MAM
Smriti Irani releases ASCI’s guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes
Mumbai: Seeing gender stereotypes in advertising has become so common that now people take harmful gender differences as social norms. Unfortunately! The gender stereotypes are so deep-rooted in our minds that we hardly stop and think, why should an ideal family in any ad have an older boy and a younger girl, why not a family with two girls? Why should a typical Indian brand’s ad start with a man reading a newspaper and the woman making him a cup of tea? Why do terms like “men will be men” strike our minds?
Taking into consideration the deep-seated gender stereotypes in our minds, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has launched a set of eight guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes. The new guidelines aim to focus not just on the bigger violations but on the ones that the audience might not even register, at once.
The guidelines come as a follow up for its GenderNext report released by ASCI and Futurebrands in October 2021. It was released by the minister for women and child development Smriti Irani at an event held in Delhi.
Just a few days after the Layer’r shot advertisements were taken down, the guidelines seem like a timely intervention from ASCI. The advertisements from the perfume brand didn’t go well with the audience and were accused of promoting rape culture in the country.
Sharing his thoughts on ASCI chairman Subhash Kamath added, “Advertising has the power to influence mindsets and decision making and bring about behavioural changes. Hence, we need to help shape the narrative. The recent controversy implies that there is a need for sensitisation, in terms of how we portray genders in advertising.”
Gender portrayal is a complex and nuanced issue and the guidelines provide an interpretation of ASCI’s Chapter III (related to harmful situations), which deals with ads that can cause harm to individuals or society. Gender stereotypes are harmful because they lock individuals in certain roles and perpetuate certain dynamics that are harmful to society. Advertising, through subtle and implicit depictions, reinforces certain harmful stereotypes and overlooks the aspirations of individuals and groups. A recent study by Kantar shows that 64 per cent of consumers believe that advertising reinforces rather than helps eradicate harmful gender stereotypes.
While the guidelines focus on women, they also provide guardrails for the depiction of other genders.
The guidelines, encourage advertisers and creators to deploy the SEA (Self-esteemed – Empowered – Allied) framework that guides stakeholders in imagining as well as evaluating portrayals of gender in their advertising by building empathy and aiding evaluation, as well as the 3S framework, which provides a checklist to guard against tropes and implicit stereotypes that creep into advertising.
These frameworks can prove to be extremely useful for marketing and advertising professionals to improve their advertising ROIs.
Speaking at the launch of the guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes, the minister for women and child development, Smriti Zubin Irani said, “While there are women who are happy with the incremental change that has been made in the advertising industry, women of my generation are a bit more impatient. It is time not only for the men but also for the women in the advertising industry to step up. This is a very important move, and I believe that there is a long journey to be undertaken to turn the thinking but it’s required now. Work in this area must move with more and more speed and organisations like ASCI should lead this, the action beginning with its member base”
She also pointed out how we just end up blaming and boycotting actors who are playing the sexiest roles instead of lashing out at each stakeholder included in the production of a particular advertisement. Irani feels that the real change will only come when each stakeholder will take the responsibility to bridge the gender gap.
ASCI chairman Subhash Kamath added, “The new guidelines were created after extensive consultation with many partners- both from industry, as well as civil society organisations, including the Unstereotype Alliance and UNICEF. These guidelines are a big step forward in strengthening ASCI’s agenda to shape a more responsible and progressive narrative. We are grateful to the government and Shrimati Smriti Irani for supporting these guidelines, and to the many partners who have been with us on this journey.”
Social activist and writer Ranjana Kumari reiterated that such guidelines are an attempt to start a discussion and debate around subtle messaging that may go unnoticed. “It is also important to push for laws that will appropriately penalise offenders,” she added.
ASCI’s Guidelines on harmful gender stereotypes in advertising are as follows:
1. ASCI will consider an ad’s likely impact when taken as a whole and in context.
2. ASCI will consider stereotypes from the perspective of the group of individuals being stereotyped.
3. The use of humour or banter is not likely to overcome the underlying issue of such harmful stereotypes.
4. The guidelines do not intend to prevent ads from featuring:
a. glamorous, attractive, successful, aspirational or healthy people or lifestyles;
b. one gender only, including in advertisements for products developed for and aimed at a particular gender;
c. gender stereotypes as a means to challenge their harmful effects.
Advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm or widespread offence.
1. While advertisements may feature people undertaking gender-stereotypical roles e.g., a woman cleaning the house or a man going to an office, or displaying gender-stereotypical characteristics, or for, e.g., a man being assertive or a woman being sensitive to others’ needs, they must not suggest that stereotypical roles or characteristics are:
- always uniquely associated with a particular gender;
- the only options available to a particular gender; or
- never carried out or displayed by another gender(s).
1.1 Advertisements that are aimed at / depict children may target and feature a specific gender but should not convey that a particular children’s product, pursuit, behaviour, or activity, including choice of play or career, is inappropriate for one or another gender(s). For example, ads suggesting that a boy’s stereotypical personality should be “daring” or that a girl’s stereotypical personality should be “caring”, or someone chiding a boy playing with dolls or girls from jumping around because it is not the typical activity associated with the gender, are likely to be problematic.
2. While advertisements may feature glamorous and attractive people, they must not suggest that an individual’s happiness or emotional wellbeing depends on conforming to these idealised gender-stereotypical body shapes or physical features.
3. Advertisements should not mock people for not conforming to gender stereotypes, their sexual orientation or gender identity, including in a context that is intended to be humorous, hyperbolic or exaggerated. For example, an ad may not belittle a man for carrying out stereotypically female roles or tasks or make fun of a same-sex relationship.
4. Advertisements should not reinforce unrealistic and undesirable gender ideals or expectations. For example, an advertisement must not depict a man with his feet up and family members creating a mess around a home, while a woman is solely responsible for cleaning up the mess, or a woman overly grateful for the man helping her in everyday chores. Similarly, a woman returning from work may not be shown as solely responsible for doing household duties while others around her are at leisure.
5. An advertisement may not suggest that a person fails to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g., a man’s inability to change nappies; or a woman’s inability to park a car. In categories that usually target a particular gender, care must be taken to not depict condescension towards any other gender or show them as incapable of understanding the product or unable to make decisions. This does not prevent the advertisement from showing these stereotypes as a means to challenge them.
6. Where an advertisement features a person with a physique or physical characteristics that do not match an ideal stereotype associated with their gender, the advertisement should not imply that their physique or physical characteristics are a significant reason for them not being successful, for example in their romantic, social or professional lives. For example, an ad may not suggest that a man who is short, a woman who is dark, or any individual who is overweight has difficulty finding a job or a partner due to this aspect of their physique.
7. Advertisements should not indulge in the sexual objectification of characters of any gender or depict people in a sexualised and objectified way for titillating viewers. This would include the use of language or visual treatments in contexts wholly irrelevant to the product. For example, an online takeaway service featuring an image of a woman wearing lingerie lying back in a provocative pose behind various fast-food items would be considered problematic. Even though the image may not be sexually explicit, by using a suggestive image of a woman that bears no relevance to the advertised product, the ad would be considered objectifying women by presenting them as sexual objects, and therefore is a gender stereotype that is likely to cause harm.
8. No gender should be encouraged to exert domination or authority over the other(s) by means of overt or implied threats, actual force or through the use of demeaning language or tone. Advertisements cannot provoke or trivialise violence (physical or emotional), unlawful or anti-social behaviour based on gender. Additionally, advertisements should not encourage or normalise voyeurism, eve-teasing, stalking, emotional or physical harassment or any similar offences. This does not prevent the advertisement from showing these depictions as a means to challenge them.
MAM
Brands push beyond compliance as trust takes centre stage
ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026 spotlights shift from legal checks to credibility.
MUMBAI: In a world where a disclaimer can be legally sound yet socially suspect, brands are learning that compliance may tick boxes but trust wins markets. At the inaugural ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026, a panel on “Beyond Compliance: The New Currency of Trust” unpacked a growing industry reality: the gap between what the law permits and what consumers accept is widening and fast.
Moderated by Meenakshi Ramkumar of National Law School of India University, the discussion brought together leaders across law, marketing and academia to examine how brands must evolve in a digital ecosystem increasingly shaped by scrutiny, scepticism and speed.
