[happytoexplain]

This is an almost-true fallacy levied against all ostensibly benevolent corporate behavior, not just "woke"ness. The theory is that, since profit is supreme, they must engage in benevolence only when it directly or indirectly increases profits (usually via the long-term game of public image).

However, it's a fallacy because those making these decisions are not "corporations", but, in fact, humans, and many of them (optimistically, most of them) are not sociopathic monsters, and therefore like the idea of engaging in benevolence. (You can make an argument that all benevolence is merely atavistic tribe/family-protection behavior on a long enough timeline, and that's another topic, but it is a good analogy for the "true benevolence" vs "false benevolence" theory of corporate behavior). All desires inescapably inform decisions to some extent, no matter how shrewd a person is - therefore, genuine benevolence plays a part in corporate benevolence. It's unrealistically pessimistic to assume all corporate benevolence is purely false, and it seems like that accusation is frequently used to make shallow arguments about social politics.