I don't think Sarkeesian could even possibly be the problem if Ubisoft HR changed their definition of harassment to allow sexual harassment and non-gamer journalists are reporting on it.

Companies have "woke" consultants in to make speeches all the time but it's performative and it never changes anything.

I know the case of a company where "Woke" consultants stepped in (well, they weren't consultants but part of a workers union), demanded about half females in tech department (and a handful of similar claims), and some time forward most of tech + commercial threatened to leave and carry clients with them. There was some power plays in between, with courts involved, and in the end the company agreed to let things stay as they already were.

After that the environment became so toxic that many people left anyways, and some clients went after this employees.

I'm more wondering about the value of woke consultants as an indicator - if a company is very concerned about making such performances, could it be an indicator of a guilty conscience?

I can only speak for my admittedly hyper-progressive studio: We brought Sarkeesian in to find our blind spots. (there was also the fact that the studio wanted to fund her work on a more personal level).

But if you consider that roughly 86% of the studio at that time was male, it would have been easy for something to slip through that could have been perceived as anti-women.

A great example is in the game Hitman; there is a moment where you're infiltrating a strip club and an option exists (although, is penalised) for murdering a scantily clad stripper. This was caught by Sarkeesian and used as an example of poor game development that allows for the objectification of women. (or, women as background objects)[0]

We didn't want that.

[0]: https://youtu.be/4ZPSrwedvsg?t=603

I assume any “woke” movement from a corporation is either to 1) avoid legal liability 2) capture some market via signaling.

I would guess that genuine efforts are few and far between.