Is something better than nothing?

[Alpha]

Corporate social responsibility (CSR). You may be noticing it. It's a bit of a fad. But let's think critically about it.

First, what is it?

A concept whereby organisations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities and other stakeholders, as well as the environment. (I can't discover who wrote this.)

What does it look like?

Empty rhetoric, perhaps? What is five cents going to do? Oh, but didn't you notice all the Starbucks? OK, so you'll give five cents of mine to (RED). But is that even being selfless? Is this just a way to extract an even larger amount of money from people? Exactly how does this money get spent?

This one, I think, is from the Middle East. And it infuriates me. What the hell! A child putting an apple in the bin? Firstly, apples decompose. He'd be better off putting that in the compost. Second, he didn't eat half of the apple. Third, bins exist outside of McDonald's restaurants. Fourth, Ronald didn't exactly do anything. Hell, do McDonald's even sell fresh, whole apples?

I jest. But it's worth thinking about. What exactly is that ad achieving? It stated no commitments on behalf of McDonald's to keep anything clean. It's just green washing.

Importantly, it almost seemed like something local or central government ought to be encouraging -- a point I will expand on later.

This one is just really funny.

-------------------

It is often said that CSR operates through a 'triple bottom line' mechanism. This is usually reduced to a mantra of 'people, planet, profit'. Through CSR, apparently, all three can be achieved. A win-win-win.

But does CSR actually contribute to sustainability, or any other similar goals often linked to the concept? Or is it ideological?

CSR has been criticised based on evidence which suggests that 'people' and 'planet' are the appendages, and 'profit' the core. If CSR was genuine, would all three become central? Why, when the going gets tough, is CSR likely to drop off? Why are they not actually integral, yet consumers are told that they are so important, and that the corporations care so much?

I see CSR as a dressing. It is not a fundamental shift. I am absolutely sceptical that it is part of some kind of transformation to an enlightened operating platform for the private sector.

This conceptual 'dressing' is created to make consumers feel good about buying. To buy more, or to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise. Thus, they can actually be very dangerous.

If private business can prove that they are following voluntary good practice in terms of internalising their externalities, there is certainly a diminished incentive for government to take action, in terms of regulation, monitoring, and even taxation.

What about that Pfizer clip, from The Corporation? I'm not sure exactly what happened, but it seems like they subsidised the building of a block of flats. Though they failed on the security guard front. But since when was it private enterprises role to provide public amenities? Is this a positive or a negative development? Should we be concerned that somewhat (moreso than government) unaccountable organisations are increasingly taking this role? Is it an attempt to get more profit? If so, so what?

Behind the green PR is a deeper corporate political strategy: to get the world’s governments to allow corporations to police themselves through voluntary codes of conduct, win–win partnerships and best practices learning models, rather than binding legislation and regulation.
(Brown & Fraser, 2006, p.111)

Who then decides what is important in terms of social responsibility? We vote for government in common, as an entire community. But as long as a private enterprise earns a profit, it can act in a manner of its choosing; irrespective of the number of people who think its actions are suitable or unsuitable.

Another related concern is this: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "Who will guard the guards themselves?" "Who watches the watchmen?" I saw a taxi the other day. Completely green it was painted. Apparently, it wasn't carbon neutral. No, it went further. This company, it is claimed, takes more carbon out of the air every year than it puts in. But how do I know that? Who are we listening to, and are they they telling the full truth?

----------------------

However, is something better than nothing?

So what if Starbucks isn't exactly clear on how 5c from your latte is going to save the world -- at least they're giving 5c, right? Better than no cents.

I wonder if that's true; but it's certainly a valid argument. Something is better than nothing. I'd be willing to choose a fair trade coffee, or a supposedly environmentally-friendly dishwashing detergent over the alternatives, even if I had to pay a bit more. It's 'doing my bit': having responsibility. I shop for presents for my girlfriend at Lush, who do not test on animals, and ensure that all their inputs are sustainable, and recycle as much as possible. And good on them!

But we should be sceptical about CSR. What are the real motivations? Or perhaps I'm being a cynical jerk. Discuss.

