[Insert Cause Here]

By Jeff Goins

Something happened in the past 10 years--between the time college students were reading hard copies of The New York Times and when they started skimming social justice blogs, reading about new and inventive ways to do good in the world.

Charity became cool.

One doesn't have to look far today to find someone doing good--whether it's movie stars or a next-door neighbour. From someone wearing the ONE campaign on his wrist to watching charity: water commercials on Hulu, this new trend is hard to miss: philanthropy is "in."

This fad has also made an entrance into the business world. Charitable causes are no longer monopolized by nonprofits; now they're embraced by the white-collar CEO and the tech-savvy twentysomething alike. In this uber-connected world of smart phones and social media, businesspeople are realizing consumer conscientiousness is at an all-time high and people want to feel good about the products they buy-whether it's by purchasing a bag of fair-trade coffee or a handmade purse from Africa.

Businesses like TOMS Shoes and Warby Parker are able to legitimately give back to the world in an impactful way and, at the same time, make a profit. From a business perspective, this idea of infusing products with meaningful causes makes sense--people can relate to it and want to tell others about it. It's free marketing and, because they're making a profit, sustainable philanthropy.

But is it necessarily a good idea? What are the potential long-term effects of consumer-driven compassion?

Think back to before Product(RED). Back when clothes represented favourite bands and sports teams, and making a difference in the world used to be its own reward. A decade ago it wasn't cool to care about the conflict between north and south Sudan; the burden of proof for why someone should care about geopolitical issues, unless he or she was a political science major was clearly on the one doing the convincing.

It's hard to imagine a time when cause-oriented attire wasn't all the rage of college campuses and the local mall. But times have changed.

So the question becomes: As social enterprise gets more popular, does it risk becoming entirely commoditized?

It's normal nowadays for someone's email inbox to be inundated with messages of people giving away their birthdays for well-building projects in Africa. Nobody thinks twice about a movie-star wearing a ONE T-shirt or sporting a pair of TOMS shoes in the pages of a popular fashion magazine.

Social enterprise--the practice of using business to support social causes--is hard to miss. Popularized by organizations like TOMS that have taken for-profit business models and turned them into vehicles for promoting social good in the world, it's especially hard to ignore the effectiveness of combining compassion with commerce.

But is it without negative consequence?

The good news of social enterprise is that the economics of it work. As many once-stable economies are now struggling or even toppling, nonprofits around the world are scrambling to find sustainable means of revenue to keep going.

Since the American recession in 2008, nonprofit giving has been down--and not just in the United States. An article in the Toronto Sun described an online study that found a third of Canadians surveyed had reduced their giving since the prior year due to economic constraint. Incidentally, a poor economy has led to greater participation in social causes.

When times are tough, people are looking for more than just a bargain. They want meaning to be caught up in a larger story. This is where social enterprise really is a "win-win": it offers consumers an opportunity to do more than just consume, while still buying goods.

With this new model, organizations are no longer selling a commodity; instead, they are selling an ideal. They aren't asking for money; they are, in turn, giving the consumer purpose. They are providing an opportunity for the purchaser to make a difference.

This does, however, raise a new concern: Even if the end justifies the means, will this trend last? The "bad" of social enterprise is the questionable longevity of it. Fads by definition are short-lived, so what happens when compassion is no longer cool or when T-shirts and rubber wristbands go out of style?

"Compassionism," as some have called it, is a quid pro quo service. It is the mixture of doing good while consuming goods. But at the heart of it is a consumption mentality, and one can't help but wonder if motive shouldn't at least play some small part in philanthropy.

Social enterprise is a complicated issue that is, undoubtedly, doing a lot of good in the world. The questions of longevity and sustainability are certainly worth asking, but it's hard to argue with the fact that in the short term, people in need are receiving help.

In the meantime, people should consider the long-term effects of charity--being conscientious in the process and wary of potential downsides to consumer-driven compassion. At the end of the day, change is still up to each person, and whatever you do--be it buying a pair of TOMS or giving to a nonprofit--do something.

As published on Reject Apathy.

Visit http://accesscharity.ca/takeaction/fundraising/ to see ACCESS Charity's initiatives and to purchase their new, unique Fair Trade Products.