How ‘socially responsible’ brands hurt rather than help Black Lives Matter and the struggle against racism
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis. Protests quickly spread around the world in condemnation both of his murder, and of the wider issue of systemic racism. Joining the demonstrations were various statements from dozens of brands, denouncing racism and expressing support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Nike released a video entitled “For Once, Don’t Do It”, Netflix declared that “to be silent is to be complicit”, and Amazon, Ben & Jerry’s and even Barbie posted their approval for the protests.
If companies can use their influence for good, surely we should be celebrating their newfound social conscience?
No. In fact, we should condemn it. Using an intersectional understanding of the way both that racist oppression operates, and that Black Lives Matter seeks to end it, it becomes clear that corporate support is an act of staggering hypocrisy, whitewashing reprehensible practices while threatening the ability of the movement to sustain the momentum it needs to effect real change. As activists have long recognised, racism does not simply exist in a vacuum, but instead ‘intersects’ with other modes of oppression such as economic inequality. African Americans are among the most economically disadvantaged groups in the US, with 18.8% living below the poverty line, nearly twice the national average. When large corporations act in such a way as to perpetuate this economic system, they disproportionately hurt Black people, contributing to their continued marginalisation.
Black Lives Matter understand this. While the claim that the protestors are ‘Marxists’, made by some on the right-wing of the political spectrum, may be an over-exaggeration, it would be fair to say that the group’s organisers recognise the interplay between racism and neoliberal capitalism. Its director has specifically called “capitalist values” an obstacle to progress. In 2016, the Movement for Black Lives, a coalition of over fifty Black organisations, released its six demands for ending racial oppression, stating that “the interlinking systems of white supremacy, imperialism, capitalism, and patriarchy shape the violence we face”. And in March this year, BLM raised over $50,000 in support of workers, many of whom were African American, fighting to unionise at Amazon’s warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama.
However, most ‘socially responsible’ companies completely ignore this side of the BLM agenda, which would clearly be damaging to their interests. Instead, their support for a generalised ‘Black Lives Matter’ covers up the ways in which their own practices hurt Black people. Take Nike, for example. Although it threw its weight behind Colin Kaepernick, the way in which it continues to do business is deeply damaging. Despite making over $4.1 billion in income between 2018 and 2020, Nike paid absolutely no federal income tax. Tax which is needed to maintain government support, and whose beneficiaries are disproportionately Black. Recall too that Nike’s clothes are often made in sweatshops in some of the world’s poorest countries, a practice of neo-colonial exploitation which perpetuates the unequal international status of people of colour. Remember that companies like Nike and Amazon are some of the world’s largest polluters, worsening a climate crisis that excessively impacts the poor, and that they rely on low-paid and often ethnic minority workforces in stores and distribution centres to maximise profits. Fundamentally, the burden of any unjust or exploitative business practices are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor and marginalised, entrenching the unequal position of Black people in America.
Perhaps the most insidious effect though of corporate endorsement is the dilution of the revolutionary potential of BLM. For a grassroots social movement to achieve change, it needs momentum, and it needs real political action, whether on the streets or at the ballot box. However, if companies lead people to believe that they can contribute to the battle against racist oppression simply by buying Nike’s Kaepernick trainers or a tub of Ben & Jerry’s ‘Pecan Resist’ ice cream, they are likely to draw them away from participating in the vital work of actual protesting. Consumerism is sold as political change, and individualism is promoted over the community spirit and collective action that is clearly needed to sustain a protest movement. This weakens BLM’s capacity to actually achieve its aims. At the same time, when large corporations appropriate the demands of the protests, they slowly erode the power of those words. As political theorist Theodor Adorno wrote in 1947, the more words are used as advertising slogans, the more they “are debased as substantial vehicles of meaning and become signs devoid of quality.” Can we still appreciate what ‘Black Lives Matter’ really means when it appears on every Fortune 500 company’s Instagram?
All this is not to wholly deny that the heads of Amazon or Netflix are concerned about Black people. Black Lives Matter remains a controversial movement, and endorsement can be viewed as a bold move considering the risk companies run of alienating less sympathetic consumers. However, the problem lies less in the intentions, which may be cynical or genuine, than in the impact. What then should companies do? Some would argue that support is better than silence, or worse still, criticism. Yet it is difficult to see how large corporations, who perpetuate an economic system destructive to Black communities, and reduce demands for an end to racist oppression to mere slogans, can be true allies of Black Lives Matter. Rather than capitalising on racist murders to sell trainers, they must get their own houses in order. They should pay their taxes, end environmentally ruinous practices, and give their workers a decent wage. This won’t fix structural racism overnight. But it might be a start.
