchecked, could be limiting the number of short-term rentals on the market or enforcing stricter rental rules. However, Airbnb has regularly fought against both, as evidenced by their 2018 lawsuit.
Although the company claims that their mission “has always been to create a world where anyone can belong anywhere”, it would appear that they are doing just the opposite, by restricting housing to those who can afford the Airbnb-related rent hikes, while continuing to push poorer residents farther outside of cities.
“What we can do together”
However, Airbnb’s so-called “corporate wokeness” in the fight against discrimination is simply the tip of the iceberg. Countless corporations have jumped on the bandwagon in an attempt to relate to a younger consumer base through movement-oriented campaigns, often in connection with Blacks Lives Matter (BLM), women’s rights, or climate change.
The day after I received Airbnb’s email about Project Lighthouse, I stumbled upon Nike’s new marketing campaign entitled “You can’t stop sport us”. The ad splits the screen into two, often zig-zagging between two players or teams to the backdrop of motivational music that reminds us that “nothing can stop what we can do together” – except, perhaps, the company itself.
Nike has a history of discrimination towards female athletes, especially in connection to maternity leave. American track and field stars Alysia Montaño and Kara Gouche came forward last year to reveal that Nike had put their contracts “on pause” without pay during their pregnancies.
Countless corporations have jumped on the bandwagon in an attempt to relate to a younger consumer base through movement-oriented campaigns.
Olympic champion Allyson Felix also announced that she had been at a “standstill” with Nike regarding her contract renewal. The company had not only reduced her pay by 70% after her pregnancy, but they refused to guarantee that they would not dock her pay as well should she become pregnant again.
As a result of the backlash, Nike decided to “update” their maternity leave policy, stating that no “performance-related reductions” may be applied for a period of 18 months. However, as Kara Gouche pointed out, the intentionally vague policy change does not address “suspensions without pay”, which is what both she and Alysia Montaño were subjected to.
Furthermore, Nike came under fire in 2018 after an anonymous survey led by women within the company revealed “incidences and a culture that were uncomfortable, disturbing, threatening, unfair, gender-biased and sexist” were taking place. American runner Mary Cain also reported being “emotionally and physically abused” by Nike’s male-run Oregon Project, which was discontinued after a number of doping scandals came to light.
(Un)Fair Fashion
Nike’s “You can’t stop sport us” ad also reminds us that “When things aren’t fair, we’ll come together for change”, although it would seem that the brand’s definition of the word “fair” remains up for debate. Nike has a history of relying on “sweatshop labor” by outsourcing its manufacturing to third parties.
Allowing for a complete lack of transparency, this tactic is a strategic choice used by a number of clothing companies in order to “rid themselves” of any blame related to working conditions within factories. For example, women – who make up 80% of textile industry workers – are frequently subjected to sexual harassment and are often banned from forming trade unions.
Furthermore, these so-called “fast fashion” companies are some of the biggest polluters worldwide, accounting for up to “10% of annual global carbon emissions, more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined”. Garment production has also polluted drinking water through dyes and microplastics, which cannot be extracted from water.
Women – who make up 80% of textile industry workers – are frequently subjected to sexual harassment and are often banned from forming trade unions.
Less than 1% of used clothing is recycled, with the other 99% either going to landfills or incinerators. Yet, some companies continue to label their clothes as “eco-friendly” and “sustainable” without providing any evidence of such. H&M, for example, most recently released their “Conscious Collection”, despite failing to provide specifics as to what makes their clothes better for the environment. Zara has also followed suit with its “Join Life” Collection.
In some cases, fast fashion companies can go so far as to indirectly support the persecution of religious or ethnic minorities. It most recently came to light that Nike, as well as Adidas, Gap, H&M, Victoria’s Secret, Zara, and a number of other companies, was using Uighur – a Muslim minority in China – workers in forced labor camps designed for “re-education”.
Meanwhile, for a company that earned over $39 billion in revenue in 2019, it is unclear as to why Nike has not been able to provide decent working conditions – or a “living wage” – for its numerous laborers. The same could be said of H&M, who earned $24 billion in 2019 in an industry worth approximately $1.4 trillion.
