I absolutely believe that a core sweet spot for CR is doing good AND making money. Where there is an intersection between a market for a product and meeting a social or environmental need, a corporation can do much good. This is at the core of integrating corporate responsibility into the business. But is there a line or a limit beyond which we should not go? Beyond which it becomes manipulation?

Here is a simple example.  I have a solar powered world globe at home – it rotates from clean energy, the power of the sun – and is marketed as such. I love it. Included in my passion for old books is a weakness for maps and globes. Plus, I am fascinated by the technology that makes it rotate by the solar component. But it is not really “green”. Reading the description of the product, and the complexity that goes into making it work, it becomes evident very quickly that the energy and materials that went into its construction far outweigh the benefit of it being solar powered (put aside whether one even needs a continually rotating globe!)

This is a simple example but I think illustrates an important point. For a product or service to legitimately be at the intersection of corporate responsibility and business value it must have a net positive contribution to the problem it is purporting to address.

My solar globe is a pretty clear example. The green implications are a ploy and if I had bought it for its quality of greenness I think I would have been manipulated!

In the example of digital photo frames, the implications are less clear. Digital frames claim to reduce photo paper usage and I am sure they do to some extent. But I suspect they still fall on the wrong side of the line. They claim to replace the printing of lots of photos but does it offset the footprint of the device’s manufacture and operation? Perhaps this example is more marketing than manipulation.

Maybe I should just trade-in my globe in for a composter which is squarely in the corporate responsibility pot.