Can corporate social responsibility exist without brand image?

Photograph of consumers and familiar brands
Source: Own Personal Collection

The Question:
This post is more of a question rather than an answer, but I will give my own viewpoint. Although it may first appear that these two terms corporate social responsibility (CSR) and brand image are very similar, they do have different meanings. Corporate social responsibility, loosely, is where a firm or company does some social good that is not required by law. Brand image on the other hand is a way of marketing a good or service that is in line with their reputation or even 'personality' of a brand. So more clearly when I ask can we have corporate social responsibility without brand image is whether a firm will do some social good even if it is not (partly) in their own interests.
  

This question also raises the question of whether corporate social responsibility is intrinsically valuable or is instrumentally valuable. If it is intrinsically valuable then the social good that it creates is good in itself. If it is instrumentally valuable then the social good that it creates is only good if it serves another purpose such as having a positive effect on brand image (like a stepping stone.)So if its instrumentally valuable, then corporate social responsibility may only exist to serve the purpose of a brand image. Can we say that this is true, or does corporate social responsibility have a good in itself.
  

We commonly see CSR and this inevitably influences our decisions on what we buy, where we go and what services we choose. Some people choose to part with more of their money because they know that by buying that product they may be contributing to a 'social good.' This is inevitable. However, I ask, what if we do not know what good or bad firms do by making a product or offering a service, if we do not know whether product A or product B have done some social responsibility or not, would firms really invest into corporate responsibility.
  

If CSR is real then there must be a distinct and fundamental difference to brand image and marketing. That is to say if CSR was to exist, then firms and companies would still do some social good ( like sponsoring a charity or something along those lines.) They would simply do it because they want to give back to society, even if it does not change consumer decisions. If  not then it may be the case that CSR is a marketing tool that creates some social good as a result of trying to get customers to purchase their product or service.
  

The question, I think, remains open for discussion whether firms believe CSR is something worthwhile regardless of cost-benefit, whether CSR is just a way of building brand image or even something that is a combination of the two.

    

My answer:

I acknowledge that there are many different answers and counter arguments to what I say and I accept there will be, this is just what I think.
I believe that CSR cannot exist without brand image. I believe it is brand image that fuels many of the social goods that is generated. I do not regard this as a bad thing as, after all, we get the social good out of effective marketing management.
However, the reason why I do not believe that CSR would exist without brand image is that the firm would have to bear a lot of cost without getting any benefit. Though I believe that CSR cannot co-exist with there being no brand image, some social goods from firms would still arise though on a much smaller and infrequent periods ( to which I would rather describe them as 'donations.') I believe that the scale of CSR would not exist without brand image, even though firms may contribute from time to time.
 
An analogy I would like to make is to one of a volunteer. They volunteer X amount of hours a week, but if they volunteer an extra amount of Y hours then they will get an award and get recognised. Say this volunteer will do the extra hours to get this award, they may not have done those extra hours if their work had not been recognised. However, the volunteer still contributes X even without this recognition. In this sense the volunteer is the firm and the number of hours is the amount of social good they 'create.'
*(Counter point: Some may argue that the volunteer even will not work X amount of hours without recognition, because without recognition a person may not gain from volunteering.)
  

 Although, CSR may work on a smaller level if it was targeted by improving the skill assets of its staff and its potential applicants. Though it's fairly limited to the skill sets of its own employees as the firm may not benefit from the cost if it did not change employability preference as well as customer preference. For example, brand image as well also work for employment as if the potential applicant cannot differentiate between companies on their brand image, it does not make sense to maintain such a cost.

 

"The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits" - Milton Friedman, The New York Times Magazine (13 September 1970)

( I neither endorse nor refute the quote above but rather it is to serve relevance to the question.)

Privatisation: The disincentives for University - Further Implications

Source: Royston Cartoons

In the last post I talked about how privatisation of education systems have had a negative effect on overall standards of teaching and research. In this post I will be looking at the further implications that this has on students themselves and not just the £27,000 debt that we are left to pay.

Privatisation of the universities have led the price of our education to sky rocket. Now while many of those in government argue there is very little change, in reality there is a massive change.
Those universities that only attract a small, niche set of students or specialise in a specific subject will likely not to exist in the long run as to put it 'most businesses fail, only few succeed.' This is a problem if we are to diversify education away from the elitist and restricted 'Oxbridge group' then we simply cannot treat universities as if they were business experiments. You don't leave a person's health down to the volatility of the market, so why do the same with a persons education.

