Companies and charitable policy (Naim and others)

We have a simple policy to treat all such company policy statements with scepticism.  IME they tend to be like company mission statements & probably better called a general direction statement with the proviso if profit objectives are met first.  As a result we do not seek out charity supporting companies over others.   

Charity begins at home & as a result we try whenever possible to buy produce that is local first, then GB produced,  then fair trade. Likewise with hard goods I would buy a product that is GB made over others if (IF) the choice was a balanced one.   

Slightly drifting off subject,  we positively avoid supermarkets as much as possible.  Their statements over supporting local & fair trade producers is not much more than words.  They force rock bottom pricing & that causes s a lot of issues. I've seen & experienced it at the sharp end in both local & overseas farms. 

With charities we support directly those that we choose after a positive selection process.  That way most of the money goes where we want it to.  But even then I get mad with some of them because of their wasteful marketing; mail shots, phone calls & adversing costs money,  but some seem to be a little OTT & spend some of my contribution in doing so.   

I share a degree of scepticism but some companies do have proven track records at this stuff, either in charitable works, sustainability or perhaps recycling policy. Ethical consumer guides exist, as well as well researched ethical investments. Cynicism can be an excuse for doing nothing too.

I ran a charity for several years and we had a very significant donation from the large local employer (Skipton Building Society and its subsidiaries) and I am aware they have a very large budget for all sorts of small-medium scale charitable works in this community, most of which they do very quietly. I don't know if that is different to other companies in the sector but I do know it is impressive.

Bruce

If a company was donating to charity out of what would otherwise be their profit, I might consider favouring that company with my business.

If, OTOH, a company was going to have to increase its selling price in order to donate to a charity, I might consider taking my business elsewhere.

I simply prefer to choose myself which charities to support and which not.

I appreciate that if ALL companies increased their prices and donated to charity, then a greater part of our population would become "charity donators". I would prefer this to be organised by the government through taxation.

Cheers

Don

I always look not just at charitable donations/sponsorship but at a commpany's ethical policies in general.

I believe Naim has very strong ethical policies. It has just never enunciated them either singly or in terms of the ethics informing them.

Companies are driven by financials.  If a company appears to embrace charity more than one of its competitors, then it is because they have made a conscious decision that by doing so, it will improve their image.  This can result in getting more business, but also helps to attract better employees.   Also, any time a company donates its products, and particularly overseas, it is primarily to raise awareness of its brand, and to improve its market presence and perception.

I work for a very large company that gives away hundreds of millions in grants each year, and these philanthropic efforts are clearly part of a larger business strategy.   And these cash and/or product donations are but a small portion of the overall effort, with most of the company's giving coming in the form of employee assistance.   Part of it is convenience, and part of it is peer pressure, but there is no doubt in my mind that the amount of time I give to charitable causes has increased due to company sponsorship.  My company makes it very easy to sign up to work for a weekend on a Habitat for Humanity home, or to assist at a Special Olympics event, or to simply donate through payroll deductions.   While the law prohibits any company from coercing its employees to participate as such, there is nothing to stop a company from advertising the names of people who do (again, a subtle, but effective form of peer pressure).

But honestly, I do not mind playing this game at all.  Every time I give to, or participate in a charitable event, I feel great about it.   I just don't want to be naive about it, as it is clear that by doing so, I am acting primarily in the best interests of my employer.   Overall, I would like to think that corporate sponsored giving does more good than harm, but it is tinged by a slight aura of elitism.  When a busload of folks from my company show up at a Habitat site, there is always a PR rep who puts up a banner with our logo, and takes pictures...

As a sales rep negotiating with customers, I have learned that charitable donations are occasionally a part of the cost of doing business.   Just a couple of years ago, I was called into a customer CFO's office and told, quite matter of factly, that if I didn't come up with $15k to sponsor a table at an upcoming reception dinner for a charitable golf event, then I would not be seeing a very large purchase order that I was expecting.  I asked if I could achieve the same goal through increased discount, and was told no.  It wasn't about the money.  It wasn't even about the charitable work.  It was all about power and leverage and appearances and politics.

