posted on: Monday, June 01, 2009

In the Summer issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, Dr. Angela Eikenberry addresses the growing field of consumer-driven philanthropy (e.g. the Product Red campaign supported by The Gap, Apple, and Starbucks). “The Hidden Costs of Cause Marketing” details the ways in which such campaigns actually weaken the social fabric of philanthropy. The article is well worth the full read.

Consumption philanthropy, as Dr. Eikenberry calls it, serves the dual purpose of promoting a product and providing some social benefit through charitable donation. It is highly accessible and convenient; simply by choosing to buy one type of yogurt over another, consumers can easily donate to the causes they deem important. However, despite the success of cause marketing, she warns:

“Consumption philanthropy individualizes solutions to collective social problems, distracting our attention and resources away from the neediest causes, the most effective interventions, and the act of critical questioning itself. It devalues the moral core of philanthropy by making virtuous action easy and thoughtless. And it obscures the links between markets—their firms, products, and services—and the negative impacts they can have on human well-being. For these reasons, consumption philanthropy compromises the potential for charity to better society” (Emphasis added).

Take the example of water. Some bottled water companies donate clean water in developing countries based on the number of bottles of their water consumed in the West. A consumer chooses the brand that donates clean water and feels good knowing that she is helping someone across the world access a basic necessity. However, the consumer is still using a disposable plastic bottle and she is still contributing to the depletion of limited resources by choosing the bottle of water taken from a spring rather than filling her own re-useable cup or bottle. Cause marketing does not challenge her to think about the consequences of consumption; it instead rewards her. And when that consumer receives a solicitation seeking funds to build wells in a developing country, she is less inclined to give, feeling she has already done her part through her consumption habits.

The passive giving of cause marketing as secondary to consumption stands in stark contrast to the Dr. Eikenberry’s report on giving circles Lisa Ranghelli wrote about earlier this month. Giving circles allow people of moderate means to pool their money and have a greater impact on and deeper understanding of the causes they care about.

While highly successful campaigns have raised millions of dollars and attracted the attention of celebrities, it detaches people from the purpose of philanthropy: to provide collective solutions to social problems. As nonprofit organizations around the country struggle to cope with the current recession and increasing need, cause marketing deserves a critical look.