So what other further knock on effects does this have? Well, social mobility as it stands is weak enough as it is with a diverse quality of education depending on where you live or how much you earn and what end of the large inequality gap you fall into. By privatising universities, it is not only choice that is compromised but also the social mobility benefits that comes with it. Those that doubt university because of the cost will reject it entirely and we will suffer a real loss of talent. Further if money becomes a prominent component of universities then they will inevitably try to attract foreign students to bring in the most revenue. Now I am not saying that foreign students should not apply, quite the opposite, but rather if there is a shift in focus towards those who will pay the most, then we will ultimately be restricting access from domestic students from lower social backgrounds. (Universities know that those who have the money or if they are an international student then they will most likely to pay in advance.)

So if the plan is to restrict talented and hard working students from applying to university, then I must give it 10/10 for the direction that it is going because at this rate we are prioritising the interests of the few, rather than the many.

Privatisation: The disincentives for University

As it continues to spark up a heated debate among home students, a £9,000 tuition fee is part of the privatisation of many of the state funded/subsidised services. Not only does it restrict those from lower social backgrounds, which I will discuss at a later date, but actually limits the potential of a university.

Source: Schnews

As many Universities are being influenced to run like a business, many positive factors of a publicly owned good will sharply disappear. I argue that such institutions are not businesses and should not act like them. Education as a whole is not a price you can put on but rather something we should invest in through the system of government expenditure, otherwise it would lead to large inequalities and a serious dumbing down effect.

As seen in the past few years, Universities have been led into this mentality of 'competition' or as I like to call it, exploitation. As a result, large cuts in the expenditure have been well on their way in order to achieve the greatest profitability. But maybe there's some hope if the universities pump that profit back into the system...unfortunately not. While unlike a business, a University has the ability to keep its 'customers' unconditionally for a three year minimum period. Therefore, all a University need to do is create flagship projects that look promising in the summer but far from sufficient facilities in term time. Cash-in!

So what are the long-term effects of this? Well as a result many universities have deeply slashed the funding for staff and postgraduate study, whilst also opening the floodgates for even more students. The result, even more overworked and paid less for it, is this really fair? Evidently not.

You may tell me that you really don't care as its not to do with me? This is seriously concerning if you are a student, hoping to be or even an employer. The simple fact is, the less incentives there are for students to go on and research and teach, then ultimately the quality of teaching and ground-breaking research would diminish (the dumbing down effect.) Do we really want to see failing institutions because it cannot keep its optimal potential in the market, or some of the greatest universities begin a process of dumbing down through 'cut and scrimper' tactics in order to survive?

Universities bring more benefit than its cost, so to cut and save from such subsidies may create a bit of ready cash now but overall society's weal
th will decrease.

Breaking through social barriers

Original Image: P.A.P Blog*

The American dream some may call it, for others its equality of opportunity, regardless I believe that this is simply a myth. Breaking through the social barriers is harder than many may expect, there are still glass ceilings to a person's progression based on their social status. Whether it be other factors than social class, there is still an underlying problem of rigid social and economic mobility.

For many societies, this will only become worse. As austerity continues, the hardest hit are those that are stuck at the lower end of the class based system. Although, this is not the only group that is hard hit but the lower middle-classes are being also being hit hard by the austerity measures. This seems to beg the question yet again, to what extent are we 'all in this together?' This rhetoric message that we have had spoon-fed to us, forcefully, is attempting to cover up the vast inequalities that are simply out of reach to many people. Of course this is nothing new, but a continuation of exploitation of one group by another as a result of 'bought politics.'
If I had to say anything it would simply be that money matters, not in itself as it doesn't buy happiness but it does seem to buy representation. So how can we truly be a democratic society where anyone can share a sense of this American dream when those who are buying representation want to restrict this. Politics should not be bought off by the few that can afford it, it should not be a luxury of the rich that can use it to protect their wealth. As long as politics is influenced by the 'big buyers' then we are no closer to true social mobility and people will be restricted in what they can do.

Though some may triumph whereby those in the worst-off conditions are able to fully make use of their abilities, there are the majority which are socially, economically and psychologically restricted from doing so. If austerity is continually weighted to those who are worse off, then these cases of breaking through social barriers will discontinue to exist and will simply become a dream and nothing more.

*Note on the featured cartoon: I love using powerful images alongside my blog. I would just like to put a short note on how powerful and effective this image is in expressing my point on social mobility.

Cuts: A necessity or an endorsement of ideology?

