It's this annual outbreak of adversity that brings to mind one of the more serious issues organizations face when they do things in the community to add to their so-called goodwill bank: the risks and hazards potential for adverse side effects of community gifts.

The value of goodwill banking is over rated, and oversold. Two major reasons those of us in public relations have pushed on this idea for years and those we work for and advise for have, for years, willingly and frankly overbought. The intentions of each party are different. The sponsor assumes that their good deeds can mitigate in every circumstance. But when it comes to the crucial community beliefs, all the generosity in the world will probably have limited value.

One illustration some years ago involved a company who had a tremendous track record of providing Little League uniforms and equipment across a wide area of the country where the sponsoring company operated. The CEO of this company had been a product of the Little League program. Even before he became CEO he had helped his company to provide literally thousands of uniforms and equipment for Little League activities; the major focus of his company’s community activity.

My phone rang on a Sunday, July 5th, afternoon and I was invited to join a telephone call with the senior executives of this company which had come under public attack the previous evening for a product defect that had injured a number of people, some seriously. Some employees had complained publicly about the company's ignoring certain manufacturing steps that would have made the product safer.

The company’s initial response revolved around being a good corporate citizen for decades. Management was publicly puzzled about why, in light of such an enormous civic contribution, their integrity was being questioned at all, much less by employees. The company was saying things like, “it could happen to any company,” and “there were similar incidents in the past, yet these companies were never criticized so viciously”.

When I joined the conversation there was a debate raging over the inaccuracy of the stories and the propriety of such reporting in view of the company's stellar track record. I was introduced on the call and the conversation continued. I listened for a few minutes and then someone asked me what my opinion was, but more importantly, what they should do next? Earlier that Sunday morning it was reported that a child had died of injuries from the products. So, I responded with a question, "How many Little League jerseys are equal to the death of a single child? Or two, or three?"

That, of course, started a whole new discussion for which the company's internal public relations advisors were taken to task for overpromising what all of this civic activity would accomplish, prevent or cover for.

There were a few negative comments, “who let this guy in?”, “does he know what he’s talking about?”, and “who would really ask these kinds of questions?”

“The boy’s family, for one,” I interjected. “Anybody in this call have children?” I asked.

What ensued was a more focused conversation, an all too rare occurrence during corporate social responsibility planning. The conversation included topics like analysis of risk, hazards, and foreseeable collateral damage in the event of an adverse event. This is a conversation all organizations should have about the value, limits, and risks of so-called, “goodwill bank" efforts.

Read about the limitation and risks of goodwill bank's here: