Sara Lee recently introduced a new line of whole-grain bread touting its innovative farming techniques that reduce the use of fertilizers. Natural food advocates and environmentalists can count another tick in the win column, right? Not so, according to The Cornucopia Institute. A recent Crain’s Chicago Business article put a spotlight on the debate, noting The Cornucopia Institute’s stance that Sara Lee’s advertisements for the bread are misleading.

While I don’t have information to defend or defame Sara Lee, I do know this: the boom of “do well by doing good” strategies is not without backlash. As more companies market environmentally-oriented products, so increases consumer skepticism and watch-dog monitoring. “Greenwashing” or spinning products and services as environmentally-friendly is not the only issue on the table; consumers are also skeptical of general corporate philanthropy and cause-marketing campaigns. In an older example, the public scoffed in 1999 as Philip Morris spent $75 million on its charitable contributions and then launched a $100 million advertising campaign to publicize them.

What’s a well-intended corporation to do? Can businesses really do well by doing good or is the risk of negative publicity too great? I think they can and should – the potential upside in terms of both social good and business value is too high to ignore. The key to a successful strategy is to focus on products, services, giving and marketing that are:

• Genuine and real: In the digital age, consumers are savvy and information is wildly abundant. Anything less than exactly what is marketed to the public will be uncovered. In Sara Lee’s case, the bread is not a lost cause. The company must simply be prepared to accurately explain the product and its environmental benefits with credible, publicly digestible information that supports its ads. Sara Lee may also have benefitted from a partnership with an organization like The Cornucopia Institute that could have lent insights and credibility.

• Commensurate: No one expects the mom and pop shop on the corner to shell out millions of dollars in philanthropy or to invest its operating budget in the latest and greatest green technology. At the same time, consumers yawn when behemoth corporations sprinkle charity or launch one-off products or marketing campaigns that add up to little real social value. If large organizations expect to earn public affection and buyer loyalty by doing good, they must do it to by engaging their core business and creating real change.

• Transparent: In the past, philanthropy, social programming and products had to be “pure:” free from the profit motives of the business. This is not the case anymore – both the business community and the social movement are growing to accept the notion that social endeavors can have a commercial edge. As stated by Greg Lebedev, senior advisor to the President, at a Business Civic Leadership conference in 2009, “Altruism and self-interest are not contradictory.” What’s more, the fact that doing good can mean doing well gives corporations an even greater incentive to invest in social and environmental change. The key is making intentions – social, environmental, and commercial – clear and forthright.

Related Posts

• Integrated Corporate Philanthropy: Barriers and Solutions
• Leaders in Social Innovation Discuss Trials, Tribulations and Moving Forward
• Generating Business Value Through Corporate Social Responsibility: Myth or Reality?