Your indulgence is appreciated

Doing good by purchasing stuff sounds too good to be true, doesn't it?

CONSUMERISM ENTAILS MANY THINGS. It implies environmental strain, financial indiscretion and, perhaps worse of all, selfcentred hedonism. But what if you could do good while you indulged your need to own more? What if every purchase of yours could benefit someone less fortunate? What if consumerism and altruism became, for once, two sides of the same coin?

The market is rife with folks peddling this idea. Toms comes to mind. The company brands itself as a movement

‒ to do good, obviously ‒ and promises donations to various causes when you purchase their products. Shoes for kids without them. Clean water for those lacking access. Programmes to address school bullying. It is hardly alone in touting social responsibility as a key pillar of its identity.

I believe social responsibility is important for any company, and that they should all adhere to that medical ethics principle: first, do no harm. What I’m uncomfortable with is how brands make these “initiatives” integral to their marketing message, when the programmes themselves cannot ‒ or choose not to ‒ stand up to scrutiny. You could try looking a little deeper into them, whether via their annual reports or external ones, but you won’t see much for most of them.

My favourite example is Product Red, which has partnered with brands including Gap, Converse, Giorgio Armani, Nike, and Apple. These brands create special collections of products that bear Red’s signature hue and logo, which are then sold with a simple message about tackling HIV and AIDS in Africa. The message may be vague, but it’s clear enough for consumers to connect the dots on their own ‒ buy this product, and you’re helping to alleviate the scourge of AIDS in Africa.

Reality is a little more nuanced. Product Red is actually a brand. Other brands pay a licensing fee to use it on their products, ostensibly because they can increase their revenues with Red’s branding. In exchange, however, part of their profits (there’s no fixed percentage) are channelled to another entity ‒ the Global Fund ‒ a non-profit organisation that finances programmes that tackle HIV, malaria and tuberculosis.

Several issues immediately present themselves. (Some have been discussed online, so indulge me here.) For a start, donations to the Global Fund are based on profits, with no fixed percentage on how much to contribute. You could be buying something, feeling good about it, but make minimal impact, so what’s the point? The advertising dollars spent on promoting Redbranded products is another thorny issue. Although estimates vary (no thanks to the lack of transparency), the general consensus is that brands will create more impact had they made direct donations, because the money spent is often disproportionate to the effects. Still, no brand will pass up on some publicity, especially when it concerns an issue like the fight against AIDS.

If that's not enough, consider how things are further obfuscated once these donations are factored into tax filings and treated as charitable tax deductions. Here's the final nail in the coffin: social programmes typically require sustained investments over periods of several years. Do you really want companies that are subject to the whims of owners or shareholders to be running them?

I'm all for helping the disadvantaged, but I want more transparency. For-profit entities should be taxed to help them, because mixing the two often confuses the beneficiary from the benefactor. AM