A movement that enables everyday people to help charities without sacrificing anything personally should be much easier than one that demands people give significant things up or even mildly inconveniences people.
But can we really quantify the benefit?
Charities already hold shares of companies
People already do consider the owners of companies (usually through a political lens … e.g., “Home Depot owner supports right wing causes so people boycott” or some such
How much more will shopping at a “Guided Consumption owned company” actually lead more to go to the charities?
Note that If the big companies are differentiated in some way (like ‘monopolistic competition’ suggests, there could be a substantial cost to consumers (and to efficiency) to choosing the ‘charity supporting brand’
And, perhaps more importantly, will people (over)compensate for this by reducing donations elsewhere?
But can we really quantify the benefit?
Charities already hold shares of companies
People already do consider the owners of companies (usually through a political lens … e.g., “Home Depot owner supports right wing causes so people boycott” or some such
How much more will shopping at a “Guided Consumption owned company” actually lead more to go to the charities?
Note that If the big companies are differentiated in some way (like ‘monopolistic competition’ suggests, there could be a substantial cost to consumers (and to efficiency) to choosing the ‘charity supporting brand’
And, perhaps more importantly, will people (over)compensate for this by reducing donations elsewhere?