SOCIAL

BUSINESS

Collated and edited by

Huzaifa Khorakiwala
&
Dr S Srinivasan
 Dedicated to the law of reciprocity
“The more you give the more you get”

ii iii

“We make a living by what we get
we make a life by what we give”
iv
Acknowledgements
We have drawn from numerous sources to put together this
collage of varied fragrances and we thank all of them for
allowing us to spread the noble message of philanthropy.
The Chairperson and Trustees of Wockhardt Foundation have
been highly supportive of this effort which could not have
fructified but for the encouragement by each and every
‘Warrior’ of Wockhardt Foundation.
v

Preface
Anu Agha, ex-chairperson of Thermax Limited, famously said,
“We survive by breathing but we can’t say we live to breathe.
Likewise, making money is very important for a business to
survive, but money alone cannot be the reason for business
to exist”. This book draws inspiration from those thought-
provoking words. If money cannot be the reason for a
business to exist, then what is?
The etymology of “business” relates to the state of being
busy either as an individual or society as a whole, doing
commercially viable and profitable work. While no one
questions the profit motive, the line between making
legitimate profit on the one hand and making profit at the
expense of someone else on the other, is indeed wafer-thin.
If profit clashes with social justice, then there is a dilemma,
even a struggle.
Millennia ago, Plato raised several questions that are still at
the heart of many modern conflicts and heated debates.
What is justice? What is goodness? Does a lack of goodness
stem from a lack of knowledge about justice? Plato examined
these questions as separate aspects of a single theme. He
then used his answers to come up with his own rendition of
the perfect existence. He believed that the power of wisdom
is possessed most abundantly in kings and philosophers and
that others should accept the authority of those wise and
morally superior leaders.
vi
Plato and many other academics throughout history, tended
to think of business as a necessary evil in society and not as
something worthy of serious philosophical consideration. You
cannot serve God and Mammon at the same time, said The
Bible (Matthew 6:19-21). The Bible teaches that there are two
aspects to human nature. First, we are created in the image
of God and thus able to control the economic system. But
second, human beings are sinful and thus tend towards greed
and exploitation. This points to the need to protect
individuals from human sinfulness in the economic system.
The twenty first century has begun with similar questions but
worded differently. The arguments against bailing out
institutions that were on the wrong side of ethics and those
against lopsided compensation to top brass of corporate
bodies are examples.
According to Peter Drucker, The Guru of all Gurus,
management by objective works if you know the
organisational objective but ninety percent of the time you
don’t. While Drucker has dealt with countless business issues
in numerous publications over his long life, he also inquires
into the principles and concepts that underlie commercial
activity and organisational structure and he asks what ought
to be the mission of a business and, in particular, how can we
reconcile a business mission with conflicting interests in the
marketplace and society.
In a manner of speaking, social business can be distilled and
even dismissed as running a non-profit organisation. But
vii
 there is more to this issue than the simplistic dichotomy that
Contents
the legal system provides for. The standard and simplistic
argument would be, if you want to make profit, do business. Historical perspective..........................................02
If you don’t want to make profit and still work, form a trust Business models ..................................................20
and do charity. Well, that is the basic premise we want to
examine in this book. Can we indeed be in accordance with CSR ......................................................................40
the rules of business and yet look beyond the profit motive? Downside of CSR..................................................56
Obviously, this is not the first time that this issue is being CEO-speak ............................................................72
addressed in a book form. And surely this is not going to be
the last time either. Ours is an attempt to look at the familiar Smart partnering.................................................86
and look for the unfamiliar if possible. See if the scheme can CSE.......................................................................98
be redrawn so as to preserve the profit component, yet serve
social justice in every possible aspect of the business. We Innovations .........................................................112
have no claim to infallibility. We don’t believe in dogmas Sustainability......................................................122
either. We will make a sincere attempt to look at all facts in
The road ahead..................................................144
as rational a manner as possible and redraw the landscape.
The final outcome is for you to judge. Happy reading! Case studies .......................................................162

Post-script .........................................................200

Index ..................................................................202

About the authors .............................................206

viii 1
 TO MANY OF US, THE RECENT SPURT IN
HEADLINES ABOUT CORPORATE SOCIAL

HISTO
RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIAL AWARENESS
OF BUSINESS HOUSES MAY GIVE THE
IMPRESSION THAT MANKIND IS WAKING UP
TO NEW EQUATIONS WITH WELFARE

RICAL EFFORTS. FAR FROM IT. IN ANCIENT

MESOPOTAMIA, AROUND 1700 BC, KING
HAMMURABI INTRODUCED A CODE IN

PERS
WHICH BUILDERS, INNKEEPERS OR
FARMERS WERE PUT TO DEATH IF THEIR
NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE DEATHS OF
OTHERS, OR MAJOR INCONVENIENCE TO

PECTI LOCAL CITIZENS. IN ANCIENT ROME,

SENATORS GRUMBLED ABOUT THE FAILURE
OF BUSINESSES TO CONTRIBUTE SUFFICIENT

VE
TAXES TO FUND THEIR MILITARY
CAMPAIGNS, WHILE IN 1622, DISGRUNTLED
SHAREHOLDERS IN THE DUTCH EAST INDIA
COMPANY STARTED ISSUING PAMPHLETS
COMPLAINING ABOUT MANAGEMENT
SECRECY AND “SELF ENRICHMENT”.