Brand Activism
While Nike’s support of Colin Kaepernick’s “believe” campaign is commendable, it is unlikely that their decision was motivated by “social justice” or “corporate wokeness”. As CNBC points out, Nike has “historically taken a stand on issues”, often turning controversy into cash with its $3.7 billion marketing budget.
Their online sales rose by 25% following the release of the Kaepernick ad, a common trend stemming from Nike’s “controversial” campaigns. Many of their other ads revolve around the theme of “coming together” to fight discrimination, whether it be racism, sexism, ageism, or homophobia.
An increasing number of companies have used the Black Lives Matter movement to portray themselves as “champions of the cause”.
They remind us that by “supporting the brand” – as in, buying more products – we are supporting a company in which “equality has no boundaries”, which reminds me of a certain ad in which Kendall Jenner seems to think protestors and police officers can come together to “end racism” through nothing more than an ice-cold Pepsi.
Although companies have always had to cater to their consumer base through campaigns that “align” with their interests, an increasing number of companies have used the BLM movement to portray themselves as “champions of the cause”, despite evidence to the contrary.
L’Oréal posted a photo on Instagram with the words “Speaking out is worth it” in June of this year, after having fired Munroe Bergdorf, the first transgender and black model to represent the company, in 2017. The British model had taken to Twitter to denounce white supremacy and racism in Western society following white nationalist protests in Charlottesville, USA.
What was L’Oréal’s response in 2017? “L’Oréal champions diversity. Comments by Munroe Bergdorf are at odds with our values and so we have decided to end our partnership with her.” Other beauty and fashion companies, such as Reformation and MAC, have also come under fire in regard to their so-called “values”.
Alternatives to “Corporate Wokeness”
So how can we tell which companies practice what they preach? Diversity statistics can be a strong indicator of whether a company is engaged in hiring more black employees, for example. According to Nike’s own diversity statistics, only 21.6% of all employees were African American, 5% of whom were directors and 10% of whom were VPs – compared to 42.6%, 72.7%, and 77.1% respectively for white people.
Donations are also revealing. Airbnb, which continues to play a part in the gentrification of NYC’s black communities, only agreed to donate $500,000 to the NAACP and the Black Lives Matter Foundation, out of $35 billion in total profits. This comes in stark contrast to smaller companies, such as Etsy, that went above and beyond in their donations despite limited revenue.
Have companies made an effort to change not only the way they are treating their employees but the way they are producing their products?
However, donations can only go so far if they do not align with a company’s operating practices. Have companies made an effort to change not only the way they are treating their employees but the way they are producing their products? If this is not the case, as it is with the majority of fast fashion companies, chances are corporate “values” only run surface-level deep. And even if companies do commit to making changes, are they transparent about how they are doing so?
How can a company “fight discrimination” by perpetuating gentrification? How can a company “preach equality” if they are not treating ALL of their employees – women and garment workers included – with an equal amount of respect? And lastly, how can companies claim to be “sustainable” and “environmentally-friendly”, if they continue to pollute water, emit CO2, and fill up landfills in immeasurable quantities?
So, the question then becomes: how can we support causes without falling victim to “corporate wokeness”? One of the most powerful forms of “protest” consumers have is choosing how and where to spend their money. In buying from a certain company or business, we choose to condone their corporate model, which is why supporting independent, black, or women-led businesses is a far more effective form of getting behind such movements.
We can also use alternatives where available. Sites such as Fairbnb and Noirbnb are cooperatives aimed at “countering” the Airbnb model. Good on You ranks fast fashion companies in terms of how “ethical” and “sustainable” they are and provides alternatives. Some of the more notable online stores in addition to thrift and charity shops include ThredUp, Poshmark, and depop.
Protesting, organizing strikes, boycotting, signing petitions, contacting politicians, and joining associations are some of the most tried and true ways to support a movement.
Naturally, not everyone will be able to support “ethical” companies due to price restrictions, but we can nonetheless call out businesses whose “corporate wokeness” does not align with their production models. And furthermore, we can simply buy less of what we do not need – a small gesture for the planet – and donate more with the money saved.
And, of course, protesting, organizing strikes, boycotting, signing petitions, contacting politicians, and joining associations are some of the most tried and true ways to support a movement – a far cry from the hypocrisy of “corporate wokeness”.