IN FOCUS (WHAT WAS POPULAR)

PINK TAX AND THE ETHICS OF GENDER-BASED PRICING

Context:

The “Pink Tax”—is the practice of charging women higher prices for goods and services that are identical or functionally similar to those marketed for men. What initially appeared as a consumer issue was increasingly framed as a systemic ethical and social justice concern, intersecting with debates on gender equality, market ethics, and state responsibility.

The issue gained salience in the context of:

• • Persistentgender wage gaps,
  • Rising cost of living, and
  • Greater scrutiny ofcorporate ethics and consumer rights.

What is the Pink Tax?

The Pink Tax refers to implicit gender-based price discrimination, where products aimed at women—such as razors, deodorants, personal care items, clothing, or services like dry cleaning—are priced higher without corresponding differences in production cost or quality.

Importantly, it is not a formal tax imposed by the state, but a market-driven practice embedded in gendered marketing strategies.

Key Ethical and Empirical Points

• • Studies across markets show women may pay5–15% more for comparable personal care products.
  • Women already facelower average earnings and discontinuous work histories, amplifying economic disadvantage.
  • Gendered pricing is often justified throughaesthetic differentiation (colour, packaging) rather than cost.
  • The burden iscumulative, affecting women across their life cycle.

Thus, what appears marginal at the individual level becomes structural inequality at the societal level.

Legal Framework

1. Constitutional Principles

• • Article 14– Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
  • Article 15(1)– Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex.
    While these provisions apply primarily to state action, they shape the ethical obligations of markets in a constitutional democracy.

2. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

• • Definesunfair trade practices, including misleading pricing and false representation.
  • However, it doesnot explicitly prohibit gender-based pricing, revealing a regulatory gap.

3. Competition Law Perspective

• • TheCompetition Act, 2002 addresses abuse of dominance, but Pink Tax usually operates through normalised market practices, not monopolistic behaviour.

Legal Gap: Unlike some global jurisdictions, India lacks explicit statutory prohibition on gender-based price discrimination in consumer markets—making this primarily an ethical failure rather than a legal offence.

Ethical Issues

1. Equality and Fairness: Charging different prices solely on the basis of gender violates the principle of substantive equality, not just formal equality.

2. Economic Justice: Pink Tax exacerbates existing gendered economic disadvantages, contradicting distributive justice.

3. Autonomy and Informed Consent: Consumers are often unaware that price differences are arbitrary, raising ethical concerns about manipulation and transparency.

4. Structural Discrimination: The practice reflects embedded patriarchal norms, monetising social expectations around women’s appearance and grooming.

Philosophical and Ethical Frameworks

Rawls’ Theory of Justice: Under Justice as Fairness, inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged. Pink Tax does the opposite—it burdens an already disadvantaged group.

Kantian Ethics: Gender-based pricing treats women as means for profit maximisation, rather than ends in themselves, violating human dignity.

Feminist Ethics: Highlights how everyday economic practices reproduce systemic gender hierarchies, even without overt intent.

Judicial Sensibility and Case Law

While Indian courts have not directly ruled on Pink Tax, judicial reasoning in related areas is instructive:

• • Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981)
    The Supreme Court struck down discriminatory service conditions based on gender, emphasisingsubstantive equality.
  • Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007)
    The Court rejected paternalistic and stereotypical assumptions about women, holding thatgender-based differentiation must withstand strict scrutiny.

These judgments reinforce the principle that economic practices rooted in stereotypes lack constitutional morality, even if socially accepted.

Ethical Dilemma

Should the market be allowed to price products freely based on consumer psychology, or does ethical governance require intervention when pricing entrenches social inequality?

This dilemma reflects the tension between market freedom and moral responsibility.

Way Forward

1. Regulatory and Policy Measures

• • Explicit inclusion ofgender-based pricing under unfair trade practices.
  • Mandatoryprice transparency disclosures for functionally identical products.

2. Ethical Corporate Governance

• • Adoption ofgender-neutral pricing audits.
  • Voluntary ethical codes aligned with ESG principles.

3. Consumer Awareness

• • Public campaigns highlighting hidden discrimination.
  • Promoting informed and ethical consumer choices.

4. Normative Shift

• • Viewing equality not merely as legal compliance, but asethical obligation in economic life.

“Equality is not in sameness, but in fairness.”

Conclusion

The Pink Tax debate illustrates how everyday market practices can quietly reproduce injustice. Its ethical significance lies not merely in price differentials, but in what they reveal about structural bias, consumer vulnerability, and moral limits of the market. Addressing it requires moving beyond narrow legality towards constitutional morality, ethical capitalism, and gender justice.

Spread the Word