As a consumer I probably do not pay enough attention to the ethical profiles of the companies I do business with.  Maybe I am a bit jaded by own company experience.  But I am lucky enough to have reached a stage of life where I can afford to pay a bit more, and feel better about, certain purchases.  Just yesterday I paid a premium for a new (to me) brand of coffee beans from "...Mexico [that] are grown by Maya Indian farmers following traditional principles of sustainable agriculture that create a healthier product as well as a healthier environment...".   Felt great about about the purchase.  Maybe 10% of my satisfaction was because of who I was buying from (mail-ordered, distributor direct), but 90% of it was because the coffee tasted really good.   If money were tighter, I would not think twice about buying the least expensive brand (from whatever factory) that tasted half decent.

Hook

Paul answered this on a thread posted by Marc Newman, within the last year I think.

Chris

My buying choices are not influenced by an organisation's atttitude towards charitable giving.

After Bill Gates announced he is giving $1bn(USD) to the global vaccination fund,  I am more open minded about upgrading to Win 7,  in fact its just a matter of a short time & it will be done.  

Might be even more positive if we had a plan to control the population tho'

Its not disease that will be the problem in just too few years in the future   

Mike,

I agree with the idea of a global plan to manage a population reduction. I can't see it happening though and I rather fear we will be involved in overt global warfare over diminishing resources within the next 20 years.

Bill Gates considers that with more healthy children in the developing world, mothers will elect to have fewer children and hence, over time, these populations will reduce in rate of growth - but they will also reduce in infant mortality and their expectations for a better quality of life will put pressure on global resources. I agree with his ethics (and those of the UK Gov in funding vaccination) - but we do need to manage global resources and global populations as well. (IMHO)

Cheers

Don

101% agreed Don,  exactly my opinion also.

But did not want to open up on that & cause this thread to drift off into that old goat trail

Whilst better health, education and economic prosperity will probably lead to significantly falling birth rates this is an effect calculated to take generations to 'appear'. Many problems with population growth are a lot more urgent than that.

Bruce

PS Is Gates anything to do with Microsoft any more? I thought he had left the organisation completely to concentrate on his charitable work.

Acording to wikipeadia Gates is the non-executive chairman of MS (a part-time function) & is working full time on his Gates Foundation.  

However it seems full time might be a little misleading as he has fingers in a few pies - these are the listed ones so I guess there are a few more not listed

Chairman of MS

Chairman of Corbis (Gates private cmpy that mngs rights to photographic & other images)

Co-Chair of Bill & Milinda Gates Foundation

Director of Berkshire Hathaway (holding cmpy that buys & builds a diverse portfolio of subsidiary cmpys) 

CEO of Cascade Investment (diversified investments)

Hi Hook,

As a sales rep negotiating with customers, I have learned that charitable donations are occasionally a part of the cost of doing business.   Just a couple of years ago, I was called into a customer CFO's office and told, quite matter of factly, that if I didn't come up with $15k to sponsor a table at an upcoming reception dinner for a charitable golf event, then I would not be seeing a very large purchase order that I was expecting.

I am not casting judgement here but this would clearly contravene the Code of Conduct or ethical standards of many companies - it would certainly contravene mine (both asking for it and paying it).

I wont ask what you did in that particular circumstance.

Regards

Jim

Hi Jim -

Agreed 100%.   Unfortunately, it was a classic no-win situation.   We were in his office, the door was closed, and only the two of us were there.   If I didn't get the order, it would have cost me a ton of dough.   If I caved to his demand, then I would have set a terrible precedent for future business transactions.   And if I confronted the guy, and played the ethics card, I would have made a powerful enemy.

Thanks for being polite, and not asking what I did.  But I have no problem telling the rest of the story.  I told this CFO that I understood his request.   And then I ignored him, and hoped for the best.

There was no way I was going to get the funding approved.   All the marketing dollars were being spent on golf events with national and international exposure, and nothing left over for local events.

I think he may have been bluffing, because I did eventually get the order, and the subject never came up again.  In retrospect, I suppose it was possible that he was testing my character.  Who knows.  Decided the best thing to do was to keep the situation to myself...well, until now of course. 

Hook