2 3
 In The Bible, there is
HISTO condemnation for charging
interests on debts. Jesus, in
RICAL some of his parables, such as
the Prodigal Son and the
PERS Good Samaritan, exemplifies
the sharing of wealth. The
PECTI beatitudes too foster that
sense of community. The
VE concern on the part of the
Catholic Church for the poor
and underprivileged has
continued even to the 20th
and 21st centuries. The
Catholic Church in Latin
America developed
“Liberation Theology” in the
1960s to address the social
needs of the ‘wretched of
the earth.’ It emphasised the
fact that Christ had a
‘preferential option for the
poor.’
4 5
Islam places a premium on
charity. Charity has been
institutionalised wherein a
Muslim is supposed to
compulsorily donate a
minimum of 2.5% of his
income in charity which is
termed as "Zakaat".
Besides this there is also
the importance given to
"Sadaka" which is not
mandatory but also
desirable. "Sadaka" also is
charity and by Prophetic
traditions and sayings is
said to reduce calamities,
cure illnesses, increase
livelihood and help man
seek proximity to God. The
concept of giving is widely
prevalent in the Muslim
world and forms one of the
fundamental principles of
Islam.
In Hindu scriptures,
Vasishta Samhita says a
noble man shall not lend
anything at interest acting
like usurers. According to
this Samhita, 'He who
acquires property cheap
and gives it for a high price
is called a usurer and must
be blamed’. Charity finds
other mentions in Hindu
scriptures too. The
Mahabharata has a pivotal
character by name Karna
who was the symbol of the
nobility of giving even at
the risk of his own personal
safety. Giving one’s
possessions away in charity
ensured one a place in the
heaven and even
permanent relief from the
cycle of birth and death.

