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.)

'Google goes through your emails.' Is it a step too far?

Recently, Outlook has performed an attack on Google's reputation by exposing it as a privacy intruder. However, like always I am sure that Google or whatever company that comes into question will just throw up its terms and conditions in an attempt to smokescreen the situation.

It may seem they have a point, if we accepted their terms then we must abide by those conditions. Although, the big BUT here is that terms and conditions may have lots of legal jargon that can protect these companies but the real fact is, Google is the one in control. By establishing a large, loyal and regular users into their Gmail, YouTube Blogger and +1, they have been able to hook us into a advertisers goldmine.

But people can surely just move can't they? Just abandon Google?
No, because Google have integrated all their programs, blogs, videos, accounts and even their social networking together we cannot just opt out of Gmail going through our emails. It's not just controversial but it is a violation of a person's right and this angers me. The fact that they are using this blog, my emails, your searches and what you liked makes me angry, surely they have breached the our trust. While I thought what you posted on Facebook being used for advertising was crossing the line a little, this 'blows things out of the water' so to speak . Our privacy is being used for wealth, our interests and vulnerabilities exploited.
You can use your Terms and Conditions, but you cannot ignore that people have privacy rights.

Hopefully this post will protect our Freedom of Speech on the internet and keep our private messages, private.

Anksthay orfay eadingray!

(If you don't understand... http://www.keepyouremailprivate.com/)