Original Source - Telegraph (Adams Cartoonist)

For those that have already read my post on 'Should the unemployed be forced to clean our streets?' would know that I am not a big fan of the cost saving tactics or cuts that have been pursued by the recent 'coalition' government. I say coalition loosely because it is evident what party is clearly dominant, so clear that I needn't say. However, what I challenge are not the cuts themselves but the reasons for these cuts, as I think we are simply being led into believing one thing to agree with something that radically goes against our interests.

So the reason for these cuts that I am sure you have had drilled into your mind that these are for the 'good of the country.' Merely use of propaganda and use of non-relevant jargon to make you believe so. I am sure you've heard of things like 'The Debt Crisis', 'The country is broke!' and 'We need to make ourselves competitive.' So to sum up the reason that has been drilled into our heads are that the cuts are to ensure we can pay back the debt that we owe and secure a low interest rate on doing so. However, is this really the reason for doing so or is this just convenient for the Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative ideology that was shaken by a slight change in consensus? (Apologies for the technicalities.)

Our political neutrality is being manipulated by irrational reasoning, we are simply given statistics of large negative numbers and suddenly we go into panic, lose our heads and begin to agree to cut left right and centre as if we were puppets on a string. So why do I say that having this 'Debt Crisis' is actually beneficial for the current government? Well I have already argued this has led to us being controlled like puppets on a string, and cuts in government expenditure on things such as the welfare state is highly favoured policy of the ideology that drives the current government. If for instance we were serious about the debt crisis we should spend out of recession and cut in booms, cut all factors of government expenditure and raise the taxes for the very wealthy.
But this is not the case because this does not fit with their ideology. Rather they would appear to be making significant 'savings' when in fact they are targeting cuts to dismantle the foundations of the welfare state. I am sure that if in the long run these cuts would make very little if not no contribution to national saving (by significantly reducing income) then in hindsight this government would still go ahead, because they are motivated by ideology, not necessity.

'The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - That's what I believe only because I'm rich'

YouTubers - A personal touch

It can be quite addictive but why not?
Original Image: iMarkBlog

Do you have a favourite YouTuber? My guess is that what makes you go back to them is something a bit different and a bit more special than what TV can provide. It may be from that out of nowhere video that has made millions of people crease up laughing or someone you regularly watch telling you their life stories. So if you haven't really got into YouTube then you simply haven'stumbled across what you see as good videos, really go on and have a look. So what makes YouTube something different, well I think it gives people that personal touch we like to have. Reality TV shows do not do it for us any more because we don't connect to them. Whereas YouTubers reach out to their audience, talk to us, ask us questions and make us laugh, rather than just appear on a screen. I, myself, find Television a bit too 'done up' and a bit too perfect. YouTubers have the ability to go on camera as they are and that takes a hell of a lot of guts to do so, but as a result we get them entertaining us with nothing more than their personalities.
So I think TV isn't the control box it used to be and in my opinion I'm glad because now I can be entertained by people that I can relate to.

Comment your favourite YouTubers and spread the word :)

The Internet or the High Street?

Original Image: Mystery Fanfare

With the rise of internet companies such as Amazon and the fall of many High Street shops, many of us ask, is there a certain charm for there being a high street or shall we just let be with the market?
We think that these two things are completely separate entities and it is pointed out to us whenever we hear the latest business news. We have formed to think that the Internet and High Streets are two completely different things.
However, I argue that we should not be led into such a false assumption, I agree changing due to technological advances but neither for the greater benefit of Internet Companies nor High Streets. What has happened is not how we shop but the way we shop, time is just as valuable as money and this transformation focuses on the first.
While Internet Companies have the cost advantage, High streets have the eye candy consumer products. This is important to think about as companies such as Amazon do not have the 'attraction' or 'appeal' of good but rather people know what they want to order from there (It's hard to window shop in front of a computer.) So it seems that the High Street does have the edge when we want to shop vaguely (which doesn't do well when money is tight.)

Okay, so I said at the start that the distinction is not as simple as what it seems between Internet Shopping and walking along the High Street and the last point I made links to this. As we move into fast technological advances, these advances are aimed at saving us time, something we cannot get enough of and both the Internet/High Street experience are making use of that. Many people are favouring the reserve and collect approach which has been played down with the expansion of companies such as Amazon. It's clear that spending in shops may not be sky high (or even high) many of us see them vital in getting to see what we want and probably prefer looking at them in person. However, while browsing may not lead to immediate sales, they probably will buy it from the High Street's website when it suits them (i.e when money comes in, when there's a dinner etc.)

So while in-store spending may not be high, it is not only Internet companies such as Amazon that are reaping the benefits as we seem to hold onto our view of 'try before you buy.'