~Katie Hogan's Walstreet Journal Project~
I believe that it is everyone's responsibility to share what one has with someone who does not. This responsibility does not only pertain to individuals, but to corporations as well. Both individuals and corporations that have a plethora of money or sources should donate some to a positive cause. Unfortunately and obviously, this is not always followed for it is much easier said than done. There is a nasty and dirty term which gets in the way of good intentions: greed. It is common to lose sight of a positive thing to do, and to let greed and avarice take control. There’s no limit to how wealthy one can be, and thus, what one has is often “never enough.”
Conversely, it is more complicated for corporations to give a donation. Primarily, the money is not the corporations’ as an entity; it is the shareholder’s money. If I was a shareholder, and my money was donated without my knowing and without my agreement, I might be upset. Particularly depending on where to it was donated. What if I did not agree with the charity it was given to. I certainly would not want my money given to an organization with which I disagree! Thus, from the shareholder’s perspective, I may not completely support the donations of corporations’ funds to charity. From an outsiders’ eyes, however, I completely encourage corporate donations, for I believe that it is their social responsibility.
Article
1- Top
El Paso Officials Will Donate
Telecom Personal Profit to Charity
In this article, El Paso Global Networks Co., a telecommunications network, announces that it is going to donate $900,000 of its profits from one transaction to a charity. To which charity will be later decided by the executives. The donation, however, is not made for philanthropic reasons. The company is being thoroughly investigated for a questionable transaction. El Paso executives bought stock at a lower price, and then a few months later, the company purchased back the stock, making a large profit. Although I think donation to charity is a good solution to the mix up, it is still for a bad reason. El Paso is not giving to charity because the executives want to or they have a good heart. Rather, they are trying to clear their name and rid themselves of the scandal!
Article
2 - Microsoft Offers Some Source Code
To Gain Ground in Student Circles
Microsoft is one of the biggest companies- so big that it is constantly surrounded with monopolistic issues. This article is another example of a nonaltruistic motive for giving to charity. Microsoft is donating money to college academics, particularly computer programming. Why? Well, Microsoft does not allow for anyone to tamper with their formulas and source code and because of this, has developed a bad image on college campuses. Thus, in order to keep a positive image on campus, the donations are an "effort to counteract the Linux craze and convert today's soda-swilling college hackers into tomorrow's loyal Microsoft programmers." The results of the donation will certainly be a positive thing: free or discounted software, programs for professors and students, and grants will all highly benefit education. However, again, Microsoft is not doing this out of their concern for education, but because of their concern over their own image. Truthfully, a rather selfish and self-centered motive.
Article 3 - Glaxo Plans Another Price Cut In AIDS Drugs to Poor Countries
Glaxo Smith Kline is lowering prices for drugs to be sold in at least 10 third world countries. Prices of four pills in the fight against AIDS will lower between 50-80%. Previously, Glaxo offered to sell their combination therapy for only $2 a day to governments, charity groups and nongovernmental organizations in the least-developed countries. They stated that they will continue to offer this price. Also, Glaxo is forming a social responsibility committee to further examine and study the price needs and impact of the medicines. However, like the previous articles, these actions are not based on true altruistic motives. Instead, Glaxo has been strongly pressured by society to reduce the prices of these drugs. Unlike the other articles, Glaxo is getting nothing in return for the donation. Yet still, the price reductions were made only because they were pressured to do so. Plus, unfortunately, even with these discounts, they are still too high for most people in the third world countries. Although they may help some, the reductions are not drastic enough to make a true difference. Obviously, Glaxo is not truly concerned if a change is made.
Finally, we find someone who donates because he wants to. Someone who gives to charity not for himself, but for those who need it. Robert Kierlin, CEO of Fastenal Co, has developed a plan to give away 2.8 of his 3.9 million shares by 2007. The donations go to the Hiawatha Education Foundation, which he helped to create. The original owners of Fastenal Co wanted to give part of their money to allow all those the opportunity to go to college and earn an education. Of all the owners, only one of their parents had graduated from college. These owners were so thankful for their opportunity, that they wanted to pass on the opportunity. I am astounded and very grateful to this man. He is truly a unique individual with a big heart. He is known to be frugal and does not unnecessarily spend his money on himself. Rather, he gives it to those who may need it more.
Mr. Soros is ranked the 37th richest man in the world, and is ranked even higher on the list of global philanthropists. Since 1994, he has given more than $4 billion to foundations around the world. Similar to Robert Kierlin, he is donating his wealth for altruistic motives, not for selfish reasons. His generosity is making a difference around the world! Furthermore, because he is well-known for his charitable donations, he is able to recruite and develop a plan for the UnitedNations. His plan will persuade rich nations to make donations that will benefit the fight against AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, among many. I admire Mr. Soros as much as Mr. Kierlin. Both are using their wealth generously for causes that they believe in. Even more so, Soros is going even more above and beyond, by using his name to develop a program for the UN. With his highly regarded name as a part of this program, it will have a better chance for survival and success.
This project has had a large impact on me. I must admit, that when I was first searching for articles, my opinion of the world and of mankind decreased. I kept finding articles where companies were donating to charity, but for selfish reason concerning their image (as shown in the first 3 articles). I did not find one article where charity contributions were made for the purpose of the charity. Luckily, at the end of my search, my faith in mankind was restored. The last 2 articles renewed my faith, that there are people who do not just think about themselves and who care about others. However, based solely upon the articles that found, it appears that corporations donate to charities for self-based reasons, and individuals donate for charitable reasons. This of course is a large generalization to make, but it also refers back to what I said before. I thought that it would be harder for corporations to give to charity, because it is not one person's decision, nor is it one person's money to give. However, I still believe that corporations should used some of their funds for donations, to share what they have, with those who do not.