Two interesting ideas that stuck with me after a couple of our recent readings, are whether or not big businesses donating to causes that they also benefit from, and companies that donate to help repair or better their image should be considered philanthropy. This got me thinking about whether or not these kinds of philanthropy should still be considered philanthropy or something else entirely. I began to struggle with the idea that large companies may only be donating to causes because it suits them or they need to fix their image after something negative about their company is made public, and that they are not donating because they are invested in the cause. Something about that idea does not seem right to me, and it does not seem philanthropic at all. However, at the end of the day these companies are still donating large sums of money to organizations that are helping various causes, which is why it is hard to say outright that it should not count as philanthropy
To try and understand the issue better, I did some research and read a few articles related to my questions. One Time.com article illustrated that most corporate philanthropy does in fact benefit the company donating in one way or another. The benefits can look like a company donating to a senator’s cause in order to help the company get better legislation or supporting other charitable organizations that will benefit the company in the long run. However, while the Time article acknowledged this connection, the main point is that in the end there is still a lot of money being donated which benefits society. With this point I mainly agree, and think that it is okay for corporations to donate to causes that can benefit them because in the end money is still going to a good cause. While it may not seem like the best kind of philanthropy, it is still nonetheless philanthropy and helps good causes.
What I do have a problem with, however, is when companies donate to causes to try and fix their image after a scandal has broken about them. Another article from Entrepreneur.com discusses how corporations can often donate money to causes to get rid of bad press and fix their image often at the behest of their lawyers. The article argues that this is not a good use of philanthropy, and I agree that this is not how philanthropy should be used. I do not think philanthropy should be about just donating to fix a reputation, but rather actually being passionate about the cause you are donating too. It is again hard to not label this as philanthropy because a lot of money is still being donated.However, While I do think it is okay for companies to donate to causes that benefit them, I still think that philanthropy should be a force for good and one that created positive outcomes rather than just a half hearted attempt to fix the public relations of a company. I want to know what others in the class think about the different forms of philanthropy. Do you think that if a corporation donates money to a cause that will benefit them that it should still count as philanthropy? Also if a company is just donating money to fix their reputation should that also count as philanthropy?
Semantics matter. I think you bring up an excellent point with this argument. If I give $40 to a charity I like, is it really the same as a problematic pharmaceutical or oil company donating millions for political advancement, or to cover up public relation damages? Philanthropy is often closely related to the term social responsibility, but if a corporation is responsible to egregious misconduct and damage to the American public, can they really be thought of this way?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Freakonomics podcast entitled “The Most Vilified Industry in America Is Also the Most Charitable,” the pharmaceutical industry is the most economically charitable industry. This is a sector of the economy that has been very damaging. They often use their givings to get tax exemptions, political influence, social coverage, or moral licensing, which is the theory that doing good allows you to also do bad. One must question the motives of these corporations and consider if this increased monetary control over others may actually lead to more harmful consequences later on. While I agree with you that there may be benefits in the meantime, I also wonder what will happen when a bill comes up that would help the business but hurt the most vulnerable in society. I worry that the corporation’s political influence that was gained through charitable givings may actually lead to more destructive and indelible results for the public.
If corporate philanthropy is all about giving back to improve society, why wouldn’t they start out with eliminating inequalities and societal harms from their own industries, whether that be the effects of climate change, unfair labor practices, or unaffordable drug prices? When we talk about the philanthropy of corporations or the extremely wealthy, we often do it in a way that ignores their flaws and negative impacts. However, if we rename certain types of philanthropic givings, we can acknowledge that their financial support, but also their potential damages. The current Oxford dictionary definition of philanthropy is “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.” I do not think that companies like Purdue Pharma and Wells Fargo really deserve the acknowledgement of being philanthropic since they have undisputedly harmed human welfare through their methods. I do not yet know what this new term will be, but hopefully upcoming activists will find an accurate, descriptive phrase for it, because like the Orwellian theory of newspeak, once we name it, we will be able to better understand and combat it. Corporations should feel a social responsibility to give, but they should also feel pressured to be responsible in their everyday practices. Until a company follows that model, until they promote the welfare of others through their actual business dealings, their givings cannot be defined as truly philanthropic.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/most-vilified-industry/
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/philanthropy
I personally believe that when it comes to philanthropy, the motive is not important. All that matters is how much the donations are helping the causes. If someone asked me whether I approved more of a $100,000 donation with no benefits to the person donating or a $200,000 donation with some sort of benefit to the person donating, I would choose the latter every time. We cannot expect everyone's motives for donating to be completely pure. I understand why you may have a problem with companies engaging in philanthropy only to fix their public image. I too think it is not admirable for these corporations to donate solely to fix bad press. However, it is important to put that aside and remember how much good these donations can accomplish.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, it is unproductive to pass judgement to large corporations for having their own self-interest.] Many of these companies have a significant storage of money from their business operations. This means that they have a huge potential for philanthropic donations. When we judge these corporations for donating, they may become less likely to share their wealth with non-profits in the future since they lack an incentive. The better these businesses do, the more money they have to give to nonprofits of their choice. According to Charity Navigator, corporations donated a significant $20.77 billion to charitable organizations in 2017. The benefits of these donations to our society can not be understated. Whatever reasons they may have for donating, it does not matter. All that is relevant, in my opinion, is that the nonprofit organizations are funded one way or another so they can continue to do good.
