Pinkwashing, the Pink Tax, and Rainbow Capitalism

In today’s marketplace, social causes and identities have become powerful marketing tools. Companies market products as environmentally friendly when they’re not, a practice known as greenwashing. Companies drench products in pink for breast cancer awareness or paste rainbows on logos for Pride, hoping to signal their solidarity with women and LGBTQIA+ communities. Yet, are these displays legitimate support, or do pinkwashing, the pink tax, and rainbow capitalism just represent identity leveraged for profit? This article breaks down these concepts, explores real examples, and examines how systemic change frameworks like the THRIVE Framework, from the THRIVE Project, a for-impact social enterprise, can push beyond performative branding.

Pinkwashing: What Is It?

Pinkwashing describes marketing that proclaims support for a social cause (often associated with the colour pink) without reflecting a similar support in actual practice. The term originated in the early 2000s around breast cancer awareness campaigns, coined by the Breast Cancer Action organisation (Breast Cancer Action, 2002). This advocacy group, among others, noticed that some companies were promoting pink-ribbon products to signal concern for breast cancer, even if those very products were unhealthy or the company’s contributions to the cause were minimal. Breast Cancer Action famously coined “pinkwasher” to call out a company that “claims to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon product, but at the same time produces, manufactures and/or sells products […] linked to the disease” (Breast Cancer Action, 2002).

For example, in 2010, fast-food chain KFC partnered with a breast cancer charity to sell pink buckets of fried chicken, a move critics blasted as pinkwashing because a high-fat diet is a risk factor for cancer (McVeigh, 2012).

Over time, pinkwashing has also come to refer to companies (or even governments) professing support for LGBTQIA+ rights as a PR strategy without substantive action. In this context, it’s often interchangeable with rainbow washing. As one observer put it, the term calls out organisations that “disingenuously use Pride branding for their gain, giving themselves a deceptive air of liberalism and allyship” (Bandera, 2024).

The Pink Tax: Paying More for Being a Woman

Not all gender-based marketplace injustices are about messaging, some are directly about profit. One striking example is the so-called “pink tax.” The pink tax refers to the phenomenon of products marketed to women being more expensive than similar products marketed to men. In other words, women end up paying more for essentially the same item, just because it’s packaged or labelled for women (Feingold, 2022). This surcharge on female consumers is well-documented across many everyday goods and services.

A study by a governmental agency in the USA found that across 5 industries, women’s products cost 7% more than equivalent men’s products (Bessendorf, 2015). Even services are not exempt. Another U.S. report found women were charged more for dry cleaning the same type of shirt, in some cases even 90% higher than men’s shirts (Joint Economic Committee, 2016).

It’s important to note that the “pink tax” isn’t an official tax, but the term underscores how pervasive and systematic the issue is. In some cases, it’s literally written into tax policy too. For years, essential menstrual products like tampons and menstrual pads were subject to regular sales tax. Many countries treat these products as non-essentials, whereas items like condoms or even sweets/candy were sometimes tax-exempt. Activists dubbed this the “tampon tax,” and argued that menstruation products are necessities, not luxuries (Rodriguez, 2021).

Eliminating the Pink Tax

The good news is that this is changing: a growing number of governments have eliminated taxes on menstrual products as a matter of equity. Countries including Australia, Canada, India, and Rwanda have cancelled tampon taxes in recent years (Feingold, 2022). In the U.S., several states have also dropped taxes on menstrual supplies, and federal legislation has been proposed to do the same.

Lawmakers are starting to tackle the broader pink tax as well. California passed a law that, as of 2023, bans gender-based pricing for substantially similar products, effectively outlawing the pink tax in that state (California Legislative Information, 2023). These efforts recognise that charging someone more purely on the basis of gender is a form of discrimination. The pink tax is not just a pricing quirk in the marketplace; it’s a reflection of systemic gender inequality resulting in a lifetime economic burden for women.

Rainbow Capitalism: When Allyship Becomes Strategy

Every summer, Pride Month brings an explosion of rainbows in storefronts and advertising. Ideally, this visibility reflects genuine support for the LGBTQIA+ community. However, when profit is the primary motive, this corporate Pride can ring hollow. Rainbow capitalism (also called pink capitalism) refers to the trend of corporations integrating LGBTQIA+ symbols, imagery, and values into their marketing purely as a strategy to win consumer favour, rather than out of sincere allyship or advocacy.

Under rainbow capitalism, companies see LGBTQIA+ identity as another market segment to capitalise on, especially as social attitudes liberalise and younger consumers value inclusion. In practice, rainbow capitalism often manifests as companies eagerly branding themselves with the rainbow flag, releasing Pride-themed products, or running ads featuring same-sex couples during Pride Month, but doing little else for LGBTQIA+ equality the rest of the year. There also seems to be no real belief in the values companies seem to present. This can be seen in how quickly companies discontinue Pride imagery when public opinion turns against them. For example, Target removed its Pride collection after public backlash (NWLC, 2023).

