Question 4.

2
1. Why would companies choose to inflate the
image of their corporate citizenship?
The reason that companies choose to inflate their image in
regards to corporate social responsibility and citizenship is
to enhance their public relations, provide a positive image
among their investor and potential investor. Companies are
spending more time promoting and advertising their
corporate citizenship because they feel that having a
positive corporate image will generate more sales. This is
done to project a higher level of corporate citizenship in
hopes of having the customers believe their money is going
towards a socially responsible company.
2. Is it ethical to direct company donations to
"nonprofit groups closely aligned with the
interests of the corporations employees,
communities, and business objectives"? Why,
or why not?
Its definitely ethical for a company to donate its profits to a
non-for-profit organization aligned with the business. It
wouldnt make sense for the business to invest in causes
completely unrelated to its field, and since its non-for-profit
it makes it a completely ethical and philanthropic oriented
action for a company to pursue. They are not only doing a
good thing, but also supporting their employees and
companies that have ties with the same things.
3. Is it ethical to direct company donations to
support "pet projects of senior managers and
board members"? Why or why not?
No, I dont believe it is ethical for the donation money to go
towards board members projects. This creates a conflict on
interest in the validity of the donation money and is seen as
an unethical act of social responsibility because this
stakeholders have ulterior motives other than the good of
the cause. The donation money should be directed towards
a non-for-profit company, which has its own agenda and
non-bias idea as to how the money should be spent. A
research & development department should support the

board members pet projects, from within a separate area

of the company as to not create a conflict of interest and act
as a socially responsible & ethical company.

4. Why would budgeting a fixed percentage of

pretax profits for corporate philanthropy be
seen as more convincing commitment to CSR
than just funding a variety of projects?
Its seen as more convincing due to the companies
drive to higher its profits each year, equating to more
money being contributed to CSR. All companies strive
to higher its profits each year and being the main
goal, the percentage of donation will increase
congruently alongside. Opposed to setting a set
amount towards projects each year, the amount of
donation money is a percentage of profits instead,
which shows confidence and willingness from the
company to uphold its contributions to CSR.
5. The authors of this article claim that "an
effectively managed contribution program can
deliver strong returns to a corporation". What
might those returns be?
I think the returns referred to are the public relations, and
public image the company receives from its contributions to
CSR. Upon donating the money percentages each year the
consumers become aware of this through the companies
ads, products and websites and in turn enhance the
companies image and overall level of ethical behaviour.

6. Does the fact that Target and General Mills

donate five times more than the minimum 1%
make
them
five
times
more
socially
responsible?
I definitely think the fact that Target and General Mills
donate five times more than the minimum 1 percent
does not make them five times more socially
responsible. What it does say about these
corporations is that they are willing to exceed the
minimum standards and expectations of corporate

social responsibility. This willingness to exceed

standards and expectations also carries over into
other aspects of business.