What I do have an issue with, is when corporations do more bad to society than good, and attempt to cover up their greed with philanthropy. If corporations simply had non-pure motives and donated to non-profits, I would not have a problem. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Many of these corporations do significant damage to our environment, economy, and society as a whole. The good from the philanthropy is outweighed by the damage they cause. It is hard to label a corporation as "philanthropic" when they are an overall hindrance to our society. As long as a corporation does more good than bad, I believe that the motivations for philanthropy should not matter.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42
- Christian Sayage
In Judaism, there is a concept of the eight levels of charity. The lowest form is when someone gives unwillingly, and the level directly above that is when someone gives inadequately but with a smile, and I think what you write about is clearly geared towards pointing out that many corporations give in those lower two levels. When they give, they do so after being forced and it is usually in amounts wholly inadequate in respect to the resources a company could use to donate.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with what Christian said above about how it is unproductive to pass judgement on the philanthropic work of companies, it is incredibly important to attempt to incentivize these companies to give more willingly and in greater amounts. Giving is something that should not be done unwillingly, but with an open mind.
As for whether corporations giving to causes that benefit themselves should be called philanthropy, I think that is a question I struggle with constantly because in my mind, philanthropy should be about altruistic goals, not selfish ones. But at the same time, they are performing good works. It is something that needs to be discussed and I am glad you brought the question up. I would love for the class to discuss this further because it is not something I have come to grips with at all and it is something that must be brought to light in an open forum.
My views on the questions you raise are similar to those of Christian, as I believe that whenever corporations donate money to charitable causes, this constitutes philanthropy. When thinking about whether or not companies donating money to repair their public image constitutes philanthropy, I began thinking deeper about how remarkable this concept is. In the strictest sense, a corporation is a business that has one main goal--to maximize profits at all (reasonable) costs, to be later distributed to its owners (shareholders). If corporations operated in the strictest sense, they would never give money to charities, because that money could be given instead to shareholders or put back into business operations. The fact that many corporations recognize corporate social responsibility, and feel obligated to maintain a positive public image, speaks to the power that we all have as consumers. The fact that corporations increasingly care about their public image speaks to the progress we've made as a society, as consumers demand more now from businesses than ever before. For example, many consumers specifically choose to support environmentally-conscious companies like Patagonia. So, while we may not like that corporations don't always donate to charities due to "pure" motives, we should consider and appreciate the role our motives play in their philanthropic acts.
ReplyDeleteThere is a case to be made about the importance of motives in relation to philanthropy, however. In the reading by Jamil Zaki, he explains how giving out of empathy reinforces peoples' kindness, and that when people experience positive emotions after donating to a charity, they are more likely to donate again in the future. Zaki even references a study that connects continued charitable acts to increased lifespans. Therefore, while we all recognize that corporations donating money to charities is better than them not donating, this type of philanthropy is not ideal. I believe that the personal, emotional benefits of philanthropy--that move billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates to give away much of their wealth, and everyday citizens to make continual small donations to organizations they are passionate about--are its lifeblood. Without these benefits, philanthropy loses its human touch.
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteI thought your thoughts and points on this topic were valid, but I realized to accurately answer the questions you pose at the end of your post I needed to define ‘philanthropy’. Can donations only be labeled philanthropy if it is done on one’s own accord? Does it have to be done by an individual, or does a massive group such as a Wall Street bank have the capacity for philanthropy?
