Pride month has finally come to an end. Did you notice? There has definitely been a reduction in the number of parades, banners, and flags this year. As Gareth Roberts wrote here, Pride has been damaged by its internal contradictions and the Supreme Court’s common-sense ruling on what a woman is.
Why are brands still throwing money at charities promoting an ideology that the public rejects?r
Still, hopeful as all this is, it seems that for some corporations, Pride still refuses to die. Whilst shopping I recently saw a jar of Marmite. Its label urged me to ‘Stand with Pride.’ The flag accompanying the statement included the transgender stripes, naturally.
Meanwhile, Marks and Spencer’s social media profile pictures were changed to the alphabet flag, not forgetting the intersex circle. Throughout Pride month, M&S matched customer donations to the homeless charity ‘akt’. We can argue the merits of corporate philanthropy, and few would object to helping the homeless. But akt doesn’t appear to support all homeless individuals, only those who happen to not be heterosexual. It’s preferential charitable giving based on sexuality.
Other brands go further. Shake Shack, the popular milkshake shop, has launched their ‘Pride Shake’. Don’t panic if you missed it: it is available until 7 July. For every milkshake sold, they will donate £1 to LGBTQ+ charities. Such charities include Not A Phase, whose mission is ‘uplifting and improving the lives of trans+ adults.’ Their attempts to achieve this mission have involved ‘growing the UK trans+ economy’, and condemning those who want to protect males from competing in female sports.
Why are brands still throwing money at charities promoting an ideology that the public rejects but which they are ultimately being forced to pay for?
The answer is ESG: Environmental, Social, and Governance, a set of standards supposedly measuring the ethical impact of businesses, but which usually just serves to keep the money flowing to questionable yet fashionable causes. This is what is keeping Pride month alive.
Whilst the ‘E’ does much damage to returns as companies are coerced into spending money on unprofitable windmills and solar farms, the ‘S’ gives us rainbow logos and compulsory trans donations.
Increasingly, to access investment, companies must prioritise ESG. This is because most institutional investors in Britain have launched ESG funds and increasingly invest savers’ money into these funds by default. They claim this is because of the good that ESG achieves. A cynic might suggest it is because of the higher management fees that ESG justifies.
Therefore, to access investment, companies prostrate themselves in front of the ESG ratings agencies, who have largely unchecked power.
To receive top points from these agencies, companies must excel in the ‘social’ category. Obviously social factors are subjective and not easily quantifiable. As such, it is not enough to simply be a thoughtful employer who pays equal work equally. Rather, firms must brandish their commitment publicly, ensuring that when the ratings agencies seek proof of companies’ social commitment, it is easy to find. It is no coincidence that the firms which top Stonewall’s equality index tend to receive top points in the ESG rankings.
The ESG and DEI reports of big brands make this plain. Unilever, the parent company of Marmite, have an entire section of their DEI report dedicated to explaining, ‘how our brands are confronting bias and discrimination’ – as if Vaseline is the next Martin Luther King. Unilever are also recipients of Stonewall’s gold status award for being a leading LGBTQ+ employer and have an AA sustainability rating, one of the highest scores available from ratings agency MSCI.
Shake Shack’s donation to a transgenderism charity, meanwhile, is not a humble humanitarian mission which they modestly pursue. In their ESG reports they boast that their Pride Shake is part of ‘a strong history of supporting the LGBTQ+ community and rolling out national Pride’. This has clearly had the desired effect as they have received the Equality 100 award in LGBTQ+ workplace equality. There are a number of criteria for receiving this award. One which stands out is the requirement for ‘Philanthropic support of at least one LGBTQ+ organisation.’
Are the executives of these companies true believers in Pride? Some surely are and would fly the flag regardless. Many, however, play along simply because otherwise they would lose access to vital capital. But companies should not be manipulated into pushing an agenda that is increasingly rejected by the public and underlying shareholders.
The shifting public mood and consistent financial underperformance means that ESG will not remain viable for long. In the meantime, individuals who are pleased to see the decline of Pride Month should ensure their money is kept away from funds engaged in ESG.
Comments