Why have most brands stayed quiet during Black History Month this year?
This past summer of 2024, race riots erupted once more, with Black communities again the target of violence. In the UK, hostile environment policies fuelled blatant xenophobia and hostility toward non-white people, making it feel like history was repeating itself.
Hena Bryan (Refinery 29)
After this summer’s events I was expecting a deeper commitment in diversity and more investment in Black History Month. However, this year, a noticeable number of brands opted for silence. Let’s go back to a few years ago, when we saw an influx of brands publicly supporting social causes, particularly following the global momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement. So what caused the change? Do the reasons behind it reflect a shift in public expectations or the evolving landscape of brand accountability?
🔎 Public expectations
For starters, consumers have grown savvy about “performative activism.” Posting a hashtag or throwing up a logo in solidarity isn’t enough, and audiences have become more vocal about calling out insincere gestures. With trust on the line, brands that haven't backed their statements with actions—like supporting Black-owned businesses, investing in diversity and inclusion internally, or creating tangible community impact—risk doing more harm than good by making hollow gestures.
💸 Economic complications
Then there’s the complexity of the economic landscape (which I’ve mentioned a couple of week’s ago in The Ripple Effect). Companies face tight budgets and economic uncertainty, making them cautious about resource allocation. Many fear being perceived as insincere, especially if they can’t fully commit to meaningful initiatives. Rather than making token contributions, some brands may choose to refocus their efforts internally, working on diversity or equity initiatives quietly to create lasting change before speaking publicly.
⚖️ Legal challenges
A final reason I believe Black History Month 2024 was so quiet is because conservatives have created a fear of legal repercussions among corporations.
Amira Barger (Fast Company)
With conservative groups raising concerns over corporate diversity initiatives and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn affirmative action, many brands are wary of potential legal repercussions. Companies may fear that public support for racial equity could expose them to scrutiny or legal challenges, leading some to avoid making any statement at all. This cautious approach reflects the growing tension between corporate diversity goals and the uncertain regulatory environment.
💬 But silence isn’t the answer either
If brands want to engage with Black History Month, it must be part of a year-round commitment to inclusivity and equity. This means developing genuine partnerships with Black communities, highlighting Black creators and employees regularly, and promoting internal policies that reflect their values. In a world where consumers value authenticity and accountability, brands can’t afford to only speak up once a year.
This year’s quiet approach signals an opportunity for brands to rethink how they honour Black history—not as a month, but as a consistent commitment. For brands willing to take the time and resources to invest meaningfully, the benefits extend far beyond PR: they build loyalty, trust, and true community impact.
