Someone found a way to piggyback charity on top of business operations. If that equation changes the charity is going away and the business operations are staying.
Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.
If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.
It’s just as much the case someone in marketing found a way to use their company for charity, as it is that a business found a way to use charity for marketing.
If a little girl‘s puppy needs to get to the vet and the only vehicle I have is an armored personnel carrier, I’m gonna drive that vehicle to take the puppy to the vet. Not because it’s the best vehicle for the job, but because it’s the vehicle I have.
For some people, their vehicle for helping charities is the company they work for. They have to find a way that works with the constraints of that vehicle. In a business, one of those constraints is “it has to help the bottom line”.
Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.
So you’re saying the ends are what is important, not the reason the action was taken?
To me, there’s an important philosophical question here – if the right action (or a demonstrably good action) is taken, does it matter why? I think it does.
Let’s say my neighbor doesn’t maintain their property – they don’t mow or clean the landscaping. I decide to do this for them on my own, with their permission of course. There is a difference if I’m doing this to be a good neighbor, as opposed to making sure the neighborhood looks good because I’m selling my house. My actions are the same in both cases, as are the effects and side effects – only the motivation differs. Therefore that motivation deserves to be interrogated and explored.
If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.
I don’t see myself as a pessimist, but I’ll admit this observation is probably correct.
They’re betting that it will change behavior.
Someone found a way to piggyback charity on top of business operations. If that equation changes the charity is going away and the business operations are staying.
Kum & Go isn’t a charity, yet they found a way to go from zero charitable activity to nonzero. That’s a plus.
If you honestly see that as a negative, you should take it as a wake-up call that you’re using an irrationally pessimistic lens to view the world.
It’s just as much the case someone in marketing found a way to use their company for charity, as it is that a business found a way to use charity for marketing.
If a little girl‘s puppy needs to get to the vet and the only vehicle I have is an armored personnel carrier, I’m gonna drive that vehicle to take the puppy to the vet. Not because it’s the best vehicle for the job, but because it’s the vehicle I have.
For some people, their vehicle for helping charities is the company they work for. They have to find a way that works with the constraints of that vehicle. In a business, one of those constraints is “it has to help the bottom line”.
So you’re saying the ends are what is important, not the reason the action was taken?
To me, there’s an important philosophical question here – if the right action (or a demonstrably good action) is taken, does it matter why? I think it does.
Let’s say my neighbor doesn’t maintain their property – they don’t mow or clean the landscaping. I decide to do this for them on my own, with their permission of course. There is a difference if I’m doing this to be a good neighbor, as opposed to making sure the neighborhood looks good because I’m selling my house. My actions are the same in both cases, as are the effects and side effects – only the motivation differs. Therefore that motivation deserves to be interrogated and explored.
I don’t see myself as a pessimist, but I’ll admit this observation is probably correct.