"GENDERWASHING IN GLOBAL TRADE: An Analysis of State and Market Responses to Gender Gaps and Proposals for Strategies towards UN #SDG5".
Global Trade; Gender; Genderwashing; SDG5.
The relationship between trade and gender is a two-way street: on one way, trade has the potential to reduce gender inequality globally, and on the other way, commercial development depends on the inclusion of women. Initiatives aiming to bridge gender gaps through trade are multiplying, as it is acknowledged that trade policies and practices can serve as important tools in this regard. However, it remains uncertain whether this objective is being achieved. This research arises from the discomfort regarding the uncertainty of to what extent the responses being provided through the State and the Market are effectively addressing gender challenges and gaps, or promoting Genderwashing and generating new problems. The term Genderwashing was coined in 2011 by Martha Burk to convey the same meaning that Greenwashing evokes when used to describe actions of organizations that appear to be concerned about sustainability while doing little or nothing to promote change. Considering the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal number 5 of the 2030 Sustainability Agenda, which aims to eliminate gender inequality, Genderwashing goes in the opposite direction, as these practices mask the reality of gender inequality, undermine the seriousness of the problem, shift responsibility, perpetuate stereotypes and structural obstacles of patriarchal society, do not result in concrete actions, and undermines public trust. At the end of the research, it was possible to observe that the phenomenon of Genderwashing, as well as its related effects, creates a false impression of progress, which is a dangerous placebo that not only fails to provide a cure but also delays the development of effective solutions and can cause undesirable side effects, such as trade barriers that hinder the access of less privileged actors to global trade. Regarding strategies for best practices, the following stand out: an intersectional approach and reflective language; the use of a gender lens (gender mainstreaming); female representation in decision-making positions; addressing the North Global-centricity and utilizing cooperation spaces as a power strategy; cooperation between the State and the Market; and the Theory of Responsive Regulation. The fact is that when a gender response, whether through the State or the Market, constitutes Genderwashing, it benefits neither women nor trade. Therefore, the elimination of these practices is justified as a collective interest.