Prometheus
Philanthropy, as a concept, deserves a closer look before we
proceed to look at social business concepts. According to
wikipedia (accessed November 2009), the word was coined
2,500 years ago in ancient Greece, by the playwright
Aeschylus. According to mythology, the primitive creatures
that were created to be human, at first had no knowledge,
skills, or culture of any kind, so they lived in caves, in the
dark, in constant fear for their lives. Zeus, the tyrannical king
of the gods, decided to destroy them, but Prometheus, a
Titan whose name meant “forethought,” out of his
“philanthropos tropos” or “humanity-loving character” gave
them two empowering, life-enhancing, gifts: fire, symbolising
all knowledge, skills, technology, arts and science; and “blind
hope” or optimism. The two went together: with fire, humans
could be optimistic; with optimism, they could use fire
constructively, to improve the human condition. The new
word, philanthropos, combined two words: philos, or “loving”
in the sense of benefiting, caring for, nourishing; and
anthropos, “humankind”, “humanity”, or “human-ness”.
In the West, when Constantine I legalised the Christian
Church, the church set up poorhouses, homes for the aged,
hospitals and orphanages. These were often funded, at least
in part, from grants from the Empire. Over a period of time,
the church developed a system for circulating the
consumables to the poor: associated with each parish was a
diaconium or office of the deacon. As there was no effective
bureaucracy below city government that was capable of
charitable activities, the clergy served this role in the West
up through the 18th century. During the Middle Ages, the
6 7
Christian church had vast influence on European society and
charity was considered to be a responsibility and a sign of
one’s piety. This charity was in the form of direct relief (for
example, giving money, food, or other material goods to
alleviate a particular need), as opposed to trying to change
the root causes of poverty.
In more recent times, the movement began primarily in the
United States and England. After the end of feudalism, the
poor were seen as a more direct threat to the social order
and so the state formed an organised system to care for
them. In England, the Poor Law served this purpose. This
system of laws sorted the poor into different categories, such
as the able bodied poor, the impotent poor and the idle poor.
This system developed different responses to these different
groups.
The 19th century ushered in the Industrial Revolution. There
was a great leap in technological and scientific achievement,
but there was also a great migration to urban areas
throughout the Western world. This led to many social
problems, which in turn led to an increase in social activism.
Also, with the dawn of the 19th century came a great
“missionary” push from many Protestant denominations.
Some of these mission efforts (urban missions), attempted to
resolve the problems inherent in large cities like poverty,
prostitution, disease and other afflictions. In the United
States, workers known as “friendly visitors”, stipended by
church and other charitable bodies, worked through direct
relief, prayer and evangelism to alleviate these problems. In
Europe, chaplains or almoners were appointed to
administrate the church’s mission to the poor.
Today, multiple definitions of “philanthropy” are available:
John W. Gardner’s “private initiatives for the public good”;
Robert Payton’s “voluntary action for the public good”;
Lester Salamon’s “the private giving of time or valuables for
public purposes” and Robert Bremner’s “the aim of
philanthropy is improvement in the quality of human life”.
Combining these to connect modern philanthropy with its
entire previous history, “philanthropy” may best be defined
as, “private initiatives for public good, focusing on quality of
life.” This distinguishes it from government (public initiatives
for public good) and business (private initiatives for private
good).
Out of the countless noblemen and women who worked
tirelessly for the poor, weak and the needy in the more
recent centuries, two towering personalities stand out.
Benjamin Franklin
A noted polymath and one of the Founding Fathers of USA,
Benjamin Franklin (1709-1790) was a leading author and
printer, political theorist, scientist, inventor, civic activist,
statesman, soldier and diplomat. Regarded in his own time as
“the first great American,” idolised in 18th-century Europe
and America as a model of American values and especially of
the Enlightenment in America, the key to Ben Franklin’s life
was his Classical and classically American, philanthropy. He
self-consciously and purposefully oriented his life around
voluntary public service. Even his political rival in France,
John Adams, avowed that “there was scarcely a peasant or
8 9
citizen” who “did not consider him as a friend to humankind.”
Immanuel Kant, the leading philosopher of the German
Enlightenment, called Franklin the “New Prometheus” for
stealing fire from the heavens in his scientific experiments
with lightning as electricity, for the benefit of mankind.
Franklin had direct connections with the Scottish
Enlightenment; he was called “Dr. Franklin” because he had
been awarded honorary degrees from the three Scottish
Universities, St. Andrews, Glasgow and Edinburgh and while
travelling, there he had personally befriended the leading
Scottish Enlightenment thinkers.
In Philadelphia, Franklin created perhaps the first personal
system of civic philanthropy in America. As a young
tradesman in 1727, he formed the “Junto”: a 12-member club
that met on Friday evenings to discuss current issues and
events. One of the four qualifications for membership was
the “love of mankind in general”. Two years later he founded
the Philadelphia Gazette and for the next thirty years he used
the Junto as a sort of think-tank to generate and vet
philanthropic ideas and the Gazette to test and mobilise
public support, recruit volunteers and fund-raise. This system
was heroically productive and beneficial, creating America’s
first subscription library (1731), a volunteer fire association, a
fire insurance association, the American Philosophical
Society (1743-4), an “academy” (1750, which became the
University of Pennsylvania), a hospital (1752 through
fundraising with a challenge grant), the paving and patrolling
of public streets, the finance and construction of a civic
meeting house and many others.

Andrew Carnegie
Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) was born poor in a Scottish
family that migrated to the United States but he worked his
way up to become a powerful businessman and a name to
reckon with in the American steel industry during his life.
Today, he is remembered as an industrialist, multi-
millionaire and philanthropist.
Carnegie preached and practiced the “Gospel of Wealth,” by
which he meant that wealthy people were morally obligated
to give their money back to others in society because they
got it all from them in the first place. Carnegie had made
some charitable donations before he announced his
retirement in 1901, but after that year, giving his money
away became his main occupation. In 1902 he founded the
Carnegie Institution to fund scientific research and
established a pension fund for teachers with a $10 million
donation, which in today’s equivalent could easily run into
billions.
In his childhood and early youth, Carnegie lived near Colonel
James Anderson, a rich man who allowed any working boy to
use his personal library for free. Carnegie never forgot
Colonel Anderson’s generosity. No wonder, he supported
education to the hilt; he gave money to towns and cities to
build more than 2,000 public libraries. He also gave $125
million to a foundation called the Carnegie Corporation to aid
colleges and other schools.
in the Netherlands. By 1911, Carnegie had given away a huge
amount of money amounting to 90 percent of his fortune.
As a child, Andrew Carnegie learned values from his parents.
From his father, Andrew learned the value of helping those
who are less fortunate. Carnegie’s father, Will Carnegie, was
part of a British working class movement in Scotland, which
believed in making conditions better for the working man.
Will Carnegie was a weaver but when he was unable to find
work in America he tried to produce and sell his own cloth.
Carnegie became the wealthiest human being of his time, but
he was convinced of the merits of poverty in developing
character. His vast wealth, produced by the sweat of his
fellowmen he lovingly called “the toilers of Pittsburgh,” he
returned to the city he loved, to America, to Scotland, to
England and to the world. He was not a religious person, but
he spoke in spiritual terms when expressing what he hoped
his benefactions would accomplish in the world and in the
lives of those very toilers whose labour had produced his
wealth (Value based management, Jaico, 2005).

