ILLUSTRATION BY Alex Siklos
First Person is a daily personal piece submitted by readers. Have a story to tell? See our guidelines at tgam.ca/essayguide.
Not long ago I had one of those errand-heavy days, running around town for this and that. First stop was the grocery store, where I was asked at checkout if I’d like to “round up” my purchase to support their charity. I politely declined. Next stop: Walmart for a package of tube socks, where the self-checkout machine asking me if I’d like to round up to support their cause. Then it was off to our local big box hardware store. While paying the $1.49 plus tax for my drywall screws, the self-checkout offered me three options in terms of supporting their branded charity: $2, $5 and $10. After declining them all and proceeding to the next screen, I was asked if I’d like to round up in support of the aforementioned cause. Recognizing that it can’t take a hint, I began to wonder if the machine would wrap itself around my ankle as I left, begging me to check my car cushions for loose change. In total, I made five stops that day, the last two being the gas station and McDonalds – both of which pushed their charities on me. For those keeping score, that’s five-for-five in terms of being hit up for donations.
I know what some of you may be thinking: You, sir, are a heartless Scrooge. What’s a bit of loose change here and there? To which my response is: Quite a lot. Over the course of a year, all those round-ups could, in fact, equal a few hundred dollars. That’s not nothing in times of high inflation, with these same companies charging us more than ever for our food, clothes, gas and everything else.
Don’t misunderstand me; I believe that supporting charities is important for those of us financially fortunate enough to afford it. But I also believe that giving is a personal matter. My wife and I take it seriously. We do our homework to ensure we’re supporting causes that align with our beliefs and in which the money is most effectively put to use. We make informed decisions and we give generously, but not blindly. Furthermore, while it’s not the reason we give, we appreciate the charitable tax receipt we get for supporting these various causes.
So when a major retailer asks me to support its charity, I have to wonder: How much of it is going to administrative costs or advertising that promotes its charity and, in turn, its brand image? Furthermore, some of these businesses have been caught gouging their customers through price-fixing, passing off American products as “Made in Canada,” and battling their own employees who are fighting to earn a livable wage.
These are calculating conglomerates that put their shareholders’ well-being above all other considerations. Is it unfair to ask if organizations so defined by self-interest are capable of having a genuinely selfless side?
Please don’t mistake my pessimism regarding big business with a rejection of the causes they support. Even if they’ve done so as a way to soften their own brand image, that doesn’t diminish the importance of issues such as children’s literacy and homelessness. In fact, a portion of the money we donate supports some of the causes at the core of these corporate charities. But we choose to support them directly, rather than through middlemen in the form of for-profit corporations whose charitable operations often lack transparency and whose business dealings in other areas have raised serious ethical questions.
Large corporations have every right to promote their own pet causes and to encourage their customers to help them in financing them. But the aggressive, relentless way they’re going about it is wrong. Over dinner with friends I may discuss a cause about which I am particularly passionate, but I don’t end the evening by asking my guests for a donation at the front door. Putting them on the spot like that would be rude and inappropriate, just as it is when I’m at the check-out of my local store.
How about this: Simply inform us that there is a QR Code on our receipt through which we can learn about their charity and perhaps make a donation? Or they could adopt a “shop and support” model in which a portion of the proceeds from our purchases supports their charitable efforts. That’s truly a win-win; it generates funds for their charity while building customer loyalty by giving us a reason to feel good about frequenting their establishments.
If these alternatives are too complicated for corporations, perhaps they could simply round up this year’s profits to the nearest billion and leave it at that.
Brian Smith lives in Waterloo, Ont.
