by Inez Woody

I recently caught the tail end of an Always commercial. It depicted a 13-year-old girl in South Africa who misses school for a week each month because of her menstrual cycle. It was reported that 1 in 10 school-aged African girls do not attend school during menstruation or drop out at puberty because of the lack of clean and private sanitation facilities in schools. Many girls rely on newspapers, rags, camel skins, or nothing at all for their menstrual needs. In some areas and at some schools, these girls have no hope of privacy other than the shadow of a bush. Tampax has a campaign as well. Both Proctor and Gamble (P&G) brands are raising awareness about this issue and are planning to provide sanitary napkins for school-aged girls in South Africa. The idea of keeping African girls in school resonates very well with Always and Tampax customers. The question is what's in it for P&G? Another company is making strides toward social corporate responsibility, but is this clearly just a form of deceptive advertising? In this special report, I'll dig deeper to see if there is truth to the studies and find out why company giants flaunt their charity by using it in their ads. Is it to bring awareness to this disturbing issue?  And is this really an issue in Africa? Some African women beg to differ.

Don't Be Misled by Deceptive Business/Charity Marketing!
Some argue that this entire campaign is another form of deceptive advertising. Many believe that third-world countries are being targeted and denigrated all in an effort to boost sales for American companies. What I found while conducting my research is that P&G, along with the United Nations Association and HERO (an awareness-building and fundraising initiative of the United Nations Association), is doing much more than providing sanitary napkins to girls in South Africa. They have launched the Protecting Futures program, a comprehensive care program that will include education on puberty and nutrition, provide traveling health educators and educational support services, establish a pad distribution program, and undertake significant construction projects for schools and communities in South Africa.

Companies should commit to social corporate responsibility by aiding and providing awareness to many issues in America and also around the world. Although many of these companies benefit in sales, I believe their community service is not in vain. If the lives of African children are being affected positively, then I will support the efforts of P&G. On the flip side, companies are aware that loyal consumers will switch brands in a heartbeat if their favorite non-profit organization is affiliated with their brand's competitor. Think about your last visit to the grocery store. Purchasing your favorite cereal is usually an easy and decisive job, but a cereal that you like but don't usually purchase might find its way into your shopping cart if it was endorsed by the American Cancer Society and you just recently lost a loved one to leukemia. People want to feel like they are making a difference by supporting a product that has a non-profit organization's logo stamped on the front.

Making decisions to buy products based on a company's promise to make donations for a great cause usually results in greater sales. The American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) believes that it is hypocritical for charities that have policies not to endorse specific products to allow corporate marketers to give consumers the impression the charity is making such an endorsement through general licensing arrangements. Basically, a charity's logo may appear on a product not because the charity has undertaken research to demonstrate that the product is superior, but because the company has paid a licensing fee to the charity for the right to use the charity's name or logo in its marketing. This, my friends, is a very devious practice. Businesses like getting the extra sales and improved image from the use of a charity's name. Charities like the extra revenue and visibility. But charities should think long and hard about whether it is worth the extra revenue and visibility to be so closely identified with the interests of a for-profit company.

Posing a Health Hazard
Although disposable supplies are being donated to girls in South Africa, they don't have the resources available to properly dispose of them. They have no solid waste programs or landfills.  Donating P&G products creates an additional burden on the communities in South Africa and their environment. Many disposable feminine hygiene products contain plastic, and incineration poses a health hazard for the students, teachers, and community. The Protecting Futures program plans to train teachers how to burn and properly dispose of the supplies, but wouldn't this take away from their job, which is to actually teach the children?

Insulting to Say the Least
A lot of African women are totally appalled by the ads run by Always and Tampax. Their question is: “How many years have African girls gone without Tampax?” They feel that the statistics reported are ludicrous and that Africa is becoming the scapegoat for everything. As I read several blogs and readers' comments, many Africans and Americans felt that the commercials were insulting. Some felt that even if the statistics were true, these companies were simply exploiting a cause to sell their products.

A Better Route
Instead of donating disposable supplies to girls in South Africa, an alternative route would be to donate sustainable reusable pads/cups that are affordable and won't pose health hazards.  Goods 4 Girls provides a link for women wanting to donate hand-sewn menstrual pads to agencies that could provide the means of identifying areas of need as well as provide the distribution to the women and girls needing the pads. Goods 4 Girls was created to help young women gain access to better menstrual products. Their goal is to help these girls live their lives and go to school without the fear that what they are using during their period will fail. Goods 4 Girls is just one source for an alternative and healthier option.

I strongly support Proctor & Gamble, Tampax, Always, HERO, and the United Nations Association's quest to improve sanitation facilities, and provide nutritious feeding programs and health support. I don't have a problem with education that will hopefully increase openness about women's reproductive and sexual health, but I do have concerns about mainstream menstrual product companies doing it. I also have concerns about creating and posing a bigger health hazard by donating disposable supplies to girls in South Africa. As an advocate for education, my heart definitely goes out to the young women who are missing school during their menstruation. My personal solution is to get involved with Goods 4 Girls by donating money and possibly learning how to sew reusable pads for the girls in South Africa. After seeing the commercials, my eyebrow was raised because adding so much to the landfills in African is not the solution for this problem; it is simply a way to make all girls in South Africa reliant on imported products, which cost money, drain resources, pollute the environment when produced, and create a nightmare for disposal.

For more information, please visit www.protectingfutures.com and www.goods4girls.org.