There's really not much more to add to what my classmates have already said. Basically, regarldess of some selfish intentions of CSR programs, they still provide benefits to society. There's nothing wrong with killing two birds with one stone.

As a strategy, social responsibility works as a means of building goodwill between organization and community. In its most callous definition, social responsiblity works as a play, a strategic maneuver to improve an organization's competitive advantage in its marketplace. In reality, corporate social responsibility is not as shallow as providing means to an end.

There are real effects taking place due to the efforts of organizations involved in socially responsible actions. Exon-Mobile's partnership with Phil Mickelson may have been a way to play "PR Dodgeball," however, this partnership will benefit countless teachers and students alike. It is important to not allow skepticism of an organization's motives to get in the way of appreciating the good works organizations are doing.

In the case of Exxon-Mobil and most of the other CSR examples provided in the post, it is difficult to deny that these CSR programs are merely a Red Herring + a Screen. In fact, this post was a glaring reminder that even I am guilty of displaying such motives as a PR practitioner. In an assignment about a Health Tech Labs case study, one of my recommendations was that the company promote its water purification campaign in Haiti to divert media attention away from the problem at hand.

However, I do not think that all CSR programs have such "spin doctor" roots. As an example, from the CSRwire link in the post, Bayer Corporation partners with the United Nations Environment Programme for an Annual International Children's Painting Competition. I cannot see any obvious reason that they would need to cover up or "fix" anything involved in their healthcare and nutrition business by launching a creative initiative for kids. Also, it is important to note that most companies do not face so many attacks that they have to "play PR dodgeball" like Exxon, because their business activities do not carry the same implications that drilling for oil does.

Lastly, I think that CSR programs are important and beneficial regardless of the motives behind them. Say that Starbucks is indeed supporting charities in tea and coffee-growing regions only because it exploits profitable opportunities there and feels pressure to improve their image. At least companies are giving back now that CSR is in the spotlight.

 I agree that the Exxon case is an example of a Red Herring + a Screen CSR program. Like several of my classmates before me, I think that it is interesting to point out that the article seems very skeptical about the value of the corporate social responsibility being exhibited by companies like Exxon, Starbucks, and Gap. The article seems to attribute all corporate social responsibility to the effort of organization to divert criticism and bolstering the corporate image. I would like to think that organizations also participate in corporate social responsibility in order to actually be socially responsible and contribute positively to the community in which the organization exists. I appreciate the tactics that go behind the examples provided above, but I do not think that any tactic is as clear cut as any one or two plays can demonstrate. 

I agree with my classmates that this is a Red-Herring and a screen approach. Considering that Exxon is a huge company, who often face a wide variety of negative media coverage or negative feedback from competitors, a Red-Herring approach is a good distraction to any negative problems the company may be having.  Charitable activities often place a company in a positive light.

I also think this could be an assessment to a ping as well.  If a competitor is engaging in philanthropic activity, it is a wise play for their opponent (Exxon) to reciprocate these actions.

It's interesting to read all of the companies who participate in these approaches, however I think it is unfair to assume they are only being philanthropic because these actions will provide them will a good image.  I would hope that some, if not all, of these companies would be charitable simply because they believe in that cause... maybe that's naive of me. 

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <![endif]-->

As previously stated, it is obvious that this is an example of a Red Herring and Screen. While this seems like a bit of a stretch to associate a gas company with elementary education, if the teachers are gaining millions of dollars, is it really such a large issue?  Even if it is a publicity stunt, it seems as though the greater good is benefiting.  In my opinion, this is better than no CSR program, even if Exxon has ulterior motives.

Furthermore, if Exxon did not use these techniques, it would only be putting Exxon at a disadvantage.  Since most companies use CSR programs, it is necessary for Exxon to implement these strategies too.  If Exxon failed to implement a CSR program, many would be quick to critique this.  It would only be a matter of time before a new employee or firm came forward and suggested a CSR program if Exxon did not have one.

At the same time, I question the importance of this for Exxon.  I think it is safe to agree with the previous post and assume that most people choose gas based on convenience and price.  I cannot think of the last time I heard a friend refuse a gas station because of a lack of a CSR program (or chose a gas station for having a really good one).  However it is also possible that this is a subconscious decision. 

I would agree that Exxon uses a Red Herring + Screen.  Companies have CSR programs because they want to take the heat off themselves, but I do believe that others really do care about the community and they just can't help that their product is harmful. 

After thinking about CSR programs, I really can't think of a company that is not a Red Herring +Screen.  A lot of the companies that do have CSR programs have them for a reason just like IBM, Gap, Starbuck, Hilton, etc.

Yes, it does appear that Exxon has a red-herring and screen CSR program. It is interesting to learn how many companies do participate in these types of programs (Gap, IBM, Hilton, etc.). It really makes you wonder wether companies honestly have an interest and passion for the programs they endorse or if it is just a publicity act. 

However, I do understand the reasoning behind these types of programs. Exxon-Mobile is constantly under a micropscope and it is important for them to divert from the bad press to the good press. It is unrealistic to think that a crisis or bad press will not arise within a company so it is important to be both proactive and reactive to issues.

I agree that Exxon seems to have a red-herring and screen CSR program. Many companies have CSR programs becuase they are responsible and truly care, others have CSR programs for the sole purpose of looking good for their publics. 

I think each program and organziation must be evaluated seperately.  Exxon-Mobile is a company that is under constant scrutiny from environmental organziations.  Perhaps a green initiative or a CSR dedicated to helping the environment would have been more useful and friendly to its publics.  In addition, their cause seems a bit self serivng- as if they are breeding future EXXON workers.  A comapny such as EXXON does have reason to divert attention and this makes me suspicious of their actions.

 These particular examples surely seem to use CSR to divert from the negative associations that come with their company/organization.  However, while many companies use CSR programs in this way, I think it is important to acknowledge those who have CSR campaigns for genuine interest in being socially responsible.  The American Business Awards include a section that award businesses with the "Best Corporate Social Responsibility Program." www.stevieawards.com/pubs/awards/403_2436_17721.cfm  It should be recognized that not every CSR campaign is a business strategy.

We must also ask ourselves the question, do we really care if these programs are merely a distraction from company's less-than-perfect practices?  These companies would likely continue on in their less-than-honorable activities. At least by adding in a CSR program they are acting socially aware and presumably benefiting society. 

Corporate Social Responsibility should never be reactive. It is not designed to reverse a negative reputation or fix a crisis. I agree that most CSR programs are Red Herring and Screen programs. Most organizations, including Exxon, give money to charities and start foundations not because they want to, but because they wish to maintain or strengthen an image. Exxon is an oil company, which is not an extremely well-regarded field. Because of this, I am sure that they feel the need to earn the public's trust, so they do it through initiatives like Phil's Academy. I think that it is important for organizations to be involved in CSR programs, but it is difficult to find one that is not fueled by ulterior motives. Public Opinion is important, and it will be interesting to see if organizations in the future can figure out a way to sincerely give back to the community.

            One of the main functions of public relations is to enhance the reputation and gain the trust of the company’s stakeholders. When the public is aware of Corporate Social Responsibility it creates a positive reputation, which gains the public’s trust generating brand loyalty.  CSR is a way of strengthening the public’s trust in the decisions of the directors and will continue to trust and support the company even during a crisis.  CSR should not be used as a quick fix for a company’s negative reputation.  It is a preventative measure.  It is a way to gain the publics trust.  It must be ongoing and integrated into the corporate culture to maximize its effects. CSR may be a diversion tactic; however, it can still be used to create a competitive edge and gain the public's trust.  

I completely agree that most CSR programs are Red Herring and Screen plays. Like the post said, of course companies like Exxon-Mobil are trying to get involved with a noble cause, but the bottom line is why would Exxon donate millions to Phil's Academy? We would all like to believe that Exxon and other companies who have CSR programs get involved with charities from the goodness of their hearts, but these companies are not fooling anyone. After going through and reading about The Playmaker's Standard and process, it made me realize that most CSR program organizations participate in are all just diversions from something negative their image and reputation is being associated with. As much as this takes away from the whole concept of social responsibility,I have to admit it's a smart and strategic way to dodge critics and place a organization in a favorable light, which is a important objective all organizations want to achieve. I also think that all organizations have to create these red Herring and Screen plays because it's the only way to survive and be successfulin this competitive and ever-changing marketplace.