[Tiffany]

I wonder if that's true; but it's certainly a valid argument. Something is better than nothing. I'd be willing to choose a fair trade coffee, or a supposedly environmentally-friendly dishwashing detergent over the alternatives, even if I had to pay a bit more. It's 'doing my bit': having responsibility. I shop for presents for my girlfriend at Lush, who do not test on animals, and ensure that all their inputs are sustainable, and recycle as much as possible. And good on them!

But we should be sceptical about CSR. What are the real motivations? Or perhaps I'm being a cynical jerk. Discuss.

LUSH FTW!!!

*cough* Anyhoo....

I think while there are stores like WalMart out in the world there should be some sort of CSR. WalMart at times seems like a necessary evil, I know people who wouldn't be able to really live if they couldn't buy stuff from there. But it just brings about our own dependence on it, whereas local establishments go under because they can't compete with their prices.

In a perfect world, everything would be fair trade. There'd be no sweat shops, people living in 3rd World countries wouldn't get exploited to do heavy manual labour for pennies so WE can have a dishware set that only costs $15. We try to only by local grown produce, avoid WalMart like the plauge, buy fair trade whenever possible. We also use Green Electricity (to help our impact on the environment), cloth diapers so we don't impact our local landfills. Not trying to sound like a moral compass, I've been guilty of (at times) buying stuff from WM too.

Anyways, my point is that I think that as consumers we should start demanding better trading practices and support businesses that do. Sure, 5 cents per latte isn't a lot, but when you factor in that they do use recyclable products when they can, buy some of their beans at Fair Trade prices, the rest well above what other people pay. Are they earth bound saints? No, and they still have a ways to go... but IMO they are on the right track.

It bugs me when people start campaigning for corporations to be more "fair" but then don't practice it themselves. Not saying that you do that Alpha, just people that I've been around. So many people enjoy talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

Not sure if that's what you were getting at... but that's how I interpreted your post.

[Heartless Angel]

As much as I usually enjoy disagreeing and arguing with you on anything related to economics, we're actually on the same side this time. Sorry this won't be as entertaining as other threads lol. Companies are smart. They know alot of people today are becoming more concious about the environment, and seeing all this crap on TV about poor countries that need their help. Someone at some business of course immediately attempts to come up with a way to capitalize on this, and here we have it.

Coffee is dirt cheap to make. The expression, "Ain't wortth beans", didn't come out of nowhere. That stupid latte you had to pay 5$ for probably cost them a dime, if that. So they're certainly not losing anything from giving 5 cents of that away, because they're selling more coffee to people who think they're doing a poorer country some big favor, in fact that are proffiting MORE than before. Is it a nice gesture? Is it really helping? I don't know, I can't say for sure where the money is actually going, nor do I really care. Whether it's helping anything or not, theese people aren't giving money away out of the goodness of their hearts, they're making a profit off of people who are, namely, you, the consumer buying their coffee that you normally wouldn't have gone to Starbucks and paid 5$ for to help Africa. I'm a firm believer in the philosophy that humans are basically selfish. Even those who believe they're giving willingly, I believe only do so for a sense of self satisfaction, or because there is in some way, some profit in it for them.

I'm also a cynnical jerk though, so maybe we just overthink alike.

[Alpha]

I agree with your sentiment, HA. And it's good to see that you're actually less of an ideologue than I am.

But what about this:

What about that Pfizer clip, from The Corporation? I'm not sure exactly what happened, but it seems like they subsidised the building of a block of flats. Though they failed on the security guard front. But since when was it private enterprises role to provide public amenities? Is this a positive or a negative development? Should we be concerned that somewhat (moreso than government) unaccountable organisations are increasingly taking this role? Is it an attempt to get more profit? If so, so what?

Is CSR the privatisation of the state?

[DragonHeart]

If it was true CSR, I feel like they wouldn’t be doing all these huge media campaigns about it. Why can’t they just go ahead and do it and let their actions speak for themselves instead of calling attention to it? I’m sure all the money they spend on those ads is far more than whatever they sucker the buying public into ‘donating’. It’s just a gimmick; corporations taking advantage of the media to influence their customers’ opinions (and by extension, their bottom lines), nothing more. Sure, good things do sometimes come of it, but they could do the exact same thing without the fanfare and get way more respect for doing it. Well from me at least.

