Occasionally, companies opt to inflate their corporate citizenship footprint for their own benefit. Several organizations utilize mass media platforms, such as billboards and television advertisements to convey their purported philanthropy to their consumers. One of the key reasons they do this is to enhance their corporate reputation among consumers. Indeed, consumers are more willing to associate themselves with socially responsible organizations that give back to society as they are more relatable and endearing to them. Companies often take advantage of this to generate good public relations through inflated corporate citizenship footprints. In addition, companies often do this to increase their competitive advantage in the marketplace because a commendable corporate citizenship footprint facilitates customer loyalty and customer acquisition, which bolsters a company’s competitive edge (Burke & Logsdon, 1996 ).
Socially responsible companies use various avenues to impact the society and other relevant parties, including non-profit groups who share common interests with the beneficiaries. Notably, this is an ethical practice that is efficient in creating a positive social impact and leaving a valid corporate social responsibility footprint. The central goal for any of a company’s donations should be to benefit its employees and community fully. Using a non-profit organization ensures that all the donated funds go towards the betterment of the intended beneficiaries without incurring unnecessary expenses (Husted, 2003). Ideally, it is ethical because it does not cheat the public out of a part of the designated donations by using a philanthropy-oriented organization. Additionally, working in a non-profit organization with similar interests and visions ensures a streamlined and unbiased approach in trying to aid the community and other relevant parties. Such a non-profit organization comprehends the needs and demands of the intended beneficiaries, which is instrumental in delivering quality social reforms and assistance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
While a company is free to do whatever it desires with its profits, it has a social responsibility that it needs to uphold. Many senior executives use funds designated as company donations for their pet projects and other selfish interests. In essence, it is highly unethical for an organization to redirect its donations to the benefit of a few rather than the community or lower-level employees. While it is still a valid donation, it does not qualify as corporate social responsibility if it does not trickle down to other relevant beneficiaries. Moreover, not many senior executives are in tune with the demands and needs of their employees and community as would nonprofit organizations. Therefore, it creates an ineffective corporate social responsibility approach even when executives opt to give to society. Also, it is unethical since such donations to executives can only foster a good individual image rather than a socially responsible corporate image, which is a disservice to any organization.
Every company seeks to promote growth and subsequently increase its profitability over time. Therefore, if an increasingly profitable company donates a fixed percentage of its pre-tax profits, it would mean that this amount would increase in a directly proportional manner. This would be a more convincing corporate social responsibility commitment by an organization than funding various projects. Setting aside a fixed donation amount for various projects may not accurately reflect the growing demands and needs of the community with time (Wulfson, 2001). Besides, since a company gains more profitability from an increasing consumer base and purchases, it would only be logical to give back more to them as their profits increase. Primarily, this would show the community the commitment of the company to grow with them reciprocally. Also, donating a designating a fixed amount of pretax profits as donations would mirror the company’s commitment and strive to make profit, which subsequently benefits a community directly or indirectly.
There are several ways that an effectively managed donation program benefits an organization and guarantees strong returns ( Ghillyer, 2012 ). It is important to note that one of the key assets of any organization is its employees. Therefore, having donation programs that benefit or positively impact an organization’s employees could increase their morale and loyalty to the company. Consequently, this helps in improving employees’ productivity, which makes a company more productive and profitable in the long run ( Hansen, Dunford, Boss, Boss, & Angermeier, 2011 ). In addition, such contribution programs could be pivotal in instilling a reputable company culture in the employees, which may promote a good image of them to the community. Particularly, well-managed contribution programs are instrumental in shaping a good reputation of an organization in the community it operates. A great public image would be beneficial to a company in that it facilitates customer loyalty and new customer acquisition, which help to increase a company’s sales and profits. More importantly, such programs make a company’s corporate citizenship footprint more perceivable. Socially responsible companies incur less expenses on advertising and customer acquisition because their impact on the automatically community increases their brand’s awareness.
Some companies donate more than the recommended 1% of their pretax profits to contribution programs. Two such companies are General Mills and Target that donate five times more than the minimum requirement. Doing this makes them five times more socially responsible as they sacrifice more of their profits for the community’s betterment. Indeed, it is not obligatory for companies for any company to exceed the minimum recommendation let alone meet it. Being very highly profitable companies, even 1% of their pretax profit is significantly higher than larger percentages of other companies’ profits. Therefore, even giving 1% would be a great sign of corporate social responsibility that would greatly exceed that of many companies quantity-wise. Thus, giving five times more than the minimum requirement makes them five times more responsible socially and other companies should seek to emulate them.
References
Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long-Range Planning , 29 (4), 495-502.
Ghillyer, A. (2012). Business Ethics Now . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics , 102 (1), 29-45.
Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: To contribute,
collaborate or internalize?. Long Range Planning , 36 (5), 481-498.
Wulfson, M. (2001). The ethics of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic ventures.
Journal of Business Ethics , 29 (1-2), 135-145.
