Corporate Social Responsibility, Beyond Cheque Writing and Donations
Corporate philanthropy has the ability to boost a brand’s image and its attractiveness to consumers, but done half-heartedly it can result in negative press and scepticism. Two recent examples prove this point.
IKEA recently announced a $62m donation to the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, which is a very generous donation and should be celebrated.However in a recent article in The Guardian, author Zahid Torres-Rahman questions whether this is over-simplifying the issue of overcrowding refugee camps and suggests that IKEA could have used its expertise and purchasing power to make much more of an impact.For example, IKEA could look to increase its sourcing from local enterprises in the region, or mobilise its global customer base to increase their awareness and action in support of refugees.These longer-term initiatives are what will eventually bring about more favourable policies and economic opportunities for poor families, and are far more valuable than a cash donation that faces the risk of bureaucracy and corruption.
Another example is that of Coles, the Australian supermarket chain, which recently received a flurry of media criticism for its ‘Sports for Schools’ program. This promotion offered consumers vouchers when they shopped at the supermarket, which the local schools would collect and exchange for sports equipment. The purpose of the programme, according to the Coles website was to ‘encouraging active, healthy lifestyles for Australian kids.’
Unfortunately for Coles, this is not the way their campaign has been viewed. In a recent video by The Australian newspaper, journalist Simon Canning talks about how ‘philanthropy’ was transformed into ‘brainwashing of kids’.Furthermore, the programme lacks consideration on how the programme will create the desired impact – giving sports equipments to schools doesn’t mean that more students take up sports, or that the less sporty children will use the new equipment. An even more farfetched inference is that just giving sports equipment will make children’s lifestyles healthier. Coles showed a lack of thought as to what problem it wanted to tackle, and how it could best use its assets to do so.
Corporate and social responsibility can go a long way to tackling pressing issues, and can also greatly enhance a brand’s image. However, it needs to be pursued with knowledge of the issues that are to be addressed, who the beneficiaries are and how the programmes will result in tangible impact. Corporations must become more creative in applying their own expertise and workforce to addressing social problems, as opposed to just handing over money. This way, consumers will believe that the company is genuinely concerned about doing good and not merely interested in boosting its brand.
Blog
Corporate Social Responsibility, Beyond Cheque Writing and Donations
Corporate philanthropy has the ability to boost a brand’s image and its attractiveness to consumers, but done half-heartedly it can result in negative press and scepticism. Two recent examples prove this point.
IKEA recently announced a $62m donation to the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, which is a very generous donation and should be celebrated. However in a recent article in The Guardian, author Zahid Torres-Rahman questions whether this is over-simplifying the issue of overcrowding refugee camps and suggests that IKEA could have used its expertise and purchasing power to make much more of an impact. For example, IKEA could look to increase its sourcing from local enterprises in the region, or mobilise its global customer base to increase their awareness and action in support of refugees. These longer-term initiatives are what will eventually bring about more favourable policies and economic opportunities for poor families, and are far more valuable than a cash donation that faces the risk of bureaucracy and corruption.
Another example is that of Coles, the Australian supermarket chain, which recently received a flurry of media criticism for its ‘Sports for Schools’ program. This promotion offered consumers vouchers when they shopped at the supermarket, which the local schools would collect and exchange for sports equipment. The purpose of the programme, according to the Coles website was to ‘encouraging active, healthy lifestyles for Australian kids.’
Unfortunately for Coles, this is not the way their campaign has been viewed. In a recent video by The Australian newspaper, journalist Simon Canning talks about how ‘philanthropy’ was transformed into ‘brainwashing of kids’. Furthermore, the programme lacks consideration on how the programme will create the desired impact – giving sports equipments to schools doesn’t mean that more students take up sports, or that the less sporty children will use the new equipment. An even more farfetched inference is that just giving sports equipment will make children’s lifestyles healthier. Coles showed a lack of thought as to what problem it wanted to tackle, and how it could best use its assets to do so.
Corporate and social responsibility can go a long way to tackling pressing issues, and can also greatly enhance a brand’s image. However, it needs to be pursued with knowledge of the issues that are to be addressed, who the beneficiaries are and how the programmes will result in tangible impact. Corporations must become more creative in applying their own expertise and workforce to addressing social problems, as opposed to just handing over money. This way, consumers will believe that the company is genuinely concerned about doing good and not merely interested in boosting its brand.