Observations on corporate sponsorship

It's a marriage made under the golden arches. Unicef, the United Nations children's agency, has teamed up with McDonald's. The cash-strapped organisation gets money, the provider of nutritionally challenged food gets the kudos. Everyone's happy? Not quite.

The deal has split the international charity sector. It has also led to bitter recriminations within Unicef itself. The issue goes to the heart of the dilemma of all non-governmental organisations. When should they accept money from multinationals? For the companies, it's a no-brainer. It's part of the latest business fad - corporate social responsibility. They get the glory for devoting a minuscule part of their turnover for good causes.

As soon as the agreement was announced, however, it started to unravel. The European arm of Unicef wouldn't have anything to do with Ronald McDonald and his friends. Officials in the British section said they wouldn't go near it.

The project is now confined to the United States - although that in itself will be a huge money-spinner. In the run-up to Hallowe'en on 31 October, American children can pick up trick-or-treat collection boxes from their local McDonald's. While they are prowling the streets for sweets that night, they can also collect coins for Unicef's fund to eradicate polio across the globe.

That is stage one. Stage two takes place on 20 November, which has been designated World Children's Day at McDonald's. In 121 countries, for 24 hours, some of the profits from the purchase of Big Macs and other items will go to charity - in the United States, it's once again Unicef.

The UN organisation accepts it is controversial. Wivina Belmonte, Unicef's spokeswoman in Geneva, admits not everyone was happy with the deal. "It is not unusual that different national committees have different partnerships," she says. So why opt for McDonald's in the US? "We share the same values on children's issues - that's what has brought us together." But she says in the same breath: "We would never promote that or any company's products."

Within the world of non-governmental organisations, opinion is mixed. All the main charities have guidelines about which companies are considered ethically sound and which are not. Some of the exclusion orders are obvious - no money from the arms industry, tobacco firms, groups dealing with pornography.

What about companies that are deemed to have used child labour at some point? Several fashionable brand names stand accused of that.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website