The following post is in regards to the article in the link below:
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2010/ca20101214_945792.htm
This article talks about the power of giving and the social perception that people associate with philanthropic generosity. In specific, Mark Zuckerberg recently signed into the Buffet-Gates Giving Pledge which means he will donate half of his wealth over time. This is undoubtedly a selfless and kind gesture right? Maybe, but probably not. Not to belittle the extreme generosity of those who donate purely for the benefit of others, but usually there are ulterior motives behind the generosity.
For example, when a person or business has their reputation tarnished by some negative publicity and then that person/business turns around and donates money to some charity or participates in other philanthropic activities are they really being so generous or are they just covering for their faults? Is the gift or donation as well received if it is only in response to some fault previously incurred? This is an ethical issue that some people/businesses struggle with.
For a corporation, I believe the responsible/ethical action to be taken should be to donate indefinitely from the time of inception if that corporation ever expects to make donations or participate in other generous behavior as a result of negative publicity or corporate scandal. If the corporation doesn't think they need to be socially active in order to be successful and strive to achieve the underlying goal of a business which is to generate profit and increase the wealth of shareholders, then they shouldn't be viewed negatively or expected to be generous. It is hard to clearly articulate my thoughts on this issue in words, but hopefully you follow my meaning.
Do you think that all organizations and people should strive to be philanthropic and generous if circumstances allow it and should they act in such a manner as a result of wrongdoing?
Posted By: Grant Luther
I don't think corporations or organizations should start charities or donate money just because they've been in a recent scandal. If this is something the company truly wants to be apart of then they should do it with good intentions for all recipients and not just the face of their company or to salvage their image. It really makes the company look bad when they try to cover up their unethical behavior by all of sudden doing something good. In fact, I think is makes consumers/customers loose their respect for the company. In my opinion ethical and philanthropic behavior should be practiced loyally and honestly and not on a whim.
ReplyDeleteQuasheena Ellis (Group 2)
I think regardless of their intentions, corporations who donate are truly helping the less-fortunate and it is a nice gesture. Yes, sometimes companies do try and wipe out their bad name by giving very generous donations, but it is still a selfless act in itself and should be viewd in a positive manner. Who cares if the intentions were wrong? They still did a great thing because they knew that they needed to do something to balance out their actions.
ReplyDeleteYes, maybe some people view this as a negative, but how can you find a negative in something that helps out a charity, other company, or even helpless humans or animals? The way I see it, they knew that a recent scandal hurt their bad name and they wanted to make it right. Regardless of the intentions, something good happened and that's all.
Team 4,
Katelyn Fisher