Carnegie was a lover of peace. He established the Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace and funded the building
of the Hague Palace of Peace, which houses the World Court,

10 11
 Here are some excerpts from
Andrew Carnegie’s writings
“Man does not live by bread alone. I have known
millionaires starving for lack of the true nutriment which
alone can sustain all that is human in man and I know
workmen and many so-called poor men, who revel in
luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach.
It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class
so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and
nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of
things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond
this, as it sometimes is, it plays the beast. My aspirations
take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the
enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of
the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the
toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the
noblest possible use of wealth”.
“This, then, is held to be the duty
of the man of wealth: first, to set
an example of modest
unostentatious living, shunning
display; to provide moderately for
The man the legitimate wants of those
dependent upon him; and, after
who dies doing so, to consider all surplus
rich dies revenues which come to him
disgraced. simply as trust funds which he is
strictly bound as a matter of duty
to administer in the manner which,
in his judgment, is best calculated
to produce the most beneficial
results for the community”.
12
Philosophy of business
Andrew Carnegie has been called a “corporate paternalist”
by some scholars who believe that the concept put forth by
him has evolved into what we now call “corporate social
responsibility” (CSR). In 1929, the Dean of Harvard Business
School, Wallace Donham, commented within an address
delivered at NorthWestern University: ‘Business started long
centuries before the dawn of history, but business as we now
know it is new – new in its broadening scope, new in its social
significance. Business has not learned how to handle these
changes, nor does it recognise the magnitude of its
responsibilities for the future of civilisation’.
Nearly a century later, the scenario does not appear to have
changed much. We now have a globalised economy, an ever-
expanding internet, instant communication cutting across
time zones, changed business environment, genetically
modified foods and so on, but the fundamental philosophy of
business houses has apparently remained unchanged. Social
and environmental concern about business could be an issue
which every new generation would like to think that it has
discovered.
Business touches nearly every aspect of our lives, but very
few thinkers have shown an interest in it from a rules or
philosophical perspective until recently. Indeed, few
philosophers can be said to have paid much attention to the
business enterprise itself, prior to the latter part of the 20th
century. Many philosophers tended to look askance at
commercial activity, believing, as Plato did, that only the
worst sort of people are involved in such matters.
13
 During the 17th and 18th centuries, thinkers like Rousseau
created the intellectual foundation upon which modern
business and capitalism was built. A basic principle in
business practice and economic theory is the notion of free
will. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau
acknowledged that morally, we are free agents, able to make
decisions, control our own destiny and engage in a social
contract. Thus an entrepreneur freely decides to pursue a
risky venture in the hope of receiving great rewards.
Likewise, a consumer is entitled to his choice of what to buy
and at what price.
It was also assumed that people are fundamentally rational.
Capitalism would rest on that assumption even if it is found
wanting on occasion. For two hundred years economics was
founded on the assumption of Homo economicus. The key
ethical unit was assumed to be the individual. Social
institutions were thought to be secondary structures that
individuals could use for their own purposes. Some scholars
like Milton Friedman used this assumption in arguing that
corporations have no moral responsibility because, they are
not individuals capable of responding to moral claims. Only
the individuals within the business enterprise have a moral
responsibility.
An important concept underlying modern business is egoism
where the core moral obligation was to oneself and all
actions are based on motivation of self-interest. A group of
thinkers belonging to the “enlightened self-interest school”
developed this into one of the core concepts of modern
14
business theory. Bishop Butler claimed that pursuing the
public good was the best way of advancing one’s own good
since the two were necessarily identical. Lord Shaftesbury
turned the convergence of public and private good around,
claiming that acting in accordance with ones self interest will
produce socially beneficial results. An underlying unifying
force that Shaftesbury called the “Will of Nature” maintains
equilibrium, congruency and harmony. This force, if it is to
operate freely, requires the individual pursuit of rational self-
interest and the preservation and advancement of the self.
It is fair to say that most modern philosophers of business
are involved in other philosophical or scholarly pursuits and
that they come to the philosophy of business as a sub-
specialty, or only indirectly because it relates to another area
of interest. Thus, they are primarily philosophers dealing
with other subjects, economists, or business management
theorists. If one were to examine the philosophy
departments in most universities, today, one would find
precious few courses in the philosophy of business (as
opposed to a growing number of business ethics or applied
ethics courses). There are indications that a growing number
of philosophers with formal training in academic philosophy
will come to specialise in the philosophy of business.
Perhaps the best known modern philosopher of business is
Peter Drucker, whose publications have had a profound
influence on management and organisational theory,
generally and on how we think of the business enterprise.
More often than not, people who think about business issues
15
 are considering it from an applied perspective, which is to
Purpose of business
say, what is the best or most effective means of transacting
Some would argue that the main purpose of a business is to
commerce or managing the enterprise, with some goal in
maximise profits for its owners, or in the case of a publicly-
mind, usually profitability, improving employee relations, or
traded company, its stockholders. Others would say that its
marketing. Drucker may not have answers to all questions in
principal purpose is to serve the interests of a larger group of
business ethics or philosophy but he stimulated business
stakeholders, including employees, customers and even
thinking along new lines with their fall-out effect on the
society as a whole. Most philosophers would agree, however,
philosophy of business.
that business activities ought to comport with legal and
There is a close relationship between the philosophy of moral strictures.
business and business ethics. Philosophers specialising in
Peter Drucker defined the very purpose of business as
business ethics are primarily interested in how business
creating a satisfied customer. This definition is also useful in
people ought to conduct themselves in the marketplace and
evaluating to what extent a business is succeeding in
in society. Philosopher Norman Bowie adopts Kant’s versions
fulfilling its stated purpose. Many would hold that concepts
of the imperative for ensuring ethical business conduct and
such as economic value added (EVA) are useful in balancing
he strongly believes that the people within a business must
profit-making objectives with other ends. They argue that
be seen as a kingdom of ends and not merely treated as
sustainable financial returns are not possible without taking
means to an end.
into account the aspirations and interests of other
With increases in government laws, regulations and court stakeholders (customers, employees, society, environment).
decisions regarding business in the past decades, ethical This conception suggests that a principal challenge for a
practice has conveniently changed from doing “the right business is to balance the interests of parties affected by the
thing” as conscience would dictate to doing what complies business, interests that are sometimes in conflict with one
with the law or isn’t explicitly illegal. Thus there’s been a another.
gradual relaxation of internal moral compass and greater
Some believe that a business is essentially someone’s
reliance on external parameters, as in “if it isn’t illegal, it
property and, as such, that its owners have the right to
must be all right,” as well as a new skillset in finding “legal
dispose of it as they see fit, within the confines of law and
loopholes” in stretching the boundaries of compliance.
morality. They do not believe that workers or consumers
have special rights over the property, other than the right
not to be harmed by its use without their consent. In this
conception, workers voluntarily exchange their labour for

