"
Do you think a partnership with Product (RED)
can improve Gap’s image? Is it a sign that they are making a commitment to
corporate social responsibility or do you agree with critics who say their
involvement is an attempt to spit-shine the company’s image while continuing to
do business as usual?"
I think that the partnership with Product (RED) can improve Gap's image but I think the effects won't be maximized unless they remove the sweatshop conditions that they produce Product (RED) in. There isn't much validity in Bono's inspection of the factory if it was announced. I do lean more to the side that they are just putting a bandage on the company image rather than actually fixing what is socially wrong with their company. It is evident in the fact that 50% of their factories failed inspection. It isn't to say that they are wrong for them to participate in Product (RED) because even with only 25% going back to the fund, 25% of 100 million is still significant.
Do you think that the 25% returns to the fund warrants all the good public relations that these companies are receiving in lieu of their bad social practices?
I do not believe that paying the 25% of the fund warrants bad social practices. I think that these companies should be trying to improve for society instead of just paying a quarter of there money in order to get away with whatever they want. Just because these companies are giving money back to the community doesn't mean that they should be able to continue with bad social practices. Major companies should keep and maintain a code of ethics to help improve our society as well as giving back money.
ReplyDelete