“In almost any gift-giving situation, there is some expectation of return, whether is it a tax deduction, a named building, or an enhanced reputation. That’s why anonymous gift giving is so rare. Giving always occurs within a social context that makes a gift reciprocal in nature. Perhaps corporations that give with some expectation of return are only being more strategic and explicit than predecessors who gave with equal expectations but said less about it - or who gave without planning. For a gift to be genuinely altruistic in nature, that is, for it to demonstrate other-centered love, it must have benefit to the recipient as its primary motive and purpose, but not necessarily its only motivation or purpose. Therefore, strategic or “smart” giving may be regarded as ethical.”
from: Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. Christians, Clifford. 2001.
My Response.....enjoy:)
For decades, various corporations in the United States have used gift giving as a form of social marketing. Most organizations realize that when done correctly, giving back to the community or to a cause will yield positive results in terms of increased business, increased awareness and ultimately, an increase in profit and market share. In fact, studies show that organizations that practice some form of social marketing or social good, almost always do better than their competitors who do not participate in such practices. The passage in question revolves around the idea of gift giving and in what context or situation it can be considered ethical. According to Clifford Christians, “smart” or strategic gift giving may be regarded as ethical because its primary motive is to benefit the recipient, however, it is not the only motive. I agree with Christians’ analyses that those organizations that say they are purely giving just to give, are less ethical, especially when that is not the truth. To be truly philanthropic, a corporation should be open and honest about its intentions, those that are selfless and selfish. Moreover, companies that are open about their intentions are more likely to do better than those who are not. Consumers can easily spot spurious attempts at social marketing and will easily see through the feigned good-will.
Home Depot is an example of an organization that uses strategic giving in an ethical manor. The organization donates materials and volunteers manpower to the building and rebuilding of affordable homes to families in need. They also give back to the communities that their associates and employees live in. Although such acts are clearly beneficial to those who are receiving the aid, Home Depot is benefiting as well. By helping the local communities, Home Depot is establishing valuable and lasting relationships. Families and individuals who receive aid become patrons of the organization as well as advocates.
Exxon/Mobile demonstrates gift giving as well, however, strategically it is not on point and does not make a connection to the consumer as efficiently as Home Depot’s approach. Exxon/Mobile spends money to protect tigers as their logo (sometimes) features a tiger. This attempt at philanthropy comes off as completely phony and unauthentic. Besides having a tiger as a logo, Exxon/Mobile and their product have absolutely nothing to do with tigers, or any animals for that matter. In fact, Exxon has been accused several times for destroying the environment and violating human rights. With a history like that, it seems like hypocrisy, as well as a futile attempt to do damage control on their already tainted image. This would definitely be an unethical and counterproductive attempt at social marketing.
Finally, Microsoft is an example of an organization that is giving back to the community in a strategic manner; benefiting both the organization and those receiving the aid. Microsoft focuses its corporate social efforts on providing software, computers, training, business opportunities and other technological assistance to those living in areas of the world that would not normally have access to such things. Because Microsoft deals with technology, it makes sense for them to donate things that have to do with their industry, to people in need. It also benefits Microsoft as an organization because they are not only building awareness, they are spreading their product to areas that are not familiar with the brand wars that surround the computer industry. They are, essentially, tapping into and claiming, untouched market share.
In conclusion, it is not only how companies and organizations are gift giving, it is often what and by whom the aid is being received. If companies want to be perceived as genuine and authentic, socially responsible corporations, they must not only stay on strategy with their product or service, they must also have a genuine interest in the people they are giving to. Companies should also make their intentions clear about what they plan to gain from their philanthropy. If they do not do this, consumers will not simply take their word for it and buy their product. Authenticity, honesty and a genuine concern for the cause, are the key elements in corporate philanthropy and if used correctly, are the elements which will yield the most positive results for the organization and the beneficiaries.
Posts