The Hypocritical Nature of Rainbow capitalism

The support thus seems to be surface-level, geared toward selling a progressive image. The risk is that Pride’s radical roots, as an ongoing fight for LGBTQIA+ rights and acceptance, are watered down into just a seasonal marketing opportunity. Critics point out that rainbow capitalism can be outright hypocritical; it came to light that several major U.S. corporations that proudly sported rainbow logos and sponsored Pride parades had simultaneously donated large sums to politicians who oppose LGBTQIA+ rights (Chalabi, 2021).

For example, this was seen during the Equality Act of 2019-2020, a bill that was proposed to expand on protections against discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity (Congress.Gov, 2019). It was introduced as an amendment on existing law but with the aim of explicitly including sexual orientation and gender identity to take away any uncertainty (HRC, 2025). Only three Republicans in the House voted FOR the passing of this act. Many other politicians who voted against it were supported financially by private donations from huge corporations (Chalabi, 2021).

The Intersection of Gender and Identity in Consumer Culture

Why do pinkwashing and the pink tax happen in the first place? A big part of the answer lies in consumer identity, how marketers segment consumers (by gender, by community) and how identities are linked to purchases. In modern consumer culture, identity sells. Companies have long understood that people gravitate toward products that reflect their sense of self or values. This has only grown in the era of social media and heightened social awareness.

On the surface, this can look like inclusivity. Representation in advertising, seeing women in non-traditional roles, and seeing same-sex couples in family commercials certainly have positive aspects. However, when companies treat identity as just another marketing gimmick, divorced from any actual respect or support for that identity, the message loses meaning.

Femvertising Campaigns as a Marketing Tool

A classic example was the rash of “femvertising” campaigns in the 2010s. A soap company urges women to embrace “Real Beauty,” a shampoo brand tells women “Don’t apologise”, all while these same companies may sell other products that promote stereotypical beauty standards. As journalist Nosheen Iqbal observed, advertising has evolved from “selling sex to selling disgust with sexism”– because that’s what resonates with today’s consumers (Iqbal, 2015).

Companies analyse identity groups’ buying power and target them accordingly. While this can yield genuinely useful products or representation, it also means companies can extract value from an identity group without investing in them. For example, a brand might promote feminist slogans on t-shirts made in factories that exploit women workers.

Moreover, when companies use identity as a marketing tool, it can reinforce stereotypes. “For her” pens, pink razors, and floral-scented products contribute to the pink tax and imply that women need separate products. Rainbow branding can do the same by offering a polished, commercialised version of LGBTQIA+ identity that’s palatable to mass markets, and erases the diversity within those communities.

At its core, the intersection of gender, identity, and consumer culture is a double-edged sword. It has increased representation but also led to the commodification of identity, where industries mine causes for brand image. Consumers are increasingly discerning, and brands must now prove their alignment with social values is authentic, not opportunistic.

What should companies do instead?

A major issue in corporate behaviour is the tendency to prioritise financial goals above all else, often treating marketing as a means to boost social capital and, by extension, profitability. While pursuing profit is essential for business sustainability, this narrow focus can result in shallow gestures, like pinkwashing or rainbow capitalism, where support for social causes is performative rather than purposeful. Pinkwashing, though profitable in the short term, would show up as a loss in social capital. In practice, this approach discourages exploitative or disingenuous practices by recognising that reputation and stakeholder trust are just as valuable as profits.

Integrating THRIVE’s Framework

THRIVE’s Foundational Focus Factor (FFF), Multi-Capital Approach, calls for a broader perspective, urging companies to consider not only financial, but also social, human, and natural forms of capital in their decision-making. In this view, Values-Based Innovation, another FFF, is not just ethical, it’s strategic. Values-Based Innovation should serve as a core standard, not just a buzzword. It’s not enough for a company to promote a value in its marketing while its systems and practices contradict that very principle.

Pinkwashing directly contradicts this integrated approach. Companies claim to support social causes while their products or practices undermine those same principles. When they do this, they treat social and human capital as expendable resources rather than essential pillars of value. Under the THRIVE Framework, such contradictions reveal a failure to authentically embed Values-Based Innovation into decision-making. Commitment to the Multi-Capital Approach demands consistency across financial, social, human, and natural forms of capital. Advocacy efforts must be matched by ethical labour practices, sustainable operations, and transparent governance structures. Without this alignment, “purpose-driven” branding becomes merely performative. Performative branding erodes consumer trust and weakens long-term value creation across all dimensions of capital.

It’s the difference between merely displaying a rainbow logo during Pride and actively supporting LGBTQIA+ rights through inclusive policies, advocacy, and investment. When a company genuinely aligns its operations with the values it promotes, marketing those values becomes both authentic and impactful, helping to build trust, resilience, and long-term success.

Calling Out Performative Branding: What Can Consumers Do?

In a market saturated with performative branding, consumers are not powerless. In fact, the rise of pinkwashing and rainbow capitalism has been met with a rise in consumer scepticism and activism. Here’s how people can push back:

Think Before You Pink: Inspired by Breast Cancer Action’s campaign of the same name (BCA, 2022), this movement encourages people to question where the money is going. Are proceeds from pink products actually helping cancer patients or research? Does the product contribute to the very issue it claims to support? (Crossley, 2023).

Follow the Money: Organisations like the Human Rights Campaign release data on corporate donations and LGBTQIA+ policies. A company flying a rainbow flag might simultaneously donate to anti-LGBTQIA+ politicians (HRC, 2025).

Support Legislative Change: Many pink tax issues require systemic fixes. Supporting legislation that bans gender-based pricing or removes sales tax on menstrual products can address inequality structurally.

Choose Values-Aligned Brands: Seek out companies that practice what they preach, such as donating all proceeds from cause-related products, paying fair wages, or supporting underrepresented communities year-round. Small, women- or queer-owned brands often offer more authenticity.

Use Social Media as a Spotlight: Posting price comparisons or calling out contradictions online can quickly go viral and prompt corporate accountability. A single tweet can cause a brand to change its messaging or issue a public response.

Ultimately, consumer awareness and action have the power to shift corporate behaviour, especially when combined with policy change and cultural pressure.

Conclusion and CTA

“Pinkwashing,” the “pink tax,” and “rainbow capitalism” have all become common phrases for a reason: they name real patterns of exploitation in our modern marketplace. Whether it’s charging women more for everyday goods, slapping a pink ribbon on an carcinogenic product, or using Pride as a seasonal marketing tool, these practices reflect a larger systemic failure. They show how consumer identity has become a brand strategy, often without respect for the people behind that identity. Clearly, issues like pinkwashing and the pink tax are symptoms of deeper problems in our economic and social systems. They sit at the intersection of consumerism, corporate responsibility, and inequality.

While the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as SDG5: Gender Equality and SDG10: Reduced Inequalities, provide important global targets and put these topics in the spotlight (United Nations, n.d.), achieving real progress requires more than aspirational goals. It calls for systemic, holistic change in how businesses operate and how we, as a society, define success and value, or we risk settling for superficial progress. This is where THRIVE comes into play.

THRIVE Roadmap

THRIVE offers a roadmap for transforming performative branding into authentic, systems-based responsibility. At its core are twelve Foundational Focus Factors that help shift institutions towards a multidimensional, future-oriented mindset. Among these, the Multi-Capital Approach and Values-Based Innovation urges businesses to expand their focus beyond financial gain to include social, human, environmental, and manufactured capital, while also embedding ethical commitments and stakeholder values into every step of a company’s decision-making. When applied, this approach compels organisations to account for the true cost and value of their actions, including the erosion of public trust through pinkwashing or the perpetuation of inequality through gendered pricing.

The challenge for companies is clear: move beyond performative allyship to structural alignment. For consumers, the task is to keep asking questions, demanding transparency, honour, and choosing with purpose. By holding the market to higher standards and embracing frameworks that go deeper, we can shift from a performative economy to a thrivable one. In this way, companies can honour identity, practice equity, and authenticity can be the norm, not the marketing exception.

Going beyond sustainability

At THRIVE, we envision a world that goes beyond net zero. Sustainability can no longer be the ultimate goal; instead, the aim is thrivability. The future is a place where human and ecological systems don’t just survive, but flourish in harmony. Thrivability challenges us to regenerate, not merely sustain; to innovate with purpose, not just comply with standards. This is particularly urgent in a marketplace saturated with pinkwashing and rainbow capitalism, where brands often use the language of progress without embodying its substance. Thrivability demands that organisations move beyond symbolic gestures to actions that create measurable, equitable outcomes. It calls on businesses to root their identity not in opportunistic marketing, but in values that foster trust, dignity, and inclusion. In a thrivable future, identity is not commodified; it is respected and uplifted through systemic change.

Stay connected with THRIVE by exploring our blog, tuning into our Podcasts, and joining our monthly Webinars featuring thought leaders in sustainability and systems innovation. Don’t forget to subscribe to our Newsletter to receive the latest insights, tools, and updates directly to your inbox. By staying informed and involved, you become part of a growing community committed to creating a thrivable future—for this generation and the next.