What ails CSR - and no, it is NOT the operational issues
Another day and another passionate article on why CSR should start doing needs assessment, start planning better, and assess impacts. The articles unfortunately do not ask the most important question- are the CSR leads (and their teams) actually so stupid that they are not aware of these fairly basic processes?
Specially when you consider the fact that CSR is basically glorified corporate philanthropy, and we (Indians) have been doing philanthropy and development for a very loooong time now. Even before we started exporting IT staff, we were exporting development sector staff! (In mid 1990s I was personally associated with NGOs that did fairly intensive participatory needs assessments, did RCT to assess alternative strategies, and the forest regeneration project impact assessment included quantitative indicators like biodiversity, biomass, canopy cover.. and of course carbon sequestration estimates. Institutes like IRMA, TISS, XISS, IIFM etc have been producing graduates who understand use of these fundamental operational processes now for multiple decades.)
So why does CSR persist in making fundamental mistakes? My submission is that the answer lies a layer above the 'professional' CSR leadership- indeed at the Board CSR committee level.
Many of these committee members see CSR as an opportunity to 'play God', and/or a way to generate business value. Also the board members, unless personally associated with development sector, have a very poor view of the civil society. Boards are also passionate about making the NGO partnerships more corporate (?) - as evidenced by RFP based process (appoint 'vendors' to deliver the corporate designed project), 1 year contracts, low or no overheads...None of these is conducive to good philanthropy or quality partnerships.
Instead we have the proliferation of vanity projects designed (brainwaved?) in the board rooms, and justifications are created post-facto. Need and Impact assessments are also tuned to deliver positive feedback to the project initiators (i.e. reporting 'enrolment' instead of 'placement'; 'trees planted' instead of 'survival' etc. Also get financial audit firms to assess a technical rural development project!). Infact in most organisations presenting an accurate assessment of need (or lack of it) and impact of these vanity projects would be career suicide for the professional!
领英推荐
Rahul Bajaj was very fond of repeating a motto - specifically the need to create a "separation between vyapaar (business) and paropkaar (philanthropy)". This was first said by Jamnalal Bajaj in 1930s and in my view remains valid still. Unless the business leaders who lead CSR are sensitised on good philanthropy, it is their very involvement that is the problem in CSR.
What ails CSR is the C!
(Disclaimer- like all generalisations, it is not true for all, but then generalisations exist for a reason.)
Social development, CSR, ESG, gender, social inclusion, International Development
1 年Well articulated, Pankaj. It is indeed true that many corporates lack a comprehensive understanding of the development sector. I have also observed that short-term projects are often approved with the expectation of generating long-term impact, creating confusion about whether CSR leads or boards distinguish between immediate output and impact.
Well articulated Pankaj Ballabh
.
1 年??????
Lead - CSR at Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited
1 年Very thoughtful article.. thanks for sharing. I remember the intent behind involving board members in CSR decision making is to have best of brains of the company to drive CSR activities. Whether this Noble intent succeeded in its purpose is yet to be determined.