Corporate Social Responsibility
![Picture](/uploads/1/1/5/9/11594383/868631350.jpg?332)
Image 12
Another aspect of the campaign that needs to be addressed is how Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plays a large role in businesses choosing to be involved with the (RED) campaign. The use of CSR dates back to the 1960’s when corporations would be on the outs for issues such as labor practices, product safety and bribery made their way into businesses, owners would need a way to make themselves look better. CSR was born so that businesses engaged in “social responsibility” in return for the issues they were having, as a way to give back other than from the focal point of their businesses (Ponte et al., 2009). In the 1980’s this act of CSR grew from a way of giving back to a part of the companies being. They began to create their business plans with CSR as an integral component. Gap Inc. is just one example of a company using CSR for their benefit. The company lists their commitments on the page where you can access issues such as ethics, employees, environmental protection and the communities where they function. Another important piece to the website especially CSR though is the fact that Gap releases a “Social Responsibility Report” for any viewer. The most current report is from 2009 but a consumer can find out a lot about a company through a report such as that. The purpose of the Gap is well defined on there website: “to make it easy for you to express your personal style throughout your life.” As you can see through the definition of CSR and also the Gap (a RED company and enormous CSR business) the purpose is parallel with the ideas of social responsibility outlined earlier. Using CSR helps companies to bring in new, unique consumers. As for this specific campaign, it is vital to reveal that (RED) is what corporations would consider being “distant CSR.” They are under this category because of their lack of involvement with daily operations in the country. With the exception of Gap, none of the other companies actually construct their products in Africa, as well as the fact that the sale of these products isn’t a large one in the country. Regardless, CSR is a crucial piece to this campaign but in the scheme of things does not run it. The sole purpose of (RED) is to help the Africans with AIDS not employ the people of their country (Ponte et al., 2009).
Deeply rooted in part of CSR is a concept called cause-related marketing. This type of marketing has quickly made its way into CSR because of the need for companies to be philanthropists. This is a branch of social responsibility but effectively defines this campaign. It is also a concept from the latter years of the 20th century where the “marketing of a brand, company, product or service is tied directly to a social cause, most often with a proportion of the sales going to support the cause” (Ponte et al., 2009). (RED) is a form of cause related marketing, but differs from the true definition in the following ways: instead of “co-branding,” (RED) is an “umbrella brand” to which many different companies are represented. Next, (RED) is successfully working because of “sustainability.” This means that (RED) is making an impact, rather than just being another marketing campaign. Next, (RED) unites corporations with their need for CSR. Last, (RED) hopes to support a social cause that is further removed from consumers lives in that it helps to distantly save the lives of others, rather than at home (Ponte et al., 2009). Therefore in the case of (RED), the purchase of each product or service is sent directly to the Global Fund. As conferred about earlier, each company has different guidelines for how much they donate to the Fund. But in general for each company, we can expect that up to 50 percent of their profit from (RED) products will be turned over to the Global Fund (Farrell, 2012).
The organization is not quite a charity, although to a typical consumer it might feel like one. It is more what standards would consider a business model intended to generate money from within the private sector (Parpis, 2010). (RED) is a new form of corporate philanthropy in that it doesn’t quite fit the orthodox definitions for charity, business venture and cause-related marketing. Since it is not one of those typical projects, the (RED) company is not obligated to release many of the details of the company including the contracts with (RED) partners or the information concerning the Global Fund. Since the campaign takes on the name of business model rather than “cause,” they identify it as marketing strategy for the partners involved. This especially is identified because (RED) is not a one-time short event, when a (RED) partner signs the contract, they sign for three to five years. This goes back to CSR and how much more authentic a company appears when they make such a commitment. It is important to note how partners can become a part of the (RED) campaign, as they don’t accept very many companies. The partners initially pay a licensing fee in exchange for the right to add (RED) products to their lines (Farrell, 2012). On the website used to promote (RED) they explained that they seek partners who can capitalize on the return for the Global Fund. It is critical to understand that the company has to be the right fit for (RED) as well as vice versa. (RED) will accept proposals from anyone but they have to make it through such criteria that only companies currently involved have passed (joinred.com, 2012).
The organization is not quite a charity, although to a typical consumer it might feel like one. It is more what standards would consider a business model intended to generate money from within the private sector (Parpis, 2010). (RED) is a new form of corporate philanthropy in that it doesn’t quite fit the orthodox definitions for charity, business venture and cause-related marketing. Since it is not one of those typical projects, the (RED) company is not obligated to release many of the details of the company including the contracts with (RED) partners or the information concerning the Global Fund. Since the campaign takes on the name of business model rather than “cause,” they identify it as marketing strategy for the partners involved. This especially is identified because (RED) is not a one-time short event, when a (RED) partner signs the contract, they sign for three to five years. This goes back to CSR and how much more authentic a company appears when they make such a commitment. It is important to note how partners can become a part of the (RED) campaign, as they don’t accept very many companies. The partners initially pay a licensing fee in exchange for the right to add (RED) products to their lines (Farrell, 2012). On the website used to promote (RED) they explained that they seek partners who can capitalize on the return for the Global Fund. It is critical to understand that the company has to be the right fit for (RED) as well as vice versa. (RED) will accept proposals from anyone but they have to make it through such criteria that only companies currently involved have passed (joinred.com, 2012).
The web videos play a significant role in how the business operations run. In an article created by Eleftheria Parpis (2010), she clearly explains how the PSA with the celebrities was intended to help the business drive the point home. The celebrities are what the company likes to consider “friends of (RED).” This has helped the organization to produce the celebrity PSA and “The Lazarus Effect” at a reduced cost because of the benevolence of people associated with it. It has become a ripple effect for the company because the power of the (RED) network has reached so many different people. The company has stated that “The Lazarus Effect” is not only a documentary to reach out to consumers, but also a thank you to the corporate partners who have made this campaign so successful.
![Picture](/uploads/1/1/5/9/11594383/510260372.jpg)
Image 14
Even though this campaign has been successful on many different levels and has changed the way that philanthropy is looked at, there are still some issues with how it is run and what it stands for. A few researchers have taken to studying corporate philanthropy and specifically this campaign. In a study by Norma Anderson (2008), she discusses the ideas of objectification. She honestly states that (RED)’s mission simply revolves around objects. The total principle of the campaign is to get consumers to purchase the (RED) products. In the case of (RED), objectification indicates purchasers compassionate values in that they purchased a product and now they are saving the life of someone they don’t know. If we do the good deed of purchasing a product and then proceed to wear it, consumers are showing others their commitment to “equity, fairness and value for human life.” In a report written by Katarina Jungar and Elaine Salo (2008), they spoke to a woman who works at an orphanage in Montreal stated, “isn’t it pathetic that to get money from the rich you have to get them to buy something?” That question is a generalization as it is hard to say that all consumers want something in return for the money they are handing over. But for the most part society does expect some kind of hand out for a good deed. In the same regard, the authors also discuss the clear division of “us” the westerners and “them” Africans or as they said, “the saviors and the saved.” This brings together the documentary with the clichés that are behind it. Lazarus was lucky and was saved, just as the Africans are lucky if they are able to receive the pills daily and can turn their health around. In this case, the westerners are given power over the victims in that they can keep these people alive if they shop. The Africans are left powerless to the consumers because we are left believing that our goodwill will save them (Jungar and Salo, 2008). Regardless, any campaign or project will have flaws and low points but what matters is who has benefited from the money being spent, donated etc.