A few years ago I invited a friend who worked for a Christian development agency to come and speak at the theological college at which I was a student. She did a good job presenting the work of her organisation, and was generally well received. Mostly. One element of her talk fell flat with the students. The agency in question were looking to launch a new clothes line. The idea being that a proportion of the profits would got to the poor. Now this wasn’t just fair trade – but a step on from that. The general thrust of the logic as that people are basically consumerist, and like to buy stuff, so why not give them the option of buying stuff that also helps the poor. Shop for the poor as it were. Various objections were raised. I generally felt uncomfortable with idea at the time but couldn’t quite pin down why – after all it’s not that different to taxes going to fund social security or third world aid.
Bono had the same idea as my friend and a 18 months ago RED was launched, on a far grander scale than a Christian NGO could manage. Linking up with companies such as AMEX, GAP, and Apple to create a brand of products a proportion of the profits of which go to help fund Aids treatment in Africa. It appears at first sight to be win, win, win, win. The companies involved gain an extra revenue stream, consumers get guilt free luxury purchase, someone in Africa gets affordable healthcare, and a wealthy pharmaceutical makes more money.
I think you can sense my objections.
The RED website claims that due to ‘(RED) purchases, our partners’ (PRODUCT) RED contributions to the Global Fund have reached over $50 million. (RED) money is already at work as part of Global Fund grants in Rwanda, Swaziland and Ghana, funding programs with a primary focus on the health of women and children.’
And surely that must be a good thing?
Well not if the New Internationalist is right, and to raise that 50 million dollars they spent 100 million on promotion.
Corporate Watch hi-light some of the other problems with these kind of schemes:
Increasingly, nonprofit experts are beginning to question one of the fastest-growing sectors of giving, the practice of building a donation into the purchase of items as varied as fine jewelry and Always feminine products. They point out that such giving is unregulated and, in most cases, unaccountable — and no one knows who, if anyone, is claiming a tax deduction for it.
“It’s virtuousness as a marketing gimmick run amok,” said Lucy Bernholz, founder and president of Blueprint Research and Design, a consulting firm for nonprofit organizations, who has coined the term “embedded giving” to describe the phenomenon. “The potential for it to be a scam is huge.”
In many cases, charities and their corporate partners are unwilling to discuss the specifics of their embedded-giving programs, declining to answer questions about how much is raised and even where exactly the money is going.
Net result of these kinds of schemes? It’s hard to tell, but any offsetting profits against tax means less many going towards government funded initiatives (and the government funding is the largest source of international aid). Similarly the danger is that is you consider your shopping as a form of giving then you are less likely to give to charity directly. And finally, to be honest the whole notion is just plain tacky, ‘you have a new ipod and you have helped save a persons life’ declares RED’S site.
If you want an ipod buy an ipod. If you are going to buy one anyway, it may as well be RED, but lets not kid ourselves that these schemes are going to change the world or end poverty in our life time. Do the right thing and take some time out and sit down and carefully work out a program of planned giving to charities you believe in. And if you want to support Bono’s initiative without buying into the consumerist thing make a donation here – www.buylesscrap.org
Recent Comments