Navigating Pride Month: How corporations can support social issues with authenticity.

As Pride Month unfolds, and with other important causes such as mental health awareness and Black History Month now cemented as important milestones in any communications calendar, corporations find themselves at a crossroads. The visibility of these causes has surged, leading many companies to publicly lend their support. However, the line between genuine advocacy and opportunistic profit-seeking can often be blurred. With corporations holding considerable influence over shaping cultural narratives and social attitudes, it is crucial that Pride is navigated with sincerity, sensitivity and authenticity. But what does this look like?

Firstly, when supporting Pride corporations need to move beyond superficial gestures and symbolism. Authentic support extends beyond rainbow-coloured logos, a tactic that corporations are often guilty of failing to revert to. Instead, support for Pride needs to begin within the walls of an organisation.

Implementing LGBTQ+ inclusive hiring practices, offering diverse benefits, creating resource groups that amplify LGBTQ+ voices and providing LGBTQ+ sensitivity training are just a few examples of the way in which companies can foster inclusive environments. Tech giant Google is a successful example of this approach, recognised for its LGBTQ+ Employee Resource Group and comprehensive health insurance and family leave benefit policies tailored for LGBTQ employees.

When it comes to showing commitment to a cause - money talks. Partnering with LGBTQ+ organisations and influencers can be a powerful way for corporations to support Pride. Partnerships can take the form of financial support and donations, sponsorship of Pride events, and collaboration on initiatives that promote LGBTQ+ rights and visibility. Notable examples of companies putting money where their mouth is include the MAC AIDS Fund, which donates 100% of earnings from their VIVA Glam collection to helping those living with HIV, and Converse’s annual Pride campaign and collection, with the company donating over $2Million to pride causes since the campaign launch in 2015.

Beyond this, corporations can leverage their platforms to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, with the purpose of educating the public and raising awareness. By collaborating with credible influencers and charities such as MindOut, companies can amplify marginalised voices and contribute to meaningful change. This can be achieved through targeted PR campaigns, social media initiatives and partnerships with LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations. By actively engaging in conversations surrounding LGBTQ+ issues, companies demonstrate their commitment to long term progress, not just short term profit, contributing to positive change.

This is not to say that supporting Pride can’t help corporations turn a profit. Taking these measures is especially important in today’s society as consumers are becoming increasingly conscious of social responsibility. Nonetheless, taking a genuine, credible, and thought through approach is vital. Many corporations have been called out for mishandling Pride support, and often their actions result in negative publicity and loss of consumer trust. For example, companies such as Vogue and Mercedes-Benz have been accused of hypocrisy this year for adopting rainbow logos for Pride month in the US but not in the Middle East, sparking a major backlash on social media.

Ultimately, by celebrating Pride through meaningful action, companies have the opportunity to showcase their commitment to social responsibility, inclusion and equality. These values are often included in brand statements, but they must also be present in policies and behaviours. Truly supporting causes such as Pride requires year-round commitment, and the responsibility rests on corporations to uphold ethical standards and to contribute to positive societal change.

Was Sunak right not to put the brakes on Braverman?

Suella Braverman has spent the past week battling accusations that she broke the ministerial code during her time as attorney general in 2022. To get you up to speed (although not as fast as Braverman), according to reports in the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday at the weekend, Braverman asked civil servants to try and arrange a one-on-one driving awareness course after she was caught speeding.

The scrutiny that followed was not over the speeding offence itself, but over whether she breached ministerial rules by asking officials to help her with a private matter. Opposition parties were quick to call for Rishi Sunak to order an investigation into the claims, while Braverman’s Conservative peers sought to downplay the severity of the offence. Sir Edward Leigh even came out to say "what's wrong with this country, we used to have proper scandals about sex or money.”

Ultimately, Sunak has decided not to pursue an investigation, but was he right to not put the brakes on Braverman?