16 17
 wages from the business owner; they have no more right to exercising poor judgment. A libertarian might say that such
tell the owner how he will dispose of his property than the proscriptions are laden with subjective valuations and that
owner has to tell them how to spend their wages, which is people have a right to choose for themselves, that is, as long
property belonging to the workers. Similarly, assuming the as they do not harm others.
business has purveyed its goods honestly and with full
Regardless of how one thinks about these matters, it is
disclosure, consumers have no inherent rights to govern the
undeniable that a business enterprise represents an
business, which belongs to someone else. A property owner’s
increasingly important part of people’s lives, especially the
rights are nevertheless not unlimited and that they are
employees working there, for, in many ways, the business
constrained by morality. Thus, a home owner cannot burn
constitutes a person’s principal social group and it amounts
down his home and thereby jeopardise the entire
to a replacement for the village or tribe that was the central
neighborhood. Similarly, a business does not have an
social setting for our ancestors. In many ways, one’s
unlimited right to pollute the air in the manufacturing
affiliation with a business is the most important social
process.
institution most of us have outside of the family.
The mission of a business is basically what it does e.g., make
cars, sell computers and so on. The philosophical question
arises, are some missions immoral? For example, if a
business intends to manufacture and sell a recreational drug
that is known to be harmful to the users, is it immoral to do
so? What if the business fully discloses the risks and non-
users are not put at any unnecessary risk as a result? One
could easily ask such questions of guns, sex, motorcycle
helmets, dangerous amusement park rides and so forth.

Some sociologists would suggest that a business ought to be

allowed to sell virtually anything that does not harm
unwilling, rational participants (i.e., innocent bystanders),
provided the business fully discloses the dangers to those
who purchase its products. Others, of course, would say that
business and society have duties to protect people from

18 19
 IN SIMPLE TERMS, TRADITIONAL
BUSINESSES REPRESENT THE ESSENCE OF
CAPITALISM WHICH IN TODAY’S UNIPOLAR

Busi
WORLD, IS UNARGUABLY THE DOMINANT
ECONOMIC SYSTEM. WITHIN IT, THE MEANS
OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION ARE
OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS: PRIVATE

ness
OWNERSHIP AND FREE ENTERPRISE ARE
BELIEVED TO LEAD TO MORE EFFICIENCY,
LOWER PRICES, BETTER PRODUCTS AND
RISING PROSPERITY. SOCIALISM IN
CONTRAST ADVOCATES THE OWNERSHIP

m dels
AND CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF
PRODUCTION AND INDUSTRY BY THE
COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE: THE COMMUNITY
IS BELIEVED TO BE BOTH MORE JUST AND
MORE EFFICIENT THROUGH CENTRAL
PLANNING. IN MARXIST THEORY, SOCIALISM
REPRESENTS THE STAGE FOLLOWING
CAPITALISM IN A STATE TRANSFORMING TO
COMMUNISM; FOR MANY, HOWEVER, IT IS A
GOAL IN ITSELF.

