Typhoon Sendong almost took Christmas away from many of our Filipino brothers and sisters from the south. Displacement, starvation and disease outbreak followed the floods that killed more than a thousand Filipinos. The disaster, however, did not go under the sight of many Filipinos who were busy enjoying their Christmas hams and gifts, and secured with the company of their families.
Thousands donated cash, food, clothing and many pledged to give more. Many spent their vacations helping out and some even went to the remote areas where the media giants could not go to—they could actually, but their branded plastic bags would not look as nice on TV. Even the New People’s Army lent a hand—probably more than the government did—during and after the disaster.
….
While I was heading back to Manila from Batangas last New Year’s Eve, radio advertisements about how proceeds of purchasing a certain product would go to Sendong victims were broadcasted in almost all radio stations. Allotting a few cents for the underprivileged, for reforestation, for the protection of animals and for the sick is a good marketing strategy. It complies with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and at the same time, increases sales, but in reality, it is a cheap trick. Corporations make money, that is a given, but it is impossible to monitor the actual level of sales, hence, the amounts that the advocacies should be getting.
Moreover, how the funds for a certain advocacy will be allocated is up to the discretion of corporations. We do not even know if the money collected for CSR projects and other charitable contributions is entirely allocated to CSR-related activities, or the whole charity shenanigan is just a scheme to reduce a corporation’s tax liabilities.
Is charity based on commerce the new “it” thing? Is it just a strategy to cover-up the billions of pesos worth of sales, brought by our addiction to capitalism? Or is it just the corporations’ pa-consuelo for all their consumers? Well, let us examine all the scoundrels out there.
One does not need to establish a corporation to make a quick, but unethical buck. A good tagline, a believable advocacy and someone to blame if the advocacy does not receive the funds promised are the essential components of “Making quick money 101”. Some make their own foundations—a classic scheme many politicians use to fund their election campaigns, vacations and private armies.
At the end of the day, the real question is how much do the animals, the underprivileged, and the balding mountain ranges really get when someone doles out a little bit more for their sake? For corporations at least, their CSR projects and other advocacies do receive funds and other non-monetary contributions, amidst doubts of whether the amount collected is completed allocated. Although they prey on their consumers’ purchasing power and tendency to impulsively buy unnecessary goods, few are complaining because the corporations’ strategies are effective and efficient.
Corporations can sell their products at the same price while allotting a certain amount of proceeds for say, typhoon victims. They have huge profit margins per unit sold that they could still minimize their costs and maximize their profit while condoning some of it. In reality, corporations could give more than a few cents, but who would do that? The end goal of every corporation is still to profit.
Despite everything, pursuing CSR programs will be a future trend among corporations because the system works – it is both income generating and it is also a way for corporations to give back to society. Corporations are well-oiled machines, although the beneficiaries may not receive the full benefit of the allocation, it will still get to where it is needed. Everything in this world is now commercialized, and to an extent, corporations have the obligation to lend a helping hand to communities in need because they are partners of the government in improving society and developing the country.
As I passed the South Luzon Express Way (SLEX) toll and paid 114 pesos, I wondered which organization started this trend of allotting a certain part of a transaction for the benefit of the less fortunate. I paid 22.9 for that toll ride. We are handing over 12 percent of everything we buy to these guys. Yes, the culprit is the government.
The government collects taxes and to fund the expenditures and operations of the country. Roads are fixed, communities developed and funds are released whenever there are calamities. Well, these should ideally happen.
Had the government been more efficient in collecting, auditing and spending the taxes paid to them, there will be no more need for corporations to fund education, healthcare, calamity assistance, etc. Moreover, say we hand over a peso to the government and to a corporation, how much will the beneficiaries get, who will give more?
The answer to this is another question, will the government even hand over any part of that peso? If other more efficient organizations are taking over some functions and responsibilities of the government, it makes sense to hand the 12 percent over to them, instead of placing them in a black hole that wants to suck everyone dry.
The point is, the government needs to step up. Corporations, organizations and associations are all stepping up because there is a need to iron out the irregularities in the market, and they acknowledge that. The recognition that social justice must be upheld also plays a role in why corporations are persistent in helping communities in need. This extends not just to the government, but also to the systems within organizations. Offices that do not perform need not receive funds. Funds should just be allocated to the offices that function efficiently.
At DLSU for example, the former two-letter word office, now a four-letter word office is the shining example of one, I believe, we can do without.