Ramkumar set the tone by highlighting a critical shift, advertising today operates in the same digital space that fuels misinformation, scams and fake news, making credibility harder to establish. “The challenge is not just about what brands do, but the broader context of low institutional trust,” she noted, adding that when violations go unchecked, trust erodes not just in brands but in the regulatory system itself.
This vacuum, she said, has given rise to consumer activism from boycotts to social media backlash as a parallel accountability mechanism.
For Amit Bhasin, Chief Legal Officer at Marico, the distinction was clear, legal compliance is non negotiable, but insufficient. “Compliance is the minimum threshold. The real challenge is staying aligned with changing consumer expectations,” he said.
He pointed to how advertising narratives have evolved from traditional depictions of gender roles to more shared responsibilities reflecting a broader societal shift. “Earlier, it was fine to show one person doing the household work. Today, that may not land well. Consumers expect brands to reflect reality,” Bhasin observed.
He also highlighted internal debates where campaigns that may be legally permissible are still rejected for being culturally insensitive, noting that responsible advertising often requires asking uncomfortable questions before the public does.
If compliance is the baseline, reputation is the battlefield.
Bhasin noted that reputational risk has become a far greater concern than legal exposure, particularly in an era where campaigns can be dissected within hours online. “Earlier, a controversial ad might invite a newspaper editorial. Today, within hours, you’re at the centre of a storm,” he said.
Brands, he added, now evaluate campaigns through a dual lens legal viability and reputational vulnerability with the latter often proving more decisive.
From a healthcare perspective, Satish Sahoo of Cipla Health underscored the complexity of operating within fragmented yet stringent regulatory frameworks, spanning drugs, food, cosmetics and Ayush. “Anything under a drug licence is the most tightly regulated,” he said, adding that this necessitates proactive, not reactive, compliance.
He shared an example from the oral rehydration salts (ORS) category, where Cipla resisted the temptation to position products aggressively despite competitive pressure. “Our product is WHO compliant, and our communication reflects that. We chose not to blur the lines, even if others did,” he noted.
The long term payoff, he suggested, lies in credibility built over consistency, not quick wins.
Yet, as Harsha N of National Law School of India University pointed out, even perfect compliance does not guarantee trust. Drawing from historical and modern examples from exaggerated product claims in the 1800s to contemporary environmental and health advertising, he argued that legal frameworks often lag behind consumer expectations. “A brand can be fully compliant and still be perceived as misleading,” he said, citing instances where fine print disclosures fail to reach or convince the average consumer. He added that larger companies carry a disproportionate responsibility to set ethical benchmarks, even in areas where the law remains silent.
The conversation also turned to digital advertising, where the challenge extends beyond content to how ads are experienced. From algorithmic targeting to personalised messaging, brands now operate in an environment where regulation struggles to keep pace with technology.
Sahoo noted that social media has amplified awareness, with influencers and consumers increasingly scrutinising product claims and calling out inconsistencies. “Awareness has gone up dramatically. People are questioning what goes into products and what brands are saying,” he said.
The role of self regulatory bodies such as Advertising Standards Council of India also came under the spotlight.
Harsha acknowledged that while SROs play a crucial role, they are not immune to criticism, particularly around perceived conflicts of interest and enforcement gaps. “SROs have a higher threshold of responsibility not just to interpret the law, but to anticipate societal expectations,” he said.
He added that failures in self regulation often push the burden back onto government intervention, underscoring the need for stronger, more proactive oversight.
One of the more nuanced debates centred on whether building trust comes at a cost. While Sahoo acknowledged that quality and compliance can increase costs, he argued that companies must absorb them as part of their long term strategy.
Bhasin, however, framed the challenge differently not as cost, but as competitiveness in a market where not all players play by the same rules. “The real tension is when others cut corners and you choose not to,” he said.
The panel concluded with a call to embed trust into business metrics.
Sahoo suggested that organisations must go beyond revenue targets to include consumer equity and trust based KPIs, ensuring that ethical considerations are not sidelined in the pursuit of growth. “Trust sounds abstract, but it can translate into measurable consumer equity,” he said.
As the discussion wrapped up, one message stood out: the rules of advertising are being rewritten not just by regulators, but by consumers themselves. In an ecosystem where attention is fleeting and scepticism is high, brands that merely comply may survive, but those that build trust are the ones that endure.
