A Corporation's Warm Glow

A few different things I've read recently have me wondering about the direct and indirect consequences of doing good. Just as people experience indirect benefits from benevolence, it turns out so too can corporations.

When it comes to the personal benefits of doing good, studies have actually shown that we almost universally display a positive emotional "high" after we've made a charitable contribution. As the New York Time shares in an article on "What Makes People Give", an economic theorist referred to this as the "warm glow" theory: "In the warm-glow view of philanthropy, people aren’t giving money merely to save the whales; they’re also giving money to feel the glow that comes with being the kind of person who’s helping to save the whales." (My mother likes to call it a Helper's High. Either way, you get the idea.) Daniel Goleman points out that the emotional halo works in reverse; If I do something bad that makes me feel like a lousy person, or get yelled at by someone, I carry the icky emotional residue of that encounter around with me.

So, there's an indirect, latent effect of charitable giving. For people, it's an emotional high.

It comes as no surprise that a corporation gets to bask in it's own "warm glow", of sorts. And this positive halo effect is visible in both financial and human factors. Take 'green' corporations as an example: In theory, they sell more product ($$$) and directly benefit the environment. But, one piece of research points out that it's the human factors - the indirect benefits - that are also incredibly powerful. This study conducted by the UK-based researchers Ipsos MORI showcases that people feel even more strongly about working for a "green" company than they do about buying green products. In fact, there's a significant discrepancy between the two.

















(This comes from people saying “agree” to the questions “I would prefer to work for a company that has a good reputation for environmental responsibility” and “I would be more likely to purchase products of services from a company with a good reputation for environmental responsibility” Study: “Corporate Environmental Behavior and the Impact on Brand Values”, Tangberg and Ipsos MORI survey, October 2007; n = 16,823)

This begs the question - what other indirect benefits are there of being green? I could envision a study measuring whether people are willing to take a paycut to work for a 'greener' company. And what about looking at the reverse; Do we need a pay increase in order to work for a company that we find morally repugnant or environmentally damaging? And just how much will we sell out for?