“In almost any gift-giving situation, there is some expectation of return, whether it is a tax deduction, a named building, or an enhanced reputation. That’s why anonymous gift giving is so rare. Giving always occurs within a social context that makes a gift reciprocal in nature. Perhaps corporations that give with some expectation of return are only being more strategic and explicit than predecessors who gave with equal expectations but said less about it – or who gave without planning. For a gift to be genuinely altruistic in nature, that is, for it to demonstrate other-centered love, it must have benefit to the recipient as its primary motive and purpose, but not necessarily its only motivation or purpose. Therefore, strategic or “smart” giving may be regarded as ethical.”
From: Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. Christians, Clifford. 2001.
I agree with the above statement, corporations that give to charity need to be recognized. The public is favorable towards those organizations that give more, even if they only appear to be giving more to make the corporations look good. If corporations were not allowed to gain recognition for their donations, charities would not benefit from significant amounts of needed donations that they get now. The recognition that corporations receive in society is an important moving factor when it comes to giving to charity.
For example, Home Depot helps Habitat for Humanity by donating materials from their stores to build homes. Home Depot is promoting its own products and be recognized for its donations at the same time. Home Depot should want to receive credit for its product use because it is the one contributing money from its profits. I do think this is strategically thinking, but for good reasons. Many people care about Habitat for Humanity and while Home Depot most likely cares, too, I am sure they know how good donating to the cause will make them look.
Another example is of Exxon/Mobile. This company donates large amounts of money to help protect tigers and their environment. Exxon’s corporate logo features a tiger. Although the corporation is supporting its logo through its association with tigers, the cause it is donating to is in the end good. If both the charity and the company can benefit by the company’s donation, both parties win. Once again, this is definitely strategic giving. I really doubt Exxon/Mobile truly cares for tigers. Exxon/Mobile is looking out for the reputation of the company.
A final example is JCPenney. JCPenney is a company that donates to charity. JCPenney supports non-profits organizations like the American Red Cross and DECA. In addition to giving money to these organizations, JCPenney has a charity of its own. The JCPenney Afterschool Fund is a charitable organization committed to providing children in need with access to after school programs that inspire them to be smart, strong, and socially responsible. During the year, the JCPenney Afterschool Fund’s Round-Up program invites customers to round-up their purchases to the next whole dollar and donate the difference to the Fund.As I said before, this is strategic giving. JCPenney is looking out for the reputation of the company, while still helping children.
