You watch a 2017 Audi commercial of a father breaking down the kind of discrimination and gender stereotyping his boxcar-driving daughter would have to face ahead in life. The commercial is thought-provoking, and undoubtedly progressive. Unfortunately, there’s a catch. There was little representation of women on Audi’s board when this commercial was made—not one woman was present on it. This isn’t a one-off instance. Renowned companies like Budweiser, ESPN, and Google, too have had instances of such posturing in their inclusion and promotion of women, where they may attempt to further women’s rights, but end up having women being oppressed systemically within their organisation. 

When firms undertake strategies in the name of gender equality and promotion of women’s rights that may be short of strong ethical bearing and seek often to maintain the status quo and the organisation's name, it is deemed gender-washing. 

In 2023, the phenomenon remains noticeable and robust as ever. Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world, recently agreed to pay $215 million to settle a sex discrimination case a month before it was set to come to trial. Yes, the triumph is massive, highlighting the acknowledgment of underpaid and under-promoted female employees. Upon closer examination, though, a different viewpoint emerges. The total amount, divided between the 2800 women who had made claims, would account for just over $76k per person. According to Reuters, after the deduction of legal fees and costs, the payout would hover around $47k per person. Given that the case has lasted nearly 13 years, each woman is entitled to just over $3.5k per year—a little over $300 per month. Such figures reflect how gender-washing and other gender-related challenges continue to be unsettling issues in the twenty-first century. In 2022, Google also settled a similar class-action by paying $118 million to nearly 15,500 female staff across 236 job titles. 

The issue of gender-washing applies to more than just remuneration. Recently, Japanese regional banks were called out by the country’s financial regulators for gender-washing over female leaders by exploiting the broad nature of designations. The average percentage of women in managerial roles in these banks was less than that in Japan’s three megabanks. Adding insult to injury, it was found that most of these positions for the women managers in regional banks were junior and didn’t have much of a supervisory role. Once these token roles were disregarded, the banks had a painfully disappointing total of 8.1% of women in managerial roles. To top it all off, the banks would often designate women as managers even when their responsibilities were of the level of a section chief; by magnifying female representation, they attempted to illustrate a higher moral fortitude and commitment to equality, without letting any real, long-term change materialise. 

Gender-washing has grave consequences on the financial health of women. When categorizing financial health, four facets stand out: financial security, resilience, control, and freedom. Freedom, specifically, entails the fulfillment of long-term goals and desires. Payscale found that there exists a ‘controlled gap’ between the wages of men and women, i.e. a gap found when they engaged in the same role and with the same experience. For example, a female physician and surgeon earned 88 cents for every $1 that a male one earned, inducing a gap of $35,000 in their annual salary. Similar data was found for the role of bartenders, waiters, drivers, inspectors, database administrators, etc. One key implication of this is that women would lose out on a significant amount of wage over the course of their life, and be less financially free compared to their male counterparts. Subsequently, such disparity can also affect their financial control (or their confidence in their finances, both in the present and future). They will be less likely to be resilient and strong in the face of financial emergencies. It doesn't help that women feel employers aren’t doing enough to improve their financial education: a new survey revealed that only 31% of women respondents in the US felt that their employer provided good resources for financial education, compared to 55% of men.

However, not all attempts to bring gender parity in workplaces should be discredited. In recent years, tech companies have undertaken a number of measures to reduce gender bias at work. From gender diversity training programs to apprenticeship programs meant just for women, companies are attempting to do right by women on a systemic level and transform how workplaces treat them. After all, gender gap’s implications on the fiscal performance of the world economy cannot be negated—a McKinsey & Company report suggests that reducing this gap could add between $12 and $28 trillion to global growth. 

The world we inhabit today has developed too far ahead to lag so depressingly behind in improving the financial health of female workers. Workplaces can be catalysts for change in the way we perceive women’s financial health. The illusion of workplace equality can no longer be denied—what we need, instead, is a mission of workplace and financial equality.