Actions, says the old adage, speak louder than words. So when a company causes offence, and then repudiates the wrongdoing as discordant with its values, should we believe it? Do we trust the PR disclaimer, or do we judge the company by its actions? Following a public outcry over its racist advert, hair product maker TRESemmé was quick to point out that the offending plug was "not in line with the values of its brand, or [those] of Clicks", on whose website it was published.
Even to the casual observer this raises the question of how the unnamed, but presumably enlightened, values allowed the advert to be produced and published. Could there be, as often happens, a disjuncture between lofty corporate pronouncements and operational and cultural reality? A failing to walk the talk, which allows for "mistakes" to happen.
The question of corporate transformation arises. What is its essence? It should by now be beyond debate that the mere presence of a black face, or a few, on a board is not a sufficient condition for full transformation. This is especially so when the black members serve at the pleasure of those who invited them - who expect them to be good guests who don't rock the boat by raising too strongly impolite subjects such as corporate racism.
Such tokenism is, ironically, underpinned by legislative instruments, such as the BBBEE scorecard, which counts the number of black people in corporate positions, but cannot measure their influence.
The brouhaha has also shone the spotlight on a dangerous South African assumption, that the country has forever to deal with its social and economic injustices. In the heat of the controversy, there were some who pleaded for understanding for the perpetrators, on the basis that they might have been driven by "unconscious bias". As if "unconscious bias" is less hurtful than deliberate discrimination.
There was much talk of corporates and other offenders needing time to learn about diversity and inclusivity - this after more than a quarter-century since the end of apartheid. In the meantime, are the victims supposed to just grin and bear it?
What's to learn from Clicks' hair-raising experience? First is that we are far from dealing effectively with the question of racism in the economy and society.
Second, this week's events strengthen the EFF in its approach to politics. It vindicates those who argue that the privileged in SA will hear the cry of the disempowered only on pain of violence, or the threat of it. Which obviously is not in the interests of business, or in the interests of the country.
After meeting with the EFF, TRESemmé owner Unilever and Clicks undertook, among other things, to donate sanitary products to the needy. Clicks had earlier pledged to begin developing black suppliers, begging the question of why it could not have done this before.
Last, the whole sorry episode highlights the role of business in a society fraught with deep economic inequality, persistent racism and rampant gender-based violence. What should be business's posture, beyond perhaps throwing a few million rands at the corporate social investment budget?
Will SA business follow peers elsewhere in the world who have taken a stand against social injustice on the back of the Black Lives Matter movement? Or emulate Nike, which supported US football star Colin Kaepernick's campaign against police brutality?
Other businesses made financial donations to social justice causes or voluntarily reviewed their products and services, where these were deemed to cause offence to black people.
Alternatively, will our corporate sector keep its head below the parapet, a disinterested party that turns a blind eye to social injustice and is interested only in the money?
• Siluma is Sunday Times deputy editor
