2022-05-28 13:19:13
I am sure I will be accused of looking at corporates through rose-tinted lenses. I will be told that the juxtaposition of profits and principles is inherently contradictory — a la jumbo shrimps. This criticism may have substance but it does not negate, at least in my view, the reality of increasing corporate involvement in social issues.
It is this positive trend that encourages me to offer a different model for CSR expenditure. I suggest that corporates pool their CSR funds into a common “CSR trust” and allow an autonomous body to manage and disburse the funds. This body should be a confederation of corporates, NGOs, domain experts and government. Its role should be to define the CSR agenda, identify the CSR projects, select the local partners, allocate the resources and oversee implementation. I believe such a collaborative model would be an improvement on the present individualistic approach for the following reasons.
One, it would enable the pooling of knowledge and experience, the sharing of best practice and the leveraging of scale economies. Two, It would provide a forum for learning from the grassroots experience of NGOs and the local community. Three, it would facilitate back-office synergies and reduce duplication of efforts (as mentioned, CSR money is concentrated on just three sectors). Four, it would allow for a more equitable geographic distribution of funds. And finally, it would provide a platform for the delivery of holistic solutions developed by leveraging the financial and non-financial assets of corporates and by creating development “joint ventures” between companies with complementary assets and skills. Thus , for example, a JV between Reliance JIO, TCS, Unilever and Larsen and Toubro could bring to a CSR project on education not just the hardware of a school building , tables and chairs but also Internet connectivity by Jio, IT by Wipro, marketing skills by Unilever, vocational training by Larsen and internship by all. And thereby generate sustainable income generating opportunities.
The government is responsible for social development. Corporates cannot replace them in this role. But governments need help. Corporates can make a meaningful contribution especially if there is a platform that allows them to offer the totality of their skills, technology and resources. The above model for CSR provides such a platform. The corporates will no doubt initially resist the dilution of control over this discretionary fund. But this resistance might weaken if they are assured that a collaborative model will generate a greater bang for their social buck. The Niti Aayog should convene a meeting of the custodians of the “CSR trust” and ascertain the corporate response.
1] What makes the author doubt if the current model of companies is ideal for the utilization of the funds allotted for Corporate Social Responsibility?
Managing social upliftment is not an expertise of the corporate
Focus on only few specific sectors while providing funds raises doubts on the intentions of the corporates
Uneven state wise distribution of funds
All of these
None of these
2] What is ‘Friedmanite dictum’?
A “price” to be paid to hold onto their operating license
the business of business was business
CSR is a fad
corporates are looked through rose-tinted lenses
large-cap companies have inculcated social responsibility
3] How according to the passage was the CSR regarded as by corporates earlier for long?
It helped them to claim that they run an ethical business
The corporates considered it to be their responsibility to serve the needy
It was a way to increase the share value of the corporates
It was a way to lure small businesses
Both A and D
4] Choose the word from the given options which has the meaning most opposite to the word given below as used in the passage.
Preponderantly
scarily
dangerously
fractionally
largely
significantly
56 views10:19
E
