The Wikipedia defines philanthropy as the “love of humanity”. It is,
then natural that, as human beings, the act of philanthropy forms an
integral part of the DNA of the human race.
In India, through the ages, philanthropy has been viewed as the duty of
monarchy. Even in the great Arthashastra, there is a mention of how it
is considered to be good for the king and the kingdom. What it did not
clarify was that in the days of autocracy, the charities of the kings
were often construed as the contribution of the empire.
This led to a slightly blurred vision in modern India, where the act of
philanthropy is viewed both through personal and organisational lens.
However, in developed economies, the divide is clear and
well-established. Personal acts of philanthropy are appreciated in a
personal capacity, while organisational acts are treated separately.
In the light of the recently introduced Companies Bill with its
guidelines on mandatory CSR spends by large corporates, it is imperative
to examine the role and context of philanthropy, both in an individual
and organisational capacity.
CORPORATE CONTEXT
Currently, the jury is still out on whether philanthropy should be done
by corporates or individuals from their own private wealth. In a typical
corporate structure, the model that is largely followed is that of
input, process and output.
In the input variable, we have resources which are put into the system
from the market, including, but not restricted to, human resources. So
one point of view is that as corporates consume resources of various
kinds, it is their responsibility to contribute back to the system or
the environment from which they consume.
Ideally, this should be also aligned to the business conducted by the
company, and therefore indirectly or directly contribute to enhancing
value to the company’s name and brand.
BRAND EQUITY
Supporting social causes is not only a legal mandate, but an intrinsic
responsibility of any progressive corporate. After all, the profits
derived by a company are from the society that we live in, and hence
giving back to the society through CSR is simply enhancing engagement
with society.
Thus, CSR initiatives are not charity or ‘philanthropy’ in that sense.
Consequently, there is a definite value-add to the image of the company
as a socially aware entity and responsible member of the society at
large. For example, under CSR, DLF Foundation has undertaken the Cluster
Village Development Programme in 10 villages of Gurgaon, in sync with
the priority areas identified in the 12th Plan.
This initiative is aimed at empowering communities, which are directly
or indirectly impacted by the real-estate development activity
undertaken by DLF through programmes. It uplifts the lives and living
conditions of migrant workers and their families through well-crafted
interventions in the areas of health, education, sanitation and skill
development.
Amul’s continued endeavour to improve the socio-economic conditions of
the rural people is another prime example of the successes of the CSR
model. Its special project on “Improving socio-economic conditions of
BPL Families of Kheda District through Animal Husbandry and Dairying” is
a case in point.
Programmes and initiatives like these no doubt make a huge difference to
the lives and livelihoods of people who are part of the organisation’s
business value chain; they also add a silver lining to the business,
albeit indirectly.
There is a need to recognise that the function of a corporate house is
to create value and generate profits for all stakeholders.
Resources spent on ‘good causes’ by corporates, which have no bearing or
relation to its business, but are deployed under the guise of meeting
CSR obligations, end up as a disservice to its primary stakeholders.
There are, of course, other benefits that accrue to corporates from
their CSR or Cause Related Marketing programmes. It helps the
organisation create a favourable employer branding, which is essential
from a talent attraction and retention perspective. Unlike in the past,
where an organisation was only evaluated on its product, today
organisations are evaluated on their brand image, which is enhanced by
acts of CSR.
A case in point is Google’s recent initiative to create Internet hotspots in downtown Manhattan for free as a public service.
This single act is certain to increase its brand pull; prospective
employees are likely to consider this act as a factor while deciding on
seeking employment with the organisation.
INDIVIDUALLY DRIVEN
Philanthropy, on the other hand, is the selfless contribution of wealth
to the underprivileged. Some of the single largest individual
philanthropists across the globe include Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Azim
Premji and N. R. Narayana Murthy.
These individuals have decided to give away their wealth for a cause
which they believe to be higher than their personal needs. Very often
though, the cases of personal philanthropy are often related to the
organisational greatness, as the leaders are also the face of the
organisation.
Infosys, Berkshire Capital, Microsoft and Wipro are also in the news for
the actions of their leaders. This however should be viewed as an
inevitable by-product and not the main motivation for philanthropy by
individuals.
The choice of individual philanthropy rests with the individual in all
circumstances. Different people have different reasons which drive their
philanthropic behaviour —but the end benefit is always to society at
large.
Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that in India philanthropy is
closely intertwined with the vision, mission and philosophies of leaders
and founders of large organisations. Irrespective of personal or
organisational acts, they serve the society in good stead.
(The author is CEO, DLF Foundation.)
CSR really needs to be taken seriously. Its time corporate's realized that they need to give back to the society. I came across a good read on how CSR should be carried out by corporate's. Nita Kapoor of Godfrey Philips India has given some really valuable insights. http://causeitworks.wordpress.com/ Do read.
ReplyDelete