Interesting strategy of fusing fashion and philanthropy that might raise ethical questions for some, but seems to ultimately be a good thing. The Washington Post reports:
Suspicious questions have come from the media, bloggers and the fashion industry itself. Why don’t the Red companies donate 100 percent of the proceeds from products? Why did Armani have to undertake such a flashy, brand-enhancing runway production to make his point?
The article continues:
“We’re force-fed celebrities: what they wear, how much they eat, how much they don’t eat,” she says. But those images sell magazines, raise ratings and get people talking. What if that same amount of attention could be directed to the AIDS epidemic in Africa? “I say use anybody, by all means necessary.”
Iman, who was honored Monday night as one of Glamour magazine’s women of the year for her AIDS work, grew up in Somalia as the daughter of a diplomat. But she also spent time as a refugee in neighboring Kenya after civil upheaval forced her family to leave their home.
Is by any means necessary the right answer?
If you liked this article you might also like Caroline Heine’s link to a NYT article on social entrepreneurship, which she calls a for profit/non-profit mash-up, “When Tech Innovation Has a Social Mission.”
(h/t to Philanthro Media)
1 response so far ↓
compassioninpolitics // April 28, 2008 at 9:51 pm |
The second article highlights this cool notion:
Mr. Kahle says he is developing a set of principles that he hopes will help formalize his idea that there is a middle ground between the technologists and the capitalists. He ticks off operating guidelines like transparency, staying out of debt, giving away information and refusing to hoard.