Corporate Social Responsibility the Ethics

Corporate Social Responsibility

The Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility of Celebrity Endorsements

The world is more transparent than ever before, as consumers demand that celebrities who espouse a given set of values actually live by them (Dodds, 2008). The concept of celebrity addiction or seeking to further fame purely for the self-aggrandizement of their own personal brands is increasingly not tolerated by many members of the public, who reject celebrities seen as duplicitous and false (Choi, Berger, 2010). The connection between a celebrities "brand" or reputation and the socially responsible values they espouse must be aligned with each other if product endorsements are to be believed (Trimble, Rifon, 2006). The credibility of not only the celebrity but also the brand is at stake. For a brand to get the full value of a celebrity endorser, a foundation of trust for that brand must first exist, and the endorsement must be a contributing, not detracting, factor. The intent of this analysis is to explain the factors from a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) standpoint that must guide celebrity endorsements including the monetary levels they encompass. As celebrity endorsements can be over $60M or more as is the case with basketball player LeBron James and Nike for example (Choi, Berger, 2010) the question of whether these funds would be better used to ensure more compliance to CSR initiatives globally for the sportswear manufacturer need to be addressed (Boje, Khan, 2009). The funds spent across the entire group of Nike athletes could be better spent making the lives of thousands of workers in the supply chain better.

The Needs of Many vs. The Celebrity of One

At the center of the CSR debate over celebrity endorsements is the fact that many organizations have supply chains that lack consistency and uniformity of practice on key social responsibility dimensions. Nike, with its long reputation fox child labor and tolerance of unethical supply chain, sourcing and production practices, is a case in point (Boje, Khan, 2009). A study by Boje and Khan (2009) have found that celebrity endorsements actually encourage and promote child labor in 3rd world nations by suppliers who use these endorsements as a means to recruit under-age workers (Boje, Khan, 2009).

Instead of allowing this practice to occur, Nike needs to redefine its CSR priorities and focus first on how to enrich the lives of many suppliers, their employees and members of their supply chains, and partners. Continuing to tolerate a lack of CSR compliance while at the same time investing in celebrity sponsorships undermines trust in a brand (Babiak, Wolfe, 2009). For a CSR program to be effective, celebrity endorsers need to be relied on to strengthen and promote the message of social responsibility, not exist separate or in spite of it (Boje, Khan, 2009). For Nike, the better use of the $60M would be to first focus on how to create a more effective supply chain, sourcing, and partnership ecosystem that is in compliance to their CSR objectives and goals. The lives of thousands in the company's supply chain need to take precedence over the spending on a single spokesperson.

Second, the value of a reputation for being transparent and trustworthy is far more valuable than any celebrity can provide. A case in point is Gatorade.

Having spent millions on a Tiger Woods endorsement, the company had to retract not only the endorsement but also the product based on his persona. If these funds had been used for funding programs for children in the poverty pockets of the U.S. And globally to get internet access and received better sports equipment, CSR objectives would be attained at long-term change to lives who need the greatest amount of help would be achieved.