Tiff, I’m one of those people who shops at Wal*Mart because I don’t make enough money to shop anywhere else. Guess who employs me? A corporation. It’s not just third world citizens they take advantage of. I don’t even make a living wage at my job and I’ve been employed there for eight years. Maybe they should use some of that CSR to actually pay their employees. Yes, I am bitter about it. My employer donates millions and millions of dollars towards all these CSR stunts (and spends millions more on the accompanying ad campaigns) but they don’t even give their own employees proper wages. The only bottom line they care about is profit.

I have to hand it to these corporations though; it really is quite the cunning plan. What they’re doing is turning social responsibility into a commodity. Don’t have the time or money to help those less fortunate than you? Buy from [major corporation] and feel better about yourself while we turn a profit on the increased sales. It’s brilliant in a sick way.

I mean, look at some of the ads and tell me they’re not competing to see who has the ‘better’ [read: most popular] cause. Corp. 1: Buy from us and we’ll donate to victims of [major disaster]! Corp. 2: Oh, but if you buy from us we’ll help fund research to cure cancer! Corp. 3: But we’ll feed the starving children in Africa! So on and so forth. It’s disgusting but the public just eats it all up. Ugh.

~DragonHeart~

[Furore]

I see it as a ploy for my hard earned cash myself, for the same reasons others have gone over. So I ignore them. Sometimes I'll even go out of my way to shop somewhere else it irks me that much. Instead I'll donate money elsewhere so I get to choose who it helps and I feel like I'm giving my money to people who actually give a shit about the cause they're running with. To me real charity doesn't expect anything in return. When I donate to charity I won't even keep my receipts as donations here are tax deductible. That said, I was thinking of donating a grand or so at the end of this financial year - better my taxes go to a good cause than a government who wastes millions on things I don't agree with like that mandatory web filter they keep looking at... >

[Tiffany]

Tiff, I’m one of those people who shops at Wal*Mart because I don’t make enough money to shop anywhere else. Guess who employs me? A corporation. It’s not just third world citizens they take advantage of. I don’t even make a living wage at my job and I’ve been employed there for eight years. Maybe they should use some of that CSR to actually pay their employees. Yes, I am bitter about it. My employer donates millions and millions of dollars towards all these CSR stunts (and spends millions more on the accompanying ad campaigns) but they don’t even give their own employees proper wages. The only bottom line they care about is profit.

I totally understand, and it really sucks.

Yes, they take advantage of us as well. I know I should probably care more about the people on home soil versus the people in 3rd world countries... but I just personally can't. People here below the poverty line are still far better off than their 3rd World counterparts. Here it isn't a concern for clean water to drink, there are food banks for people who just have to show their health cards and they get food. It doesn't cost us anything to get medical aid/help if needed.

I'm not saying our system is perfect. Far from and there is still so much more to go. Just irks me because they don't have those sorts of things over there. I guess its hard for me to imagine while I'm typing on my computer in the comforts of my own home with electricity, there are still people in the world going to sleep in shanties, no running water, no plumbing, no electricity, no food.

I do agree though, people should stop talking about it and just DO it. Rather than spending the money on sales pitches, administration costs and whatnot get out there and help!

My parents church has taken to helping this community project where I think 95% of the funds actually go to the place? I can't for the life of me remember the name of it, but the only person that actually gets paid is the book keeper (I think?) and the rest of it is done by volunteers. They have a bed roll program... where they do up sheets, pillows and some new clothes for children who don't have a proper bed to sleep on. (In this day of age!!!) Anyways, the people who started this program were well off and their children were well off so instead of willing their house to the already wealthy children, they left it as the "administrative building" so they don't have to pay rent, or fees for keeping the house up and going.

But then again, what about our own poor at home? That's just another can of worms IMO. But I do think a poor person here has a better chance of making something of themselves rather than over there.

Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to me.

[Zargabaath]

Empty rhetoric, perhaps? What is five cents going to do? Oh, but didn't you notice all the Starbucks? OK, so you'll give five cents of mine to (RED). But is that even being selfless? Is this just a way to extract an even larger amount of money from people? Exactly how does this money get spent?