According to Google, philanthropy is “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.” I would agree with this definition; philanthropy in and of itself is the giving of money because one wishes to promote or repair an aspect of society. However, if this is to be my definition of philanthropy then I have to disagree with you on one point. When a corporation donates to an organization despite said organization directly benefiting the company, I think it comes off more as a deal rather than the company giving because it wants to advocate for a cause.
This does mean, though, that if a company decides to donate a sum of money for the good publicity, then it is still philanthropy. The company decides that there’s a cause they want to support and they donate, and even though the main aim is good publicity they are still generously donating to a good cause in hopes of promoting welfare. On the other hand, if a corporation uses philanthropy as a means of “covering up” their mistakes, I agree with you that that would not constitute as real philanthropy.
Overall a really interesting topic that you picked!
- Sara Baldwin
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteI've often wondered about this myself. I feel like sometimes, people give because they want to help, and others give because they have to. I had a friend of mine when we were growing up that whenever he would get in trouble, his mom would force him to donate his allowance money to an organization. While it's nice that the organization will be getting money to help their cause, it comes at the hands of someone who misbehaved. Had he behaved and never gotten his allowance money taken away from him by his parents, would my friend still have donated the money? Or, would he have just kept it- as allowances typically go- and spent it down the line on something he wanted? Knowing my friend personally, he very likely would've done the latter.
However, I know there are people out there who donate their allowance money every week or so (depending on how often they get allowance) to various causes. I once saw a story on the news of a 4-year old boy named Austin who spent every allowance he got on food and drinks to give out to homeless people (I'm attaching a link to the video at the bottom if anyone is interested). It's these kind of people who genuinely want to donate and be philanthropic.
So how does donating your allowance equate to these big name companies giving away money? Think of it this way: my friend who lost his allowance money for misbehaving is the type of company that would donate to cover up some scandal and/or try to push bad news out of light, whereas Austin would be the type of company to donate because they want to. In the end, it's fair to assume that we all would prefer Austin over my friend, since Austin willingly is philanthropic with his money. But in the end, both stories end the same way: someone gives money to someone who needs it.
People should want to be philanthropic, but sometimes, being forced to be philanthropic can inspire a desire to continue philanthropy willingly. When Budweiser donated $100,000 worth of water to those affected by the hurricane in Houston, many thought it was very gracious of them. What some people might not know was that in the Super Bowl, Budweiser advertised how they did this, and the commercial to advertise their philanthropic act cost them $5 Million. Why did Budweiser feel the need to show off how good their act was and spend much more doing that than they did on the good act itself? Because they are another example of a big name company that wants to just be in the news in a positive light to increase business.
I hope there is a day where big name companies, and even childhood friends, can be philanthropic willingly, and not because they have to like Budweiser and my childhood friend. We need more Austin's in the world who show the true meaning of philanthropy.
- Matthew Sturm
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing your blog post on this topic. I think this is an issue that has come up a lot in class, and it's worthy of discussion. I really appreciate what Eli had to say about Jewish philosophy. By breaking philanthropy into tiers, I feel it is easier to accept giving while remaining critical. One of the arguments often made (and one I’ve even made myself) is that giving for a selfish reason is still giving, and its better than not giving at all. That being said, it is better to give for selfless reasons, but the idea is that we can somehow build to that. We can start by encouraging giving of any kind, and then support more vocally altruistic giving. While we can criticize selfish giving, it is important that we don’t diminish it too much as to eliminate this form of giving.
I also appreciate what Hannah said about how semantics matter. In this sense, I want to argue a distinction between philanthropy and charity. In my opinion, charity is any form of donation to a cause. If it’s tax deductible, it’s charity. If it’s a donation, it’s charity. If it’s helping a non-profit, it’s charity. However, I feel like philanthropy holds more weight. Philanthropy is a philosophy of giving. It is about improving the lives of others simply out of a desire to help. I agree with Sara that donations and charity can be transactional- a company benefits directly from some form of charitable giving. True philanthropy, one of the highest tiers in the Jewish philosophy I mentioned, is giving without knowing the recipient, without claiming publicity for the donation, and without expecting anything in return.
Charity is a difficult subject. Some people choose to be humble, others want their name on a building. Some drop in loose change, others write big checks. One important take away for me from this class is seeing these different forms of giving. As cliché as it sounds, charity exists in all shapes and sizes. Let’s continue to be thoughtful and critical about these different aspects of giving, but above all else, let’s keep giving.
--
Becca