Every fifteen minutes, a case of breast cancer is diagnosed in Spain; around 36,600 women a year. A devastating statistic that matches, almost to the letter, the number of people who turned Madrid pink at the Women’s Race on 10 May, Europe’s largest women’s sporting event. Under the sun, the atmosphere is a celebration of empowerment perfect for TikTok, whilst the logos of 46 sponsors shine with the brilliance of those buying reputational indulgences in the ‘purpose’ market. Everything seems perfect in the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ecosystem until someone pulls out a calculator, analyses the data and asks a question as uncomfortable as it is fundamental: where does the money go?
The recent digital upheaval caused by the organisation TetayTeta following a viral video has laid bare an unbridgeable rift. This is not a case of a strategic failure or a ‘communication error’; what has happened is, quite simply, that they have been caught red-handed, and it is this reality check that has triggered the crisis. When the actual aid is negligible compared to the publicity campaign, the problem is not that the message was poorly managed; it is the lie. It is the fundamental lack of consistency in organisations that, quite profitably, confuse marketing with ethics.
The trick of donating stands instead of cash
The transparency report from the organising company, Sport Life Ibérica, reveals that it allocated €264,967 to “charitable initiatives”, a figure it claims represents 20% of its net registration revenue. It sounds impeccable in a press release, but the small print analysed by El País hides the accounting sleight of hand: of the 36 beneficiary organisations, 23 received this aid in the form of the provision and assembly of stands at the event’s fair. To imagine a team of scientists trying to pay for reagents in a cancer laboratory with three square metres of advertising marquee and foam board counters is almost a joke. Valuing the space you manage yourself and counting it as a “donation” is not philanthropy; it is a commercial exchange disguised as aid. Financial transparency is the only antidote: if an initiative does not specify from the outset how much cash is going towards research, brands should not offer their support. Otherwise, they are not victims; they are complicit in an accounting sleight of hand.
The legal excuse for ethical deception
Faced with the runners’ outrage upon discovering they were funding a for-profit event, the organisers defended themselves by claiming it is “a sporting event with a social commitment, not a charity run”. Their aim, they say, is to promote exercise. They are right about one thing: their strategy is entirely legal. In Spain, there is no specific regulation governing charitable advertising and, as FACUA points out, the masterstroke is that not a single poster needs to use the word ‘charity’. The sea of pink and the ribbons do all the associative work implicitly in the consumer’s mind. However, under the Unfair Competition Act, a campaign is misleading if it presents information in a way that misleads the recipient, thereby altering their economic behaviour.
Women don’t pay a registration fee to play sport on a rainy Sunday; they do so because they firmly believe their money will go towards saving lives. Exploiting legal loopholes to rake in millions with the public’s emotional complicity is, quite simply, an ethical deception. This ‘pink capitalism’ also generates a dangerous anaesthetic effect: it stifles political demands and mobilisation by delegating the solution to consumer brands. Who do we ask to look after us – a brand or public institutions? Window-dressing solidarity privatises empathy, turning it into an indicator of advertising performance.
Four rules to ensure CSR is no longer just for show
For brands seeking genuine commitment and wishing to avoid the backlash of pinkwashing, the solution lies in taking action with radical honesty right from the outset of the project. We must focus on and demand transparency regarding the flow of funds: before signing, the CSR department must audit where the funds are going. Demand clauses stipulating the actual net percentage of cash that will reach the laboratories. If there is a lack of transparency, withdraw the sponsorship.
Swap large-scale events for local aid: large-scale events provide spectacular photos but dilute the impact of aid. It is far more transformative to work directly with grassroots organisations or independent foundations, fully funding a researcher’s salary or local equipment. The impact is direct, measurable and human.
Assess the consistency of the product: It is inconsistent to see highly processed food or cosmetics companies that are under scientific scrutiny sponsoring women’s health events. If your products are not suitable for someone whose immune system has been compromised by cancer treatment, you fail the ethical test. CSR starts within your own production chain.
Start showing solidarity within your own organisation: there is no point in funding external ‘pink tide’ initiatives if, behind closed doors, your work-life balance policies penalise female employees undergoing medical treatment or fail to support staff with sick relatives. Involving your workforce in the assessment of social projects fosters a genuine sense of pride that no amount of advertising can buy.
Show the impact, hide the logo: effective communication gives the floor to those at the heart of the story. Showcase the scientific progress you’ve funded or the families supported thanks to your direct cash transfers. When the facts speak for themselves, slogans become unnecessary and any suspicion of a mere facade naturally disappears.
The end of pink paint
This crisis of confidence is not directed at the thousands of citizens who are acting in the best of intentions. It is a warning to the management committees. Consumers have become more discerning; they know how to access transparency portals and are no longer satisfied with the colour of a T-shirt or with press releases drafted by public relations departments.
Companies face a very simple ethical dilemma: either they continue to spend their budget on tins of pink paint to hide the cracks in their corporate inconsistency, or they start investing that money in laying the foundations for genuine social impact of which they can be proud, without fear of being called to account.
