Is Business Discourse Colonizing Philanthropy? A Critical Discourse Analysis of (PRODUCT) RED

  • Jessica S. Wirgau
  • Kathryn Webb Farley
  • Courtney Jensen
Original Paper

Abstract

Increasingly, traditional notions of philanthropy are colonized by a market discourse that promotes consumption as an effective way to solve social ills, resulting in what scholars have termed “marketized philanthropy.” This paper examines the implications of marketized philanthropy through a discourse analysis of the (PRODUCT) RED campaign benefiting the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in Africa through consumption of (RED)-branded products. This paper explores the implications of a business-oriented model of philanthropy for bringing about social change, the repercussions of campaigns like (RED) that explicitly shed the label of philanthropy; and how they impact political engagement.

Keywords

Philanthropy Discourse Marketized philanthropy Consumption Cause-related marketing Corporate social responsibility Political engagement Product RED 

Résumé

De plus en plus, les notions traditionnelles de la philanthropie sont envahies par un discours commercial qui fait la promotion de la consommation comme un moyen efficace de résoudre les problèmes sociaux, et qui créé ce que les chercheurs nomment « le marché de la philanthropie ». Cette étude examine les conséquences à tirer du marché de la philanthropie à travers l’analyse de discours de la campagne (PRODUCT) RED qui profite au Fonds mondial de lutte contre le sida, la malaria et la tuberculose en Afrique avec l’achat de produits de la marque (RED). Elle explore les incidences d’un modèle de philanthropie orienté par le marché pour apporter des changements sociaux, les répercussions générées par des campagnes comme celle de (RED) qui de façon explicite diffuse le label philanthropique, et comment celles-ci impactent les engagements politiques.

Zusammenfassung

Traditionelle Vorstellungen von Philanthropie werden mehr und mehr von einem Markt-Diskurs, der Konsum als einen effektiven Weg zur Lösung von sozialen Missständen anpreist, kolonisiert, resultierend in was Wissenschaftler als “marketized philanthropy” (in Wettbewerb gesetzte Philanthropie) bezeichnen. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Folgen der Inwettbewerbsetzung von Philanthropie durch eine Analyse des Diskurses der (PRODUCT) RED-Kampagne, die dem Global Fund zur Bekämpfung von HIV/AIDS, Malaria und Tuberkulose in Afrika durch den Konsum von Produkten mit dem Warenzeichen (RED) zugute kommt. Dieser Artikel erforscht die Folgen eines business-orientierten Philanthropie-Modells zur Herbeiführung von sozialem Wandel, die Nachwirkungen von Kampagnen wie (RED), die ausdrücklich das Etikett „Philanthropie“abwerfen, und deren Auswirkungen auf das politische Engagement.

Resumen

Las nociones tradicionales de filantropía están marcadas cada vez más por un discurso mercantilista que fomenta el consumo como una forma eficaz de resolver los males sociales, resultando en, lo que los académicos han denominado, «filantropía mercantilista». Este trabajo explora las implicaciones de la filantropía mercantilista a través de un análisis discursivo de la campaña RED (DE PRODUCTOS) en favor del Fondo Mundial para luchar contra el VIH y el sida, la malaria y la tuberculosis en África a través del consumo de productos de la marca (RED). Este trabajo analiza las implicaciones del modelo de filantropía orientado a la empresa para provocar el cambio social, las repercusiones de campañas como (RED) que suprimió explícitamente la etiqueta filantrópica; y cómo afectan al compromiso político.

摘要

慈善活动的传统概念越来越多地被一种以推广消费作为一种解决社会弊病有效方法的市场语话所侵入,其结果是(变成)被学者们称之为“市场化的慈善活动”。本论文通过一项对 (PRODUCT) RED 宣传活动的批评性语话分析来检验市场化慈善活动的含义。该活动宣传以消费 (RED) 品牌产品使得用于与非洲 HIV/AIDS(人体免疫缺损病毒/人类获得性免疫缺陷综合症)、疟疾和肺结核病作斗争的“全球基金”(Global Fund) 受益。本论文探讨一项商务型模式慈善活动在带来社会变革方面的含义、诸如明确地舍弃了慈善活动标记的 (RED) 之类宣传活动的后果,以及它们对政治约定的影响。

要約

社会奉仕事業に対する従来の概念は、社会悪を解決する有効な手段として消費を促進する市場の中では、次第に定説化されている。いわゆる学者が「市場化された社会奉仕事業」と名付けているものである。本論文では、(RED)商標のある製品の消費によって、アフリカにおけるHIV・エイズ、マラリア、結核の活動から世界基金の利益を得ている(PRODUCT)REDキャンペーンの談話分析を通して、市場化された社会奉仕事業の意味について分析する。さらに、 社会変動をもたらす社会奉仕事業における経済主導のモデル、社会奉仕事業のレッテルを取り除いた(RED)のようなキャンペーンがもたらす影響および政治公約への影響について研究する。

ملخص

على نحو متزايد، المفاهيم التقليدية للأعمال الخيرية محتلة من قبل الحديث الذي يعزز إستهلاك السوق بإعتباره وسيلة فعالة لحل المشاكل الإجتماعية، نتج عنه ما يطلق عليه العلماء “تسويق الأعمال الخيرية.” هذا البحث يفحص الا̃ثار المترتبة على

تسويق الأعمال الخيرية من خلال تحليل الحديث عن حملة المنتج PRODUCT (RED) التي يستفيد منها الصندوق العالمي لمكافحة فيروس نقص المناعة البشرية/الإيدز والملاريا والسل في افريقيا من خلال إستهلاك المنتجات ذات العلامات التجارية RED)). هذا البحث يستطلع الآثار المترتبة من نموذج الأعمال الخيرية الموجهة للأعمل التجارية لإحداث التغيير الاجتماعي ، وتداعيات حملات مثلRED)) التي تلقي الضوء على العمل الخيري ، وكيفية تأثيره على المشاركة السياسية.