This is something that a potential customer should look into if they are unsure about the program. Instead of waiting for the company to explain, take initiative by asking questions & if they answers, or lack-there-of, are unsatisfactory then the customer should think about not doing business with the company if is that important to them.

In general, the consumer has loads of power over businesses, however they have forgotten the power that they hold. As an individual the consumer feels powerless because they think that they will be alone, but if every person actually acted upon their values/principles then there could be an impact. How much of an impact is uncertain and with that the consumer tends to pass their power to the government as a means to control business. But the wallet of consumers is more powerful than the paper the laws are written on.

CSR has been criticised based on evidence which suggests that 'people' and 'planet' are the appendages, and 'profit' the core. If CSR was genuine, would all three become central? Why, when the going gets tough, is CSR likely to drop off? Why are they not actually integral, yet consumers are told that they are so important, and that the corporations care so much?

I see CSR as a dressing. It is not a fundamental shift. I am absolutely sceptical that it is part of some kind of transformation to an enlightened operating platform for the private sector.

This conceptual 'dressing' is created to make consumers feel good about buying. To buy more, or to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise. Thus, they can actually be very dangerous.

Firstly, all business, small & big, are working to make a profit. If they don't make a profit eventually that business will go down (unless the government decides that they are "too big to fail"). Then it shows that even if a company makes bad decisions or that their product is in little or no demand that they can be saved by the government - that is not good business; company's need to be born and others to die.

By helping people or the community locally and/or nationally, in different ways, it builds a positive image of the company. The company is spending money in hopes that people will look on them in better light. It can be taken as an investment. By helping (investing) in the community or people they hope to have those people do business with them and hopefully that "investment" will turn a profit or to increase sales in that area. Kind of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

When the going gets tough, people bunker down, ya know tighten the belt. A business does the same. They can't (shouldn't) spend too much and may have to cut spending in order to stay afloat. Now they could keep spending on CSR but then they may have to cut people or even more than originally. So they're helping people outside of the company but they are letting go of people causing them to be in tough times. Do we help people outside the family or do we make decisions that would be best for those in-house, the company family (employees). More often the selfless view is to help those who are most distant to the person; with that said the company should then continue CSR and if by doing so demands cutting employees so be it.

Having the executives take pay-cuts to curtail any cuts is one idea that is suggested by those who see big business as inherently evil. In truth jobs shouldn't have set wages, but instead be tied with the market for that company. Business is good, wages are higher; business is lacking, wages get lowered. This is adaptability that is needed by companies; it would allow for less cuts needed. Now the workforce would get paid less and may have less hours, but they would still have a job. This applies to all levels. When the going gets tough, sacrifices must be made. In truth a job is not guaranteed to a person, they must get the necessary prerequisites, look for, and if they are what the company is looking for then getting hired. More so, changes in the market dictates jobs and if the company can't keep going on as is they have to make changes. If they didn't cut people or if it ever could happen lower wages with the tide of the market, the whole company may go under. Instead of "x" number of people being out of work the whole company is: which is worse?

When does the "dressing" become a "meal" (i.e., a heartfelt serious action)? If people are to pessimist then any CSR action taken by a company will be looked with contempt. With perseverance in their [the company's] actions people may start looking optimistically at the company, but when the company hasn't done anything wrong - and being a big business is not inherently evil - it's sad that they would be distrusted. The last part gets into how business-people are treated like criminals from the beginning - I thought prejudice was frowned upon - and is a whole other topic.

If private business can prove that they are following voluntary good practice in terms of internalising their externalities, there is certainly a diminished incentive for government to take action, in terms of regulation, monitoring, and even taxation.

Government isn't meant to overly regulate, monitor, or even tax private business on whether they are CSR enough. A person is not a slave to another; a business-person is a person; companies are not slaves to society. All the regulation, monitoring, and prodding into the private sector is what causes destabilization nowadays. A Mixed Economy leads only to two things: laissez-faire capitalism or total state control.

What about that Pfizer clip, from The Corporation? I'm not sure exactly what happened, but it seems like they subsidised the building of a block of flats. Though they failed on the security guard front. But since when was it private enterprises role to provide public amenities? Is this a positive or a negative development? Should we be concerned that somewhat (moreso than government) unaccountable organisations are increasingly taking this role? Is it an attempt to get more profit? If so, so what?

As I said before people have loads of power of businesses and adding on to that: people have more power over businesses then their government. A business needs money to survive. All interaction between businesses and consumers is voluntary - or should be. A consumer does not have to interact with any business they choose. Without a product in demand a business will die. A government makes the laws, can find loop-holes or create loop-holes to extend their power. A government is the one that gives the special favors that should not be given.

Who then decides what is important in terms of social responsibility? We vote for government in common, as an entire community. But as long as a private enterprise earns a profit, it can act in a manner of its choosing; irrespective of the number of people who think its actions are suitable or unsuitable.

Key words, as long as it earns a profit. The consumers need to use the power they have, but a lot are too lazy and prefer if the government does it for them.

Another related concern is this: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "Who will guard the guards themselves?" "Who watches the watchmen?" I saw a taxi the other day. Completely green it was painted. Apparently, it wasn't carbon neutral. No, it went further. This company, it is claimed, takes more carbon out of the air every year than it puts in. But how do I know that? Who are we listening to, and are they they telling the full truth?

Then some should become those who watch the watchmen; of course then another problem arises: who watches those who watch the watchmen? Because the watchers can have their own motives and skew what they see to their benefit, goals, motives, etc. People should take a pro-active role in the realm of business.

I think while there are stores like WalMart out in the world there should be some sort of CSR. WalMart at times seems like a necessary evil, I know people who wouldn't be able to really live if they couldn't buy stuff from there. But it just brings about our own dependence on it, whereas local establishments go under because they can't compete with their prices.

Prices aren't everything. Product is important too. Wal-Mart does not have everything. And how are they evil? They provide materials that people need for cheap and from Wal-Mart workers who I know - the sentiment is that Wal-Mart employees don't want to unionize because they have it pretty good. What makes a local establishment special that it should survive? Their is no guarantee that any business will survive and all will fall with due time, so how is a natural occurrence evil?

Anyways, my point is that I think that as consumers we should start demanding better trading practices and support businesses that do.

First all the restrictions on business will need to be eased, otherwise the tugging from almost everybody will destroy the Hand. I've said that people need to wake up and realize the power that they have, but if people still want to rely on government [to do a poor job] then they will never wake.

Is CSR the privatisation of the state?

CSR does not go into the realm of protecting the rights of all citizens (including business-people) of the "state", therefore CSR is not privatizing the state.

If it was true CSR, I feel like they wouldn’t be doing all these huge media campaigns about it. Why can’t they just go ahead and do it and let their actions speak for themselves instead of calling attention to it? I’m sure all the money they spend on those ads is far more than whatever they sucker the buying public into ‘donating’. It’s just a gimmick; corporations taking advantage of the media to influence their customers’ opinions (and by extension, their bottom lines), nothing more. Sure, good things do sometimes come of it, but they could do the exact same thing without the fanfare and get way more respect for doing it. Well from me at least.

But without brining attention to their actions who would notice? People don't care about the power as consumers they hold, so why would they care to look into a certain section of a company if they are being "good". It seems that it is a lose-lose situation for companies. If they use media campaigns people feel they are just trying to cover and "appear" nice; if there isn't any media campaigns then hardly anybody would know.

Tiff, I’m one of those people who shops at Wal*Mart because I don’t make enough money to shop anywhere else. Guess who employs me? A corporation. It’s not just third world citizens they take advantage of. I don’t even make a living wage at my job and I’ve been employed there for eight years. Maybe they should use some of that CSR to actually pay their employees. Yes, I am bitter about it. My employer donates millions and millions of dollars towards all these CSR stunts (and spends millions more on the accompanying ad campaigns) but they don’t even give their own employees proper wages. The only bottom line they care about is profit.

Take care of others before "your" own - the mantra of altruism. If your company did that then what would happen to their donations? Maybe a little less or a lot. Then people would criticize that the company doesn't care. I agree with you that a company should take care of their own, but the people who care about companies helping out care more so about the "help" and not the employees. The "help" may be beneficial to them in some manner.




People! Be consumers, not customers!

[Alpha]

Nice post, Zarg. I think you were at your most convincing here:

If they use media campaigns people feel they are just trying to cover and "appear" nice; if there isn't any media campaigns then hardly anybody would know.

Of course, we differ in perspective at a fundamental level, so there's no point going too deeply into why we disagree, but you explained yourself well.

With respect to the "watchmen" issue, however, exactly how does an individual consumer validate the claims of a corporation? When I shop for a plant-based detergent, they all have different verification standards on them. I know a few familiar verification labels that are more trustworthy than others, but I am a student of environmental studies, and take a greater interest than most in this area. How does the average person actually make an informed decision?

You seem to me to over-emphasise perfect information. Remember that even Adam Smith acknowledged that perfect information is an ideal. The classical economists did not rule out the state having a role. That came later.

Perfect information is rarely, if ever, possible. When I see the 5+ verification labels, how do I know what to trust? Has the company simply bought into some scheme to have a label? To what extent does the 'green' image of the brand apply?

I probably should have expanded on this earlier, but one application of CSR is "greenwashing". Wikipedia starts:

Greenwashing (a portmanteau of "green" and "whitewash") is a term describing the deceptive use of green PR or green marketing in order to promote a misleading perception that a company's policies or products (such as goods or services) are environmentally friendly.

Now the solution to this may be to strengthen consumer rights organisations. I'm not sure of any US examples, however. In NZ, there is a Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and at least two television shows (there are only two free-to-air channels) that run shows about consumer issues.

Consumer protection laws are designed to ensure fair competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves. Consumer Protection laws are a form of government regulation [although more or less I intend that emphasis as an aside] which aim to protect the interests of consumers. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue, such as food. Consumer protection is linked to the idea of "consumer rights" (that consumers have various rights as consumers), and to the formation of consumer organizations which help consumers make better choices in the marketplace.
Wikipedia.

Another solution may be emerging through technology. Imagine standing at the supermarket shelf, and pulling out a smartphone. Google the brand, or the verification company, and voilà, (some) information is on hand.

But even these solutions are imperfect. At the end of the day, consumers may have the buying power, but firms have the information power. It is a situation of 'assymetric information'. A large proportion of the time, we simply have to trust these companies, and what they say. A that is a significant cause for concern.

Let's apply that to the example of the Starbuck's video. I could go look up (RED). In fact, I did.

Buy (STARBUCKS) RED. Help save lives.

We have deep relationships with many coffee growing communities of Africa. Their health and prosperity are important to us. Through our relationship with Product (RED)™, we have an opportunity to help them thrive. To use our size for good. And to bring our customers new ways to do good every day.

Together, we're making a difference

Every time you buy a (STARBUCKS)RED product or pay with your (STARBUCKS)RED Card*, we make a contribution to the Global Fund to help people living with HIV in Africa. With your help, we’ve already generated contributions equaling more than 14,000,000 days of medicine.

It’s amazing what we can do when we work together. So let’s keep doing good. Keep buying (STARBUCKS)RED products and help us make the world a better place.

What is a "day of medicine"? And it doesn't even say that (RED) delivered them, just that they have that money, assumably put aside somehow.

I could dig deeper, see how this programme is actually implemented on the ground. But that is a really diffiuclt and time consuming thing to do, when all you want is a cup of coffee. I do not believe that it is an adeqaute solution to this information problem to rely on individuals to make fully-informed choices. Because we never make fully-informed choices.

-------------------------------------

I also went looking for more information about this Starbucks (RED) CSR thing.

I found a blog:

During a recent trip to my local Starbucks, I noticed a sign on the bulletin board that says Starbucks has helped provide 6,000,000 days of medicine for people with AIDS in Africa. Now don’t get me wrong, I love coffee and I love people who try to save the world. And at first glance, it appears Starbucks is doing both. And in a way they are – kinda.

Six million days of medication sounds like a huge number – until you start crunching the numbers. It cost $140 per person for 365 days worth of AIDS medication.[*] This means that the mighty coffee juggernaut that has revenues that exceed $1 trillion per year gave $2.3 million to the Global Aids Fund. This still seems like a lot of money, but let’s put the amount in perspective. Divide the $2.3 million by Starbucks’ 16,635 locations[*] and the days in a year and you’ll find your local Starbucks gives about 38 cents a day to help AIDS in Africa. That’s not even the price of a regular coffee, let alone one of their pricey lattes.