20 21
 Individuals engage in the capitalist economy as consumers, total value of goods and services produced rises. This growth
labourers and investors. As consumers, individuals influence requires investment in infrastructure, capital and other
production patterns through their purchase decisions, as resources necessary in production. In a capitalist nation,
producers will change production to produce what businesses decide when and how much they want to invest
consumers want to buy. As labourers, individuals may decide for these purposes.
which jobs to prepare for and in which markets to look for
The price of a product is determined by a balance between
work. As investors they decide how much of their income to
production at each price (supply) and the desires of those
save and how to invest their savings. These savings, which
with purchasing power at each price (demand). This results in
become investments, provide much of the money that
a market equilibrium, with a given quantity sold of the
businesses need to grow.
product. A rise in demand would result in an increase in price
Business firms decide what to produce and where this and an increase in output.
production should occur. They also purchase the right inputs
The market is a term used by economists to describe a
(materials, labour and capital). Businesses try to influence
central exchange through which people are able to buy and
consumer purchase decisions through marketing and
sell goods and services. In a capitalist economy, the prices of
advertisement as well as the creation of new and improved
goods and services are controlled mainly through supply and
products. What drives the capitalist economy is the constant
demand and competition. Supply is the amount of a good or
search for profits (revenues minus expenses). This need for
service produced by a firm and available for sale. Demand is
profits, known as the profit motive, ensures that companies
the amount that people are willing to buy at a specific price.
produce the goods and services that consumers desire and
Prices tend to rise when demand exceeds supply and fall
are able to buy. In order to be successful, firms must sell a
when supply exceeds demand, so that the market is able to
certain quantity of their products at a price high enough to
coordinate itself through pricing until a new equilibrium
yield a profit. A business may consequently lose money if
price and quantity is reached. Competition arises when many
sales fall too low or costs are incurred that are too high. The
producers are trying to sell the same or similar kinds of
profit motive also encourages firms to operate efficiently by
products to the same buyers.
using their resources in the most productive manner. By
using less materials, labour or capital, a firm can cut its Competition is important in capitalist economies because it
production costs which can lead to increased profits. leads to innovation and more reasonable prices as firms that
Commerce plays an important role in determining the growth charge lower prices or improve the quality of their
rate of the capitalist economy. An economy grows when the production can take buyers away from its competitors.

