Yes, Companies are Responsible for Charity

In a counterpoint op-ed for the CMO Strategy column in Ad Age, Cone's EVP of Corporate Responsibility, Mike Lawrence, argues that corporate responsibility addresses the demands of a variety of stakeholders and that a company's obligation to responsibility goes far beyond transparency.

Writer Jonathan Salem Baskin appeared to channel economist Milton Friedman in his July 21 Ad Age column ("Transparency, Not Charity, Is Corporation's Responsibility") when he asked, "So where in the game rules does it say that companies have to be 'responsible' for anything other than profits?" Let's check the rule book for a few key constituencies whose increasing expectations, strong voices and behavior are changing the game.

EMPLOYEES
Research by our firm and others consistently shows that people are more attracted to companies involved with positive social and environmental change. In fact, 77% of Americans consider companies' commitments to social issues when deciding where to work, and the same percentage would refuse to work at a company with negative corporate-responsibility practices. This is more evident than ever with millennials, the most socially conscious generation since World War II. Even in a tough industry such as retail, responsible employers such as Starbucks and Whole Foods beat high-turnover odds by offering part-time employees access to health insurance, volunteer opportunities and a social vision, in addition to profits.

CONSUMERS
Consumers around the world are interconnected. One camera smuggled into a farm documenting hens crushed in cages or a Third World factory documenting workers breathing toxic fumes can give a single consumer the same influence as a national newspaper or TV network. According to Cone's research, 66% of consumers would go so far as to boycott a company after learning about its negative CR practices.

To continue reading the complete article, please visit AdAge.com.