...

Now I am not the type of person who paints companies that make a profit out to be the villains. I am simply saying if a company is going to use poor Africans with AIDS to pull on the heart strings of Americans to buy overpriced products, the company should be giving a significant amount to the cause.

...

Starbucks is also a huge union busting company, bullying any employees who even give off the scent of unionization.[*] Starbucks even went so far as to not hire any potential employee who previously worked for a union. They even fired a HR person who wouldn’t follow this illegal policy. But in America, perception is more important than reality. So in 2007, Howard Schultz received the “First Magazine Award For Responsible Capitalism.”

I also like how the author captioned this photo:

http://www.blazingmonk.com/wp-conten...VJ-300x250.jpg

Hey Bono, Thanks Chap for Helping us exploit Africa's AIDS crisis for profit!

-----------------------------------------

I singled out Zarg's argument as it differed from the others, and I disagree with it.

However, I think it would be fair to say that the general consensus from Silver, Heartless Angel, DragonHeart and Tiffany would be that it is a money-making drive.

This begs the question that is the title of this thread.

So what? If the options are that FIRM makes x profit, and gives no CSR, and FIRM makes x + z profit, and gives y CSR, then what is the problem?

Surely y > 0. That is, isn't something better than nothing?

[Tiffany]

Prices aren't everything. Product is important too. Wal-Mart does not have everything. And how are they evil? They provide materials that people need for cheap and from Wal-Mart workers who I know - the sentiment is that Wal-Mart employees don't want to unionize because they have it pretty good. What makes a local establishment special that it should survive? Their is no guarantee that any business will survive and all will fall with due time, so how is a natural occurrence evil?

I wasn't saying that WalMart is evil because of how they treat their workers in their stores, its how their suppliers get treated that I personally can't stand.

First off, they pressure their suppliers to constantly reduce their prices so they can keep their "roll back the savings" slogans. When that stopped working they moved their supply business over to China. Walmart is (I think?) China's 6th top trading partner? So that's lots of our money not going into our economy, but helping out theirs.

What I meant as well about it being a double edged sword is how people become dependent on buying there. As DH mentioned, she can't afford to shop elsewhere. That's no fault of hers but our own local establishments are closing down (and people are losing jobs) because regular hometown businesses can't compete with WalMarts prices. Sure, I can see someone asking why its bad to have stuff at an inexpensive price but IMHO it isn't worth it.

I personally choose to not support an establishment that purchases a fair share of their products from sweat shops.

Boycott Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart Campaign


I don't mean to to go off on a tangent about them, but their practices suck. I'm also not saying that Wal-Mart is the only company guilty of doing this, but because its such a huge company people rely more on it than other businesses. Did that help answer why I think Wal-Mart is 'evil'?

[Heartless Angel]

I can't really say it's a problem that this happening, to answer the original question posed. Assuming it's actually going to help Africa, it isn't really a problem. It is helpful to someone as far as we know, though charity wasn't the reason this was done, it acomplishes that in addition to making a company money. A company's goal is to make money, obviously. As I'm sure you've noticed, I'm strongly supportive of capitalism. So, I don't see a legitimate marketing strategy as a bad thing. If they're giving charity while making money, so much the better.

In conclusion, if you're going to buy expensive coffee anyways, go ahead and buy it from Starbucks, you may be helping AFrica in the process. If you just want to give to charity, go give to charity. It'll do alot more good than Starbucks giving away a nickel.

[DragonHeart]

@Zargabaath:

I'm not saying it should go completely unreported. There's nothing stopping the media from reporting it on their own. I'm just saying that instead of wasting millions of dollars on ridiculous ad campaigns, they could use that same amount of money to either contribute more to the cause or take better care of their employees. I'm not saying we should all have our wages doubled or anything (though it would be nice), I just want to be paid a reasonable amount. My last raise was 22 cents. That was literally the max my boss was allowed to give me.

Believe me, I know why they do it [CSR]. I'm just tired of them shoving it in my face all the time when I'm barely even surviving here. They can and should do better by their employees first. At the rate some of these companies are going, their employees are going to be the ones needing the donations.

~DragonHeart~

[Furore]

In some ways I'm paranoid. I do understand the sentiment that at least such and such a company is giving 5 cents when another isn't, but when you think about it, that 5 cents isn't really anything to a large corporation with a product carrying a decent price tag. I see it as simply being a marketing tool and not one I'd consider ethical. And when I see someone do something unethical I can be left with the impression it may not only be the only unethical thing they do.

Now if a company was selling a product that cost them 50c to make and they sold it for around $5 and donated $2 from every sale to a cause, then I might think differently as that would be quite a noticeable drop in profit even with the good impression such a move would impart.

[Zargabaath]

With respect to the "watchmen" issue, however, exactly how does an individual consumer validate the claims of a corporation? When I shop for a plant-based detergent, they all have different verification standards on them. I know a few familiar verification labels that are more trustworthy than others, but I am a student of environmental studies, and take a greater interest than most in this area. How does the average person actually make an informed decision?

But even these solutions are imperfect. At the end of the day, consumers may have the buying power, but firms have the information power. It is a situation of 'assymetric information'. A large proportion of the time, we simply have to trust these companies, and what they say. A that is a significant cause for concern.

How does a person become informed? Is it by just buying the product or by doing nothing? Through research and asking questions [to the company and any watchgroup] of any concerns you have is a big step in becoming informed. Nothing can be learned if a person is inactive; they must be proactive. Even if what is "learned" is unsatisfactory insinuating that what information was gathered was not that truthful, then the consumer has learned something.

Firms do have the information power and information is very powerful; with enough exposure a lie could become an accepted truth. In this instance I feel you underestimate the power of the dollar. They say money makes the world go round and it does hold some truth. The firm can keep their information behind closed doors or only shed some light, but the consumer can keep their money. May this lead to hardship in the consumer's life? Yes, but life is not guaranteed to be easy - sometimes life is simply arduous. A consumer has to take a company's word more often in this current state because most consumers don't care and are turned off by the amount of work it takes to be an informed consumer. This does create a sticky situation to those consumers who are pro-active and in turn it could lead to them wanting their government to step in to insure the information that the firms are releasing. What's troubling is large amounts of people are ok with other people telling them what to think (to an extent); instead they should strive to learn on their own accord which would require a mass turn around in the world's thinking. To reiterate a previous point: consumers hold the ultimate power - money - with which they have the right to voluntarily trade with whomever they want, yet they fail to realize this due to a myriad of circumstances.

Perfect information is rarely, if ever, possible. When I see the 5+ verification labels, how do I know what to trust? Has the company simply bought into some scheme to have a label? To what extent does the 'green' image of the brand apply?

When it comes to trust do not humans always take a "leap of faith"? Whether it be with befriending a new person or making a purchase, at a fundamental level there still will have to be a "leap of faith". To further expand: there is the trust in the company to do acceptable business practices but then there is also the trust that the product is any good/meets the needs of the consumer. On the flip-side, a company has to trust any potential consumer from committing fraud against them - it is not so one-sided. People, may overlook that because they feel that the company has loads of money that they have nothing to lose, but what company wants to be gypped and possibly eventually die? The same largely goes for the consumer: who wants to be duped and come out on the wrong end. People care that the government is making sure they are not victims of fraud, but if a person is able to "one-up" a company then largely people don't care. Why they don't care is that they see businesses as innately evil, always trying to wrong the consumer every time. This double-standard needs to be corrected. As I mentioned in my first post business-people are humans too, but are oft vilified and treated as second-class citizens. But to state again: research; if a person doesn't like what they see, then make a decision of that.

A special note about the Starbuck's blog: this blogger may not know, but Starbuck's employees get benefits; it's actually not a bad place to work, especially as a starter job. In the blog, the person gives off the vibe, that because they are a huge-union busting company that they don't treat their employees "fairly", but a company does not need to allow a union to treat their employees well. There is Starbuck's and as I mentioned prior - Wal-Mart.

That's all for now, a little time-constrained.