References

  1. Austin, J. E. (2003). Marketing’s role in cross-sector collaboration. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backman, E., & Smith, S. (2000). Healthy organizations, unhealthy communities? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(4), 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 683–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  5. Beyond Philanthropy. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.beyondphilanthropy.org/.
  6. Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). Confronting the “corporate citizen”: Shaping the discourse of corporate social responsibility. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26(3/4), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caesar, P. (1986). Cause-related marketing; the new face of corporate philanthropy. Business & Society Review, 59, 15–19.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 30(3), 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dees, J., & Backman, E. (1995). Social enterprise: Private interests for the common good. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dyer, O. (2006). New fund-raising scheme fuses profit with philanthropy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(4), 263.Google Scholar
  12. Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). The hidden costs of cause marketing. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_hidden_costs_of_cause_marketing/.
  13. Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eikenberry, A. M., & Nickel, P. M. (in press). Towards a critical social theory of philanthropy in an era of governance. Theorizing power post 9/11 ASPECT e-book series SPECT/RE.Google Scholar
  15. Endacott, R. W. J. (2004). Consumers and CRM: A national and global perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(3), 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frederick, W. (1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business and Society, 33(2), 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Greenblatt, J. (2006, October 31). Building a better (RED). Retrieved from http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005150.html.
  19. Gross, R. (2003). Giving in America: From charity to philanthropy. In L. J. Friedman & M. D. McGarvie (Eds.), Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history (pp. 91–105). Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hajjat, M. (2003). Effect of cause-related marketing on attitudes and purchase intentions: The moderating role of cause involvement and donation size. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kallio, T. (2007). Taboos in corporate social responsibility discourse. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, R. (2006). Shopping is not sharing. The Nation, Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/17/opinion/main2098633.shtml.
  23. King, S. (2006). Pink Ribbons, Inc.: Breast cancer and the politics of philanthropy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  24. Klein, N. (1999). No logo. New York: Picador Reading Group.Google Scholar
  25. Knight, L. W. (1992). Jane Addams’s views on the responsibilities of wealth. In D. F. Burlingame (ed.), The responsibilities of wealth (pp. 118–137). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Laczniak, G. R., & Murphy, P. E. (2006). Normative perspectives for ethical and socially responsible marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), 154–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marconi, J. (2002). Cause marketing build your image and bottom line through socially responsible partnerships, programs, and events. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing. A Kaplan Professional Company.Google Scholar
  28. Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1), 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meehan, J., Meehan, K., & Richards, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: The 3C-SR model. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Nickel, P. M., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 974–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nixon, R. (2008, February 6). Bottom line for (RED). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/business/06red.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
  33. Ostrander, S., & Schervish, P. G. (1990). Giving and getting: Philanthropy as a social relation. In J. Van Til (Ed.), Critical issues in American philanthropy (pp. 67–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Perrone, M. (2006, December 2). Tapping into shoppers’ do-gooder spirit. Retrieved October 29, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15973282/print/1/displaymode/10.html.
  35. (PRODUCT) RED. (2006). Notes from Bono. Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/red/bono.asp.
  36. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007a). (RED) Manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/manifesto/.
  37. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007b). What (RED) is? Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/red/.
  38. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007c). Frequently asked questions, Is RED a new chairity? Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/red/faq.asp.
  39. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007d). The global fund. Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/globalfund/.
  40. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007e). Frequently asked questions, how can a foundation apply to be a beneficiary of (RED) funds? Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/red/faq.asp.
  41. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007f). Message from Bobby. Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/red/bobby.asp.
  42. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007g). (RED) News, (RED) Co-Founder Bono interviewed on CNN. Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/news/.
  43. (PRODUCT) RED. (2007h). Frequently asked questions, are products with the (PRODUCT) RED mark, always red? How will consumers know what is (RED) and what isn’t? Retrieved from http://www.joinred.com/red/faq.asp.
  44. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Quart, A. (2003). Branded: The buying and selling of teenagers. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Rauch, J. (2007). This is not charity. The Atlantic, 300(3), 64.Google Scholar
  47. Shoutmatoff, A. (2007). The Lazarus effect. Vanity Fair, 563, 156–160.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, W., & Higgns, M. (2000). Cause-related marketing: Ethics and the ecstatic. Business & Society, 39(3), 304–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Talley, H., & Caspar, M. (forthcoming). Oprah goes to Africa; philanthropic consumption and political (dis)engagement. In Trystan Cotton and Kimberly Springer (Eds.), The story of O. Jackson, MS: The University of Mississippi Press.Google Scholar
  50. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Youde, J. (2009). Ethical consumerism or reified neoliberalism? Product (RED) and private funding for public goods. New Political Science, 31(2), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica S. Wirgau
    • 1
  • Kathryn Webb Farley
    • 1
  • Courtney Jensen
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Public Administration and PolicyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.School of Public AdministrationUniversity of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations