Introduction
Gender discrimination is not new to this world. In this contemporary world, issues of gender discrimination manifest in various forms, with the concept of Pink Tax being a stellar example. Despite developments in gender equality, pink tax still persists in copious forms today. The term, initially coined in California, refers to a phenomenon where the products and services, generally marketed towards women, are charged higher when compared to the goods marketed towards men. This additional price that women end up paying for the same product is referred to as the pink tax. A pink tax is not exactly a “tax” but rather, a mere phenomenon. A classic example of pink tax is that of a razor. A pink razor, targeted towards women is more expensive than the blue razor, targeted towards men. A disposable razor in blue or black colors costs about Rs. 30, while a pink disposable razor for women costs about Rs 60. This is majorly observed in personal care products such as shampoos, creams, powders, etc. Services such as haircuts, facials, and massages continue to witness this unfair pricing trend.
What is Pink Tax?
Pink tax is not a literal tax collected by any Government. Rather, it describes the price difference companies charge for a similar product marketed towards women. This additional charge not only adds to the company’s profit, but also continues to unfairly burden the female consumers. This phenomenon is reflective of the gender discrimination that is still faced by female consumers. This price discrepancy is often unjustified by differences in production costs or quality. The pink tax is a pervasive form of gender-based pricing discrimination that has significant economic and social implications. Addressing the pink tax requires a multi-faceted approach involving legislative action, consumer advocacy, and corporate accountability to promote gender equality and affordability in the marketplace.
Apart from personal care, another area where pink tax is prevalent is the clothing or fashion industry. Even when the material of the cloth or the colour is the same as those items marketed towards males, retailers usually justify this price gap by citing factors like higher production costs or the perceived value of women’s fashion. Furthermore, services such as dry cleaning and haircuts also exhibit gender-based pricing discrepancies. Women frequently pay more for dry cleaning services, despite the comparable effort and materials required for both men’s and women’s garments. Similarly, hair salons often charge higher prices for women’s haircuts than for men’s, even when the services provided are similar in nature. A majority of services are generally related to beauty and personal care. On one hand, women are often expected to take care of their beauty and physical appearance, on the other hand, these beauty products are often priced at such unreasonable levels that it highlights the irony of the situation. This difference in pricing results in women being unable to exercise their right to live a quality life without having to face discrimination on the basis of their gender.
Is Pink Tax Unethical OR Illegal?
As mentioned above, the Pink tax is not necessarily illegal but it is an unethical phenomenon practiced by the companies. It is unfair that for the same product, women end up paying more than men. There are numerous implications of this phenomenon. Firstly, it creates a financial burden for women who may already be facing wage disparities and economic inequalities. As per the Second Report from the ‘Women and Finance’ Study, conducted by DBS Bank India in collaboration with CRISIL,‘As many as 23% of salaried women in Indian metros perceive a gender pay gap, and 16% report gender bias at their workplace’. Overtime, these differences contribute to significant cumulative costs. Secondly, it contributes to gender inequality by sending out a message that the products for women are less valued or less deserving of equal pricing. It is pertinent to note that it doesn’t affect all women equally. When examined through the lens of intersectionality, it becomes clear that certain groups of women are impacted disproportionately. Women of colour, people from LGTQ+ and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds face compounded challenges. For instance, women of colour, which includes people from India, often learn less than their white counterparts, making this tax an even greater burden. Similarly, transgender women who may already face discrimination in employment and healthcare, are further disadvantaged. According to Jessica Mason, from National Partnership for Women and Families, “On average, Black women in the U.S. are paid 36% less than white men and 12% less than white women.” Thirdly, due to this discrimination among the customers; pink tax can create a biased base for pricing where consumers have to pay different prices for the same product owing to the gender they identify with. Lastly, the implications of pink tax include the affordability of the product or service. A number of women might not be able to pay for these products because of this additional pricing which ultimately leads to them not being able to live the desired quality of life. All these implications suggest that pink tax is an unethical practice and the companies exploit the need of consumers for profit maximisation. Companies often justify pink tax by stating that women’s products cost more to make. They argue that extra design features, like special packaging or added components (such as moisturizers in razors), justify the higher price. However, these differences are marginal and therefore, fail to explain the additional price being charged from female consumers.
Factors Contributing To Pink Tax
Pink tax persists in various forms for multiple reasons. These reasons may be considered as the factors that contribute to Pink Tax. These are as follows:
• Gendered Marketing: Companies often engage in gendered marketing strategies that exploit societal norms and stereotypes. This includes packaging products in pink or using feminine imagery, which can lead consumers to perceive them as exclusively for women, justifying higher prices.
• Societal Expectations: Traditional gender roles and expectations play a significant role. Women are often expected to prioritize appearance and grooming, leading to a greater willingness to pay higher prices for products perceived as catering to these expectations.
• Lack of Awareness: Many consumers may not be aware of the pink tax or its implications, allowing companies to continue the practice without facing significant backlash.
Pink Tax I Other Countries
This concept of Pink Tax is not limited to India and can be observed in several countries around the world. According to World Economic Forum, an analysis in the UK found that “women’s deodorant was on average 8.9% more expensive than men’s. Target, a retail corporation, was found to be charging 87% higher for girls’ helmet. When asked for a justification, a representative issued a statement “Our competitive shop process ensures that we are competitively priced in local markets.” Women’s facial moisturiser was also found to be 34.28% more expensive”. The forum also assures that efforts are underway to curb the pink tax. Moreover, the United Nations has called on countries worldwide to take steps to eliminate the pink tax to ensure women achieve full and equal participation in the economy. The United States Congress currently has an act called the Pink Tax Repeal Act, pending in the legislature.
Green Washing And Pink Tax
The phenomenon of pink tax is similar to green washing in its morality but unfortunately, not in its legality. Green washing is another unethical practice that is used by companies in which they capitalize on the consumer’s growing concern for environmental issues without actually implementing these practices in their operations. The companies engaging in such practices misinterpret or exaggerate the positive environmental impact of their products. A major example is Fiji Waters “Carbon negative” claims wherein the company claimed to be carbon negative by offsetting its carbon emissions through various environmental projects. However, critics argued that the company’s extraction and transportation of bottled water resulted in a significant carbon footprint, undermining its purported environmental benefits. Subsequently, Fiji Water was sued.
These arguments against greenwashing highlight the ethical issues of misleading and the broader impact of societal trust with environmental progress. Similarly, pink tax also exploits consumer trust and perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Moreover, both practices can lead to consumer backlash and damage to a company’s reputation. Despite the commonalities between these two unethical taxes, one gains the status of illegitimacy, while the other remains an unbridled practice.
Packing Regulation
There are some legal requirements that a company has to follow while packaging their products. Accordingly, some regulations regarding the packaging of the products have been laid down by the Government. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has laid down some regulations in the Food Safety And Standards (Packaging And Labelling) Regulations, 2011 regarding food related products. Similar guidelines have also been published related to cigarettes and tobacco items. For example, it is legally required for the company to display a disclaimer, “Smoking is Injurious to Health” on the cigarette packaging. In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on environmental sustainability in packaging regulations, driven by concerns over plastic pollution, resource depletion, and climate change. The Government has thus implemented measures to reduce the environmental impact of packaging, such as banning single-use plastics, promoting recyclable materials, and incentivizing eco-friendly alternatives. These regulations aim to minimize waste generation, promote recycling and composting, and encourage the use of renewable materials in packaging production. Unlike these fast moving consumer goods or FMCG, pink tax does not have any such established rules and regulations hence, no legal recognition. Steps can thus be taken to include pink tax under these regulations. For instance, for the pricing of a beauty care product, The Competition Act, 2002 is present to ensure fair pricing and prevent anti-competitive prices. Since pink tax is an unfair practice, it can also find a place under this act. These acts or regulations should also include provisions relating to pink tax as it is gender-based pricing. Legislation that bans gender-based pricing and promotes pay equity can mitigate the financial burden on women. Additionally, raising awareness about pink tax and its intersectional impact can mobilize public support and help drive change.
Recommendations
Companies have a significant role to play in eliminating pink tax by embracing corporate responsibility. Eliminating pink tax is not just about saving money but also about creating a more equitable marketplace. Companies should implement transparent and clear pricings, where we know exactly what we are paying for. Moreover, gender-neutral pricing structures which are based on objective factors relevant to the service, such as hair length, complexity of the style, or time spent, rather than on the customer’s gender should be incorporated. Additionally, companies should also develop unisex product lines and move away from stereotypical marketing practices.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Pink tax, although not a “real” tax, has a real impact on the society and is the manifestation of the unconscious gender discrimination that still exists in the society. It is a tax that is not mandated by the government, so evidently it is not something taken seriously by the majority. Raising voices against this unethical phenomenon is usually seen as a pseudo-feminist move to get out of paying extra money for the product or service, but is rather a matter of equity and gender parity. We can therefore sufficiently establish Pink Tax to be unethical and an illegal tax.
