By Tapuwa O’bren Nhachi
There is growing interest in CSR in developing and developed countries alike. The growing concern with social equity, socially and environmentally sustainable development have taken centre stage in all sectors of sustainable development around the globe. Corporate roles drive this interest, which is occurring in most countries and sectors, within the corporate world, media, consumers, civil society and government.
While CSR priorities vary from one condition to another, industry today can rarely operate oblivious of the interests and needs of the community and society in which it is located. The fact that some have defined CSR as a commitment to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life, in ways that are good for business and for development shows that corporate take it is a value. However it should be remembered that CSR comprises primarily voluntary activities undertaken by a company to help it operate in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner.
The voluntary aspect of CSR should be more like a value aimed at certifying the needs and wants of communities. The attitudes of local communities towards industry are generally similar across sectors and locations. There is a basic concern that the quality of life should not weaken, the physical and cultural environment should not deteriorate, and there should be sustained access to employment and earnings. There is also an aspiration that the local community should benefit from the industry that imposes on its livelihood. Opportunities of direct and indirect employment, creation and strengthening of local social services and infrastructure, education and skill development, and long-term participation in the benefits of local industry are the usual starting point of local concerns. In addition, local access to industry benefits as opposed to disproportionate access to them by external groups is inevitably a concern, especially in areas that previously had little in-migration or economic activity.
Over the last couple of months, a number of discussions have been going on and most organisations are advocating that governments should regulate for CSR. However, it is imperative that as Richard Welford puts it the “C” in CSR stands for “corporate” and that is should be up to businesses themselves to define what CSR means for them. However, businesses should and must not ignore that sort of responsibility and by doing so that will be at their own peril. Efforts must be made on the businesses side to recognise the case for CSR, especially in developing countries. One is CSR’s role is to create interdependency between a company and community. The close link between a company and community in the long run creates sustainable development. This could be seen for instance Shell Foundation involvement in the Flower Valley in South Africa and Marks and Spencer in Africa. The CSR projects give aids to local organization and impoverished communities on a value basis.
Read Also:
Government has been urged not to regulate CSR for a numbers of reasons. There are number of reasons that I have observed over the years why Governments should stay out CSR activities. Firstly in many cases Government’s own understanding of CSR is poor. Government’s world over do not put enough time and research into company CSR activities in most instances. What have been observed world over is that when governments begin regulating for CSR there is some irregular policing that usually comes up. Regulating CSR in India has not led to CSR at all, but to a plethora of forced philanthropy initiatives where companies are often funding initiatives that have very unconvinced impacts and not directly beneficial to communities .
Secondly, in most instances Governments do not take time to have clear perception business essentials beyond tax and other revenues aimed at boosting State revenue, and in many cases civil servants have never managed a business. Only if government should take time to understand business essentials then the State can determine how exactly CSR and sustainability can improve efficiency and competitiveness. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this will be different for companies depending on industry and location. Another reason is that for the State to understand the links between CSR and corporate brands, reputation and trust it needs efforts further than usual State responsibilities. This is so because it is possible but very strenuous to have an understanding the business case for every single company because it will be different for each one.
Fourthly the imposition of CSR will stifle the flexibility that businesses need to design innovative CSR programmes that are aligned to the assets and expertise of the business. Such imagination is key to a successful CSR strategy and will not be helped by “one size fits all” approaches that are normally associated with State policies. Companies CSR programming should be aimed at strengthening government policies aimed at alleviation of poverty not vice –versa. A CSR program can be seen as an aid to alleviate poverty. An example is a Malaysian reality program Bersamamu of TV3 which is sponsored by Syarikat Faiza Sendirian Berhad (SFSB), a local Malaysian enterprise-cum-philanthropist who responds to government’s appeal to help impoverished community to improve their livelihoods in (SFSB 2009). SFSB gets help from the local media company TV3 for publicity and audience support. This TV program is focused on the life reality of the poor, helpless and misfortune people in their survival. Every purchase of Faiza’s Product, will entitle the buyer to make a donation to Tabung Bersamamu TV3 (a fund of the broadcasting agency). Through this collaboration it may trigger other corporations to help the nation in its effort to alleviate poverty and, hence, in developing communities.
Last but not least the state is national in its focus. Yet the outstanding challenges that face human beings are global in nature. The failure of governments to deal with global challenges such as climate change, access to health and poverty alleviation demonstrate that, it is time to engage and use large players in the private sector to use their global reach to engage with these challenges. One way or the other size matters: Governments sometimes are often too small to have significant authority at a global scale. Indeed 40% of all the expenditures in the world are done by the biggest 500 companies. Only big business has the aptitude to scale up initiative to meet global challenges.
However, governments are supposed to play a role that can complement businesses such as encouraging business leaders to distinguish that they have an significant role to play in sustainable growth and, in particular, in helping to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Governments should use their power to organize and link businesses together so that they can better understand emerging CSR trends, learn from best practices and share knowledge of successful (and unsuccessful) initiatives. On top of it all is aware that there is a clear link between CSR and corporation competitiveness and that improved business competitiveness will increase the comparative advantage of host nations. In other words, encourage competitiveness by allowing companies to be innovative and create with their CSR initiatives and not doing it for them. This will be good for the country too.
Tapuwa O’bren Nhachi is the Programmes Coordinator for the Institute for Sustainability Africa (INSAF) an independent and research think tank based Zimbabwe. He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected]
