Sure, that's superficially amoral. It's almost like a market exchange. Of course, the firm profits, so to speak, because you're enabling a false image, one of social conscience and concern.
Hmmmm...while I'd agree with most of your comments above, I'd consider this one to be far too sweeping a generalization.
First, it is
not only the firm that profits...the people to whom money is being given also profit (in the case of my organization, for example, we were able to use such money to set up a training center that gave young women viable business options besides becoming prostitutes).
Second, it isn't exactly a "false image" when real benefit does derive from their donations. It may be an exaggerated image...but not necessarily false.
Third, there is the implicit assumption that all such companies are motivated
only by self-interest. In my experience, I'd say that self-interest is
part of it, but there is also a genuine desire to do something good, to make a positive contribution. When there is no quantifiable benefit to the company, it is more difficult for them to justify it; but when they can do something to help others,
and derive a quantifiable benefit for themselves, it becomes eminently justifiable...and everyone benefits.
In a number of cases where companies have contributed to our organization, members of that company have subsequently come to visit our projects, and meet the people involved. Almost every time, they demonstrated great personal interest in the work we were doing, and even made additional personal contributions (with no expectation of reciprocal gestures from us) above what the company had given.
Besides running an NGO, I also happen to be a fairly successful businessman (having started two successful businesses, and in the process of setting up my third). I have used my various companies' profits to help support some of my NGO's work (both corporate donations, and my own private donations). To have this cynically referred to as "enabling a false image" rather offends me; certainly, when I make such contributions, I want my company's image to benefit, and if I can derive a financial advantage for my company by doing so, that's great. But equal with my desire for fiscal success, is my desire to use such success to help others.
Let's put it this way -- a businessman has money, and has a choice of two NGOs to which he can give that money. He personally wants to do something to help. In the first case, his donation will derive no personal benefit for himself or his company...once the money is gone, its gone, and that's it. In the second case, his donation will result in benefits for himself, and/or his company, which will in turn mean increased income.
Not only is the latter case obviously the better choice from pretty well any objective criteria, but the latter case also means that he is able to
continue giving donations, and even give larger donations, because his first donation results in further profits.
I'm not naive, and I'm fully aware that there are companies who will make such contributions without any real desire to help others, but only out of a cynical desire to use such contributions to their own benefit. But to classify all -- or even the majority -- of such contributions as being like that is, in my opinion and my experience, quite an untrue and unfair characterization.
