Are cause-related marketing campaigns all they’re cracked up to be?

In an ideal world, the disciplines of Marketing and CSR would be perfectly aligned within each and every organisation. The departments would continually consult and communicate with each other in order to conclusively verify the sincerity and integrity of the business… But unfortunately this is not always the case. There are several companies out there that need to realise being truly green is as important for branding and communications as it is for other areas of their business such as supply chains and manufacturing processes. I believe companies who are willing to embed sustainability throughout their entire business model can make sure that their responsible business practices are communicated to stakeholders with maximum positive impact.

The most common collision between Marketing and CSR is in the planning and implementation of marketing campaigns for charitable causes. Fundamentally these cause-related projects involve forming a partnership between a profit making enterprise and a non-profit organisation. There can be significant rewards to be reaped from such endeavours and there are plenty of benefits, not only for those parties taking part, but also for communities, investors and customers alike. However, the problem arises when marketing claims are unsubstantiated by the company’s underlying CSR values and practices. In these cases there is certainly a danger of greenwashing.

A controversial cause-related marketing campaign that caught my eye recently was the ‘Drink 1, Give 10’ campaign, a collaborative project between the Volvic mineral water brand and the charity UNICEF. The idea is that they will provide 10 litres of water to children in Ethiopia for every litre of water sold between April and August 2008. My initial response was that of shock. I thought that they were only giving these Ethiopian villages access to clean water for 5 months and after that they would have to go back to infected and dirty water. Such a dependence would have ruined their immune systems and caused mucmany more health problems.

However on closer inspection and on further investigation I realised the campaign is actually part of an overall support plan to engage people in clean water issues as part of their well-being. The goal is to generate sufficient funding to construct over 40 wells as part of a bigger commitment to tackling water scarcity issues in the third world. The project will enable new water supply systems to be maintained and allows communities to be educated on water sanitation and hygiene issues.

Despite discovering Volvics intent to support of a wider social mission, I am still incensed. My frustration lies not in the overall objective, but in the way such initiatives are framed by advertisers. To me there is something wrong with communicating these initiatives as a ‘limited offer’, ‘quick fix’, ‘do-good-feel-good’ solution for consumers whose ethical conscience needs a pick-me-up. I’m not saying it should be an all or nothing approach and maybe it’s just me being cynical but I’m sure that ethical marketing in this way is flawed.

So on the one hand I’m pleased to see brands collaborating with NGOs and tackling issues on a wider scale. However I really think that throughout the Advertising industry these claims are too often seen as a quick and easy way to engage consumers, when they are nothing more than token gestures. The top brands now, more than ever, need a deep understanding of the issues that businesses are facing. Not only for their own benefit, but to meet increasing demands from an educated client base, where transparency and trust are directly linked to their bottom line.