Competing Interests

Late last year Benetton were forced to withdraw images of the Pope and a senior Muslim leader kissing from their 'Unhate' campaign (Butt, 2011). Benetton have gained fame - though have never been far from infamy - for their promotional campaigns and have long been at the forefront in marketing. Not least being the decision to buy and the subsequent running of a Formula 1 racing team for a little over a decade. In spite of the controversy, these campaigns have promoted the Benetton brand alongside various community campaigns and social issues.

Primark have also, in the last few of years, begun to publicise their efforts to promote more ethical attitudes in business practices. However, Primark's efforts are invariably tied to investigations into their own past ethical practices (McDougall, 2009).

Both organisations set about their campaigns for different reasons. Regardless of the initial intent behind those campaigns, there are complex issues to address around the tying of moral questions to the actions of an individual consumer.

The foremost of these is what Slavoj Zizek described as 'semantic overinvestment' (2010). When consumerist and charitable or community gestures are combined into one and the same action, it places a massive burden upon a simple consumer decision. In doing so it alters our reasons for purchasing particular products and gives us good cause to worry that it's oversimplifying charitable acts.

For companies such as Benetton and Primark, there is profit to be gained from the marketable image of a company-with-a-conscience. Not least in the potential to exploit the guilt fostered when a costumer is presented with the moral element of their consumerism. But there are real risks.

As companies offer a consumer product that contains a guarantee of certain welfare, charitable or ethical practices they are also distancing their customers from the suffering they are trying to alleviate. This distance invites the customer to have a too easy, too simple and too passive relationship with their own acts of charity.

As companies are first and foremost tied to profit, it is important to remember that there is a distinction to be made between doing a good thing because it is profitable and doing a good thing while finding a way to make it profitable. When we invest our charitable sentiments into standoffish second-hand actions taken through companies, we stand to lose a lot should the company no longer find them profitable.

But more still is the fear that, when we distance ourselves from the suffering of others - even as we seek to alleviate it - we merely build more walls between us.

==========
References:
==========
+ Riazat Butt's 'Vatican criticises Benetton picture of pope kissing Muslim leader'; in The Guardian; 17 November 2011.

+ Dan McDougall's 'Primark in storm over conditions at UK supplier'; in The Guardian; 11 January 2009.

+ Sarah Butler's 'Primark "ramps up" ethical efforts after exposé on working practices'; in The Telegraph; 21 January 2010.

+ Slavoj Zizek's 'First as Tragedy, The as Farce'; at the RSA; 2010.