Several years ago this would have been more clear cut. The decision for a PM to stick by their minister used to largely depend on the severity of the ministerial breach. Through this lens alone, Rishi Sunak’s decision not to investigate the claims against Suella Braverman is relatively justifiable. While the accusations levelled detail an abuse of power, Braverman did end up paying the fine and taking the points. Sadly, there have been much more significant abuses of power in recent governments.

However, therein lies the issue. The Conservative party is facing the next election with record low levels of trust and integrity. Conduct in both the Johnson and Truss governments has left the Conservatives with a reputation of a party that likes to play fast and loose with the rules and faces little accountability for breaking them. When Sunak took over as PM he promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability” at every level of government and the general public are watching his decisions with a beady eye to see if he puts his money where his mouth is.

That said, the decision not to investigate the claims against Braverman arguably serves Sunak’s goal to mend the Conservative Party’s reputation better than ordering an investigation would. The British public has a short memory. If Sunak orders an investigation into Braverman’s conduct, what will follow is weeks of media coverage over her conduct. By refusing to do so, the matter will likely be forgotten in place of other breaking news - or perhaps another Tory scandal - by the end of next week. Additionally, an investigation and / or resignation could ignite the leadership positioning which already still plagues the party. As Sunak drives the Conservatives towards the 2024 General Election, the last thing he needs is for the party to veer off road once again.

How AI could shape our politics for years to come

The success of ChatGPT has flung AI to the forefront of popular discourse. While many marvel at the feats this new technology is able to accomplish, there are a plethora of reasons to be apprehensive of the future it will help forge. For one, jobs are at risk. A 2021 PWC report on behalf of the UK government estimates that up to 30% of UK jobs could be at risk of automation by 2040. White collar workers in industries like financial services and the legal sector, long hailed as the 'winners' of globalisation, find themselves facing an uncertain future. Their jobs, once seen as insulated from automation, are now in the crosshairs of AI-driven disruption. This disruption will cause demographic shifts that will shape policymaking for years to come.

Historically, the negative consequences of globalisation and automation have disproportionately affected blue-collar workers, contributing to political shifts and the rise of populist movements. The decline of the Rust-Belt gave America Donald Trump. The deprivation of the Red Wall gave the UK Brexit and Boris Johnson. Now, as AI encroaches further into the white-collar realm, a new political coalition of workers could emerge. Professionals in industries like the legal sector and financial services, may find themselves in a similar position to their blue-collar counterparts, facing job displacement and diminished prospects. This disruption will reshape political alignments and mobilise support for policies that address the challenges posed by AI. To an extent it has already begun to do so.

One policy solution that has begun to blossom in recent years is Universal Basic Income. Previously regarded as a radical idea, the notion of providing a guaranteed income to all citizens regardless of employment status has gained renewed relevance. By providing a safety net to individuals whose jobs may be displaced, UBI offers a path to alleviate economic anxiety and ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth, thus alleviating the personal economic pressures created by widespread job losses. Just last week, Deepmind Co-Founder Mustafa Suleyman cited the policy as a potential solution to the huge job losses his creation could help cause. Suleyman argued that governments will need to provide for citizens whose jobs are destroyed or who find their wages depressed. “That needs material compensation . . . This is a political and economic measure we have to start talking about in a serious way.”

The policy isn’t without its problems. The largest barrier is very obvious: how would it be financed? However, with AI set to contribute an extra 10% to the UK economy by 2030, in spite of the likely job losses, and with income inequality having widened since the pandemic, redistribution would not be impossible.

Societal change doesn’t have to be so dystopian, of course. At least in the short term, as AI actually complements rather than replaces these workers, working conditions could improve, accelerating the shift towards hybrid working and the potential for four-day work weeks.

However, with tech figures like Google’s ‘Godfather of AI’ echoing Oppenheimer as they are horrified by the irreparable societal harm their creations could cause, it is essential to think forward about how we will respond to this transformation, for better or worse. AI’s disruption will be as political as it is economic, and Universal Basic Income is just one potential answer to what is likely to become an era defining question: when machines do it better, what becomes of us?