"Rain-forest chic" is a label coined in the popular business press for the increasingly popular corporate branding strategy of capitalizing on consumer use of environmental issues as a screen for buying decisions. Companies have parleyed this market strategy into product successes. Shampoo bottles, powder blush and toothpaste carry labels that read "no animal testing." Star-Kist markets that its tuna is netted "Dolphin-Free." Rain-forest chic marketing provides a compelling two-for-one sale: buy hair conditioner or ice cream made with nuts from the rainforest and get social justice for free.

Corporate social responsibility has caught the attention of academic researchers. The icons of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are familiar brand names: The Body Shop International cosmetics; Ben \& Jerry's Homemade ice cream; Starbucks coffee, Tom's of Maine toothpaste, Working Assets long distance company, Celestial Seasonings teas, and a collection of clothing and sneaker retailers including Esprit, Patagonia and, until the sweatshop controversy is over, Nike. These companies, all of which have engaged in marketing campaigns to promote their social consciousness, represent a coterie of ' 60 s entrepreneurial companies with charismatic founders who have grown niche businesses into multi-national corporations. Their companies and products are associated with the labels "green" and "socially responsible."

These socially responsible companies promote themselves in contrast to companies who are caricatured as corporate desperados such as: Gillette, Dow Chemical, Exxon, every tobacco company, defense contractors, the entire chemical industry and all energy providers (unless perhaps they are a solar company or a wind-power start-up).

Such a simplistic equation of social responsibility obscures the reality that business ethicists have failed to examine closely either what constitutes business ethics or whether these particular firms would qualify as ethical by standards other than those measured by political issues or self-defined parameters. Business and business ethics are much more complex than the breeziness of social responsibility. Understanding the corporate soul requires far more than the shallow categories of the CSR. The soul of a company is more complex than that of an individual.

Despite Friedman's adherence to the agency theory, he does, however, outline scenarios in which he believes that social involvement is not only acceptable but also required. Friedman isolates instances when managers should step beyond the constraints of their agency relationship and what the law requires if they can demonstrate that involvement in social issues benefits shareholders. He cites "green marketing" as an example. Friedman once described oil company television ads as "turning his stomach" for they made it seem that the purpose of energy companies was to preserve the environment. However, Friedman adds that he would probably sue oil company executives if they didn't engage in such "nonsense" because oil companies must profess social responsibility to appeal to the public-at-large, remain competitive and ensure profits.
Extending the same reasoning, Friedman supports "green practices" as well as green marketing in limited situations. Ordinarily, Friedman's notion of social responsibility provides that if it is cheaper to pay a fine for releasing effluent into the water surrounding a plant than it is not to pollute or to clean it up, then releasing the effluent is the most responsible action. Friedman advocates the use of taxes or government regulation to control behavior (positive law). However, if an executive can demonstrate that the controversy surrounding the release of the effluents

(a) makes it difficult to recruit and retain employees; or

(b) offers the prospect of adverse publicity or litigation that diminishes its ability to compete, then voluntary reduction of the effluent, or voluntary clean-up is an appropriate extension of agency authority. If an energy company could mitigate these adverse consequences by modifying environmental practices, then it is compelled to act in its shareholders' best interest by doing so..........................

Discussion Questions 1. Contrast the authors' views with those of Friedman and stakeholder theory.
2. What is the difference between the authors' eight questions and traditional measures of social responsibility?
3. Would the model mean that a tobacco company could be labeled an "honest" company?