22 23
 Furthermore, without competition, a monopoly or cartel may
develop. A monopoly occurs when a firm supplies the total
output in the market and means that the firm can limit
output and raise prices because it has no fear of competition.
A cartel is a group of firms that act together in a
monopolistic manner to control output and raise prices.
Many countries have competition laws that prohibit
monopolies and cartels from forming. However, even though
antimonopoly laws exist, large corporations can form near
enterprises in some industries. Such firms can temporarily
drop prices and accept losses to prevent competition from
entering the market and then raise them again once the
threat of entry is reduced. In many capitalist nations, public
utilities (communications, gas, electricity, etc), are able to
operate as a monopoly under government regulation due to
high economies of scale.
Income in a capitalist economy depends primarily on what
skills are in demand and what skills are currently being
supplied. People who have skills that are in scarce supply are
worth a lot more in the market and can attract higher
incomes. Competition among employers for workers and
among workers for jobs, help determine wage rates. Firms
need to pay high enough wages to attract the appropriate
workers; however, when jobs are scarce workers may accept
lower wages than when jobs are plentiful. Labour unions and
the government also influence wages in capitalist nations.
Unions act to represent labourers in negotiations with
employers over such things as wage rates and acceptable
working conditions. Most countries have an established
24
minimum wage and other government agencies work to
establish safety standards.
In capitalist nations, the government allows for private
property and individuals are allowed to work where they
please. The government also generally permits firms to
determine what wages they will pay and what prices they will
charge for their products. The government also carries out a
number of important economic functions. For instance, it
issues money, supervises public utilities and enforces private
contracts. Laws, such as policy competition, protect against
competition and prohibit unfair business practices.
Government agencies regulate the standards of service in
many industries, such as airlines and broadcasting, as well as
financing a wide range of programmes. In addition, the
government regulates the flow of capital and uses things
such as the interest rate to control factors such as inflation
and unemployment
The merits of capitalistic economy can be briefly stated as
follows:
The right to own property is central to man’s existence.
Private ownership of land, businesses and goods gives
individuals security. Ownership brings responsibility and
allows individuals to plan for themselves and their families.
The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest
motivating factor a human being can feel in their work
The market determines the price of products and services,
including pay – the price of labour. If some people are paid
25
 high wages, it is because they have unique talents which are
worth paying for.
Competition yields better products and more efficient
processes in all fields of man’s activity.
Capitalism isn’t an uncontrolled monolithic system.
Taxation is a capitalist creation and almost all capitalists
accept a role for state regulation to prevent market rigging
and to help those in absolute poverty
The demerits of capitalism can be stated as:
The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none.
Under capitalism, property is concentrated in the hands of
relatively few well-off people. This leads to gross inequality,
exploitation and misery.
Capitalism rewards people in perverse ways. Some
sportsmen and company executives earn a thousand times
more than teachers and nurses. Wealth is concentrated in the
hands of the few. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Capitalism does not secure competition automatically.
Monopolies and cartels are often formed with the sheer
motive of profiteering at the cost of the poor
(www.idebate.org accessed November 2009)
26
Profit vs greed
On 10 December 2008, the-american-catholic.com carried a
fascinating article on the connection between profit and
greed. It is worth a closer look in its entirety including first
person singular: One of the big criticisms of free market
economics is that markets are driven by greed. “Why would
you want to allow markets to set the price of health care,
wages, basic housing, food, education, etc.,” the argument
goes, “when that means subjecting a basic humanitarian
necessity of the dictates of unfettered greed?” I think this
represents a basic misunderstanding of how markets work
and I’m going to try to address that in this post — though I
approach the attempt with some trepidation given the
difficulties of the subject matter and the limits of the
medium.
I’m going to start by conceding a point which those making
the assertion I describe above may consider to prove their
case: The economic view of market dynamics tends to view
individual actors within a market as value maximising agents.
In other words, a market consists of a number of actors each
trying to get the most possible value for the least possible
expense.
Doesn’t this mean that markets are driven by greed? Don’t
we need to encourage people to be something other than
value maximising agents? Well, certainly, there is much more
to life than what you can buy and sell, so people should never
reduce themselves to nothing but value maximising agents.
However I’m going to attempt to argue that markets based
on individual value maximisation are not necessarily merely
exercises in greed.
27
 There are two things which must, I think, be kept in mind
here. First of all, we do not value things equally. And
secondly, a market involves all sides of every transaction
trying to maximise value. The first of these points is key
because the different values which we place on things result
in the motivation for trade. Say that I enjoy doing carpentry
while a buddy of mine enjoys doing car work. It would make
sense for me to help my buddy with building book shelves
and installing wood floors, while he would help me when my
car needs work, because the work of doing carpentry has a
higher “cost” to him than it does to me. (I enjoy it and he
doesn’t. Plus I perhaps have more skills than he does, so I
get it done faster and better as well.)
Since I get enjoyment from doing carpentry (and find it easy)
I would not be willing to pay someone much to do it for me.
But since my friend doesn’t enjoy it, he would pay
significantly more in order to avoid having to do the work
himself. When we specialise and exchange, we both get
increased value from the transaction. In essence, by
exchanging what we don’t want for what we do want, we
create value. Is either one of us being greedy in this
exchange? No. Indeed, you could argue that we’re both
helping each other, even though we are also both maximising
value for ourselves.
Let’s try this with an example which is more often seen as
showing greed. I bought a coat yesterday for $69 (50% off)
which was, according to its tag, made in Vietnam. I’d long
delayed buying a coat, even though the last one I bought nine
years ago was pretty seriously worn out, because I was put
off by the expense of the coats I was seeing. If you grit your
28
teeth and jog fast from your car to the building you’re
headed for, you can get by a long time in Central Texas
without a coat and the thought that the $150-$250 that many
of the coats I was seeing cost would feed our family for a
week or two, or buy winter clothes for all the kids, or cover
car repairs, or any of another of other items on the list of
household expenses. Now, if the wages for coat makers in
Vietnam were such that it was impossible to buy a coat for
less than $300, I certainly would not begrudge them a better
lifestyle, however I almost certainly would have continued
wearing my shabby old coat and dashing about in
shirtsleeves and put off buying the coat for another year.
And that decision of mine (and of others like me) would mean
that there would be a reduction in the demand for coats.
Which in turn would impact those who make coats.
The current cost of coats thus represents a balance. I want
to cover other household expenses before my own needs.
Coat sellers want to sell more coats and grow their business.
Coat makers want higher wages. Unemployed Vietnamese
workers living near coat factories want jobs and are willing to
get them by offering to work for slightly less than others who
are already skilled in coat making. All of these demands are
weighed and balanced through millions of individual
transactions in the coat market. And everyone gets as much
of what they value as possible given the demands of
everyone else. Some of the people involved in this complex
interweave of desires may indeed be profoundly greedy, but
in a sense, it doesn’t matter. Whether they are greedy or
simply trying to take care of their families by balancing the
many demands upon them, the result is a balance between
29
 the demands of everyone involved.
The idea behind markets is that given that hundreds,
thousands, or millions of people are often involved in a
complex economic supply chain, it’s far easier and more
efficient (and thus in the long run, better for all involved) if to
a great extent, prices are negotiated through free exchange
of goods and labour rather than through seeing prices or
wages where they “ought” to be — because given a
sufficiently complex situation the sum of the knowledge of all
the individual actors involved is much greater than the
understanding of any given regulator could possibly be. Still,
isn’t it a problem to have a market full of people thinking
only of their own profits? Wouldn’t it be better to have
community organisations whose whole purpose is to benefit
everyone involved?
A couple weeks ago I had an extended conversation with
someone over whether credit unions were morally superior
to banks. His argument essentially was, “The express
purpose of a credit union is to provide value for its members,
to whom it is directly accountable. A bank, on the other
hand, is accountable to its stockholders, so it is always going
to put the interests of its customers second to profit.”
If this were the case, it seems to me, then people would
invariably keep their money at credit unions, buy their food
at co-ops, etc. Because while a credit union and a bank have
different business and ownership models, the services they
provide are pretty much the same: They loan money in return
for interest and they pay interest out to depositors.
People with savings will naturally want to get the most
30
interest that they can without sacrificing the security of their
savings, so they will check around at a couple of different
banks and/or credit unions and put their money in the most
advantageous place. Similarly, borrowers will shop around
for the lowest possible interest rate.
If the community-owned model of credit unions always
provided greater value to depositors and borrowers, then
they would get all the business and banks be left on the
sidelines. And yet, we know that this is not the case. Why
not?
I think that more than anything else it boils down to
incentive. A bank is constantly incented to stretch itself in
order to both win more customers by offering high interest
to depositors and low interest to borrowers and also to make
those bets pay off in order to make money for the stock
holders and bonuses for the employees. As such, the
management and employees at a for-profit bank are strongly
incented to take good risks, avoid bad risks and find new
ways to make that extra basis point of profit. (A basis point
is 1/100th of a percent and it’s the sort of thing that a lot of
work is put into making when you deal with consumer
financing.)
The community owned, not-for-profit enterprise, on the
other hand, is primarily incented towards stability. At this
particular moment in history, when a lot of banks recently
made bad bets based on poor forecasting, focusing on
stability definitely has its upside. However, because a
community owned enterprise is incented towards stability
while a for-profit enterprise is incented towards risk and
31
 innovation, the result is that a for-profit enterprise will often
provide goods and services at similar or lower cost than a
not-for-profit, while at the same time paying out a small
operating profit to its owners. By providing people with the
incentive of additional gain, for-profit enterprises encourage
the creation of more value than communally owned
enterprises.
One final example: Let us consider two grocery stores in a
small neighborhood. One of them is a community owned co-
op. As a member, you are a part owner and you help elect
the governing board which sets policies and hires employees.
Any reductions in costs are handed back to the members in
the form of lower prices. The other is a family owned
grocery and that family keeps all the profits which are made.
Both the co-op and the grocery will only have customers if
they provide good groceries at low prices. Sure you could
label the grocer as being motivated by “greed” in everything
he does, because if he finds that he can price cereal $0.05
higher per box he gets to keep the money — or if he’s able to
buy honey directly from a local bee-keeper he gets to pocket
the 5% markup that a distributor would have taken.
And yet, in order to make his family money, he needs to
provide customers with good products at low prices. While
his business model may be centered around making a profit,
if he doesn’t do just as good of job of meeting the food co-
op’s mission of “Provide the community with good food at
great prices while maintaining a warm, personal
atmosphere” he won’t have customers and won’t make a
profit. So while you could argue that his ultimate incentive is
32
to make a profit, the only way he can achieve that goal is to
give himself the personal goal of providing the community
with good food at great prices.
Meanwhile, the fact that he directly benefits his family when
he finds a way to save $1000 here in cost negotiations and
make $500 there where the competitive environment allows
him to raise prices incents the grocer to work harder and
take more calculated risks than the managers of a
community owned food co-op would be. After all, a $2000
increase in monthly profits might mean a great deal to a
family grocery store, but in a food co-op that $2000 would
be spread out across the monthly food budgets of hundreds
of families in small savings on each item until it became
impossible to notice.
Because ownership assigns the benefits gained from cost
savings, increased efficiency, demand generation and
optimal pricing to a small enough number of people for them
to have a compelling interest in putting a lot of work into
improving those numbers, for-profit enterprises can succeed
in producing more value for more people and have just as
much incentive to keep their customers’ interests at heart as
not-for-profit “community owned” enterprises.
33

Capitalism vs exploitation
On another wavelength, a blog posted on 25th November
2007 (edstrong.blog-city.com), makes some hard-hitting
statements on the issue of social injustice in capitalistic
economy: Fifty years of capitalist propaganda have
converted the economists’ dogma into a general prejudice.
Without discussion, we accept that accelerated economic
growth is desirable. