Why I Won’t Donate to Ronald McDonald House Charities
The Illusion of Corporate Altruism
When the cheerful cashier asks, “Would you like to donate to Ronald McDonald House?” my response is always, “Not today, thanks.” I leave the store feeling a bit guilty, again contemplating my reasons for not contributing. I do donate to charities, but I choose not to support the promotion of McDonald’s or other corporations’ charity drives, which often function mostly to make these mega-corporations appear virtuous.
In a world increasingly valuing corporate social responsibility, Ronald McDonald House Charities (RMHC) boasts a golden reputation. However, a closer examination reveals a more complicated and ethically murky reality.
The Funding Mirage
Contrary to popular belief, McDonald’s provides only a fraction of RMHC’s funding, while the fast-food giant enjoys 100% of the brand benefit. According to a 2013 report by Eat Drink Politics, an organization that watches food industry practices titled: Clowning Around with Charity: How McDonald’s Exploits Philanthropy and Targets Children the company contributes a mere 20% of the charity’s global funding.
At the local level, this drops to about 10%. Some funding comes from donation boxes at McDonald’s outlets — that is, customer contributions. The report shows McDonald’s charitable activity primarily as a marketing tool to deflect criticism. While the contributions by the company have risen somewhat since the report, the imbalance continues.
The Customer’s Unwitting Role
Customers often unwittingly support a cynical corporate charity scheme. Donation boxes at McDonald’s counters encourage patrons to contribute spare change, effectively offloading a significant portion of the company’s philanthropic responsibility onto the customer. This distorts the image of corporate generosity, with customers naively bolstering a corporation’s brand promotion.
A Widespread Corporate Strategy
This exploitation of customer idealism to promote brand image isn’t unique to McDonald’s. Many corporations use customer contributions to support their charitable activities and, by extension, their brand image. While seemingly altruistic, this allows corporations to claim credit for charitable activities funded largely by their customers, enhancing their brand without substantial financial contributions.
The Marketing Masquerade
The report says McDonald’s philanthropic giving is 33% lower than that of leading corporations, yet it spends almost 25 times more on advertising than on charitable donations. The charity’s name alone leads many to assume McDonald’s funds 100% of the charity, a “common misperception” and “absolutely confusing,” according to Ronald McDonald Houses.
Cynically Exploiting Schools and Children
McDonald’s targets children in schools under the guise of philanthropy. Events like McTeacher’s Night have teachers serve as free campaigners for McDonald’s image, with parents buying fast food to raise money for schools. The return for schools is minimal, sometimes as low as $1 per student, the report says.
Ethical Dilemma
The Ethical Dilemma of McDonald’s, cited as a major contributor to childhood obesity, claiming the mantel of a player in the health network is obvious. The company’s charitable activities are primarily self-serving and have significant negative implications for public health and policy. Yet this “healthwashing” associates the company with promoting health issues.
Conclusion
While RMHC supports an undoubtedly important cause, the extent to which McDonald’s serves versus exploits that cause is worth considering. It’s reasonable to question not only the corporations but also the mechanisms through which they engage customers in their so-called philanthropic efforts. As consumers, we must think twice about how our contributions are used — or exploited — in the name of charity before dropping dollars into the contribution box.
