false oppositions.

there is a significant glitch quite apparent in marketing and brand messaging which bothers me and what i, personally, identify as one of the most interesting challenges in the future of marketing: the promotion of ethical ideals. i am not talking about some idealistic anti-materialistic view going towards corporate extinction, but about the fact that social responsibility is increasingly important, accepted and promoted as part of marketing, and it should be profitable and beneficial to move towards more responsible production and consumption.

as we all know, moral consumption and ethical buying are huge trends. whole brands, such as american apparel or edun, rely on their image as more ethical than their rivals. eco-chic, sweatshop-free, organic, fair trade, social resposibility... you name it. (almost) everyone is doing it, and ethically sound seems to have surpassed healthiness as the main added value to a brand. nokia made it up the greenpeace scale for eco-friendly electronics. the paradox, in my view, lies in that once it's been established that corporations realize the importance ethical thinking and action, they cannot succeed by definition because they are corporations. it does not matter what kinds of changes they're willing to make, because everything will be viewed as superficial image polishing just because the changes are made in a profit oriented matrix. it seems that a huge false opposition exists between profit and morally proper action.

the history of opposition is obviously between large corporations (evil) and ngo's (good); between creating profit no matter what and holding up ethical values and justice without financial gain. since values, morals and ethics became a trend and, increasingly, a basis for running a credible business, the demanding party has been holding the ethical halo on a stick and the business donkey has followed without ever making it underneath the ring of salvation's light. the inquisition is after you with boycotts, riots, vandalism and flyers if you don't suck up to them, but don't you dare think you can ever actually make them happy.

why call it a false opposition? obviously corporations and every company smaller than the few global mammoths are essential for the well-being of people: we need services, commodities and the jobs they provide. sure, we may not need as much material well-being or prices as cheap as we're used to. and sure, the ceos or major stockholders of corporations may not need as much of an increase per annum as they may be used to. if we were willing to pay higher prices and buy slightly less of everything, profit could still fit in the picture and working conditions could be better. the thing is, we're in this together.

the trend is too good to let pass because of skepticism. idealism may be a vanity we cannot afford, either, but where does the need to dismiss every effort a company makes towards becoming more ethical grow from? the insecurities of ngo's as the final holders of Moral Truth? the false premiss that a moral agent needs to be consistent and throughout, a moral archangel in the harean sense, or they won't be considered moral at all -- an argument all too familiar from discussions about vegetarianism as a dietary choice where the credibility of the defender of herbivores is challenged because of leather shoes. it's all or nothing, baby, they seem to think.

such ngo groups as the carrotmob offer an example how the halo at the end of the stick becomes attainable and what is possible from the morals guarding side of the polarity. by concentrating on the positive -- by rewarding a business for ethical conduct with tangible benefits rather than lamenting on whatever monstrous act was hidden behind a corporation's latest effort to appear ethical -- it seems ngo action and business can hit a pleasant chord together.

but isn't there something that could be done by just altering the messages that marketing agencies are producing for their clients? if i am right about the opposition being only an apparition, there must be means to surpass it creatively and conceptually. it cannot be that only ngo guided or controlled activities should be and are truly ethics promoting and significant while cooperation with them may be essential -- if only for information. if we really want to attain a better world, why are we so damn hesitant to reward movement towards it? would somebody think this over with me?