The Humanitarian Paradox

Today’s humanitarian community is faced with somewhat of a moral dilemma. Companies are donating small portions of their large profits to the poor and hungry. Fair trade is being discussed, argued, and implemented in corporations across the country. And why are these huge businesses making sacrifices to play fair after decades of manipulating the cheapest global workers? For the same reason driving capitalism- a profit.
Developing a globally concerned company image is an absolutely brilliant marketing scheme. Hats off to you Starbucks, you just attracted every bleeding heart in America by offering fair trade beans. Wal Mart’s Sam’s Club, Nestlé, and Proctor & Gamble have also tried it, and the trend is expected to continue.
Now the dilemma, is charity still charity when given for selfish reasons? Should companies taking advantage of genuine consumer concerns in order to sell more goods?
In some cases, charity is still charity. Starbucks is genuinely doing the right thing working with fair trade organizations, opening up doors for third world farmers. They should be commended and congratulated, but not idolized. On the other side of the spectrum, but inside the exact same store, is Ethos Water, who’s mission is “helping the world get clean water and raising awareness of the World Water Crisis” and they take this mission seriously enough to print it on every product. Sold is Starbucks since 2005, Ethos charges $1.80 per bottle, and then donates an entire nickel to the cause. That’s not even three percent of the price; from a company who’s entire marketing scheme is based on world aid.
Capitalism may never quite grasp the concept of genuine charity, because that is not how it was designed. But if Starbucks tapping into a new demographic is going to bring fair prices to poor farmers, motives can be left out of the picture. Corporations changing their procedures are the first step in changing government policy, and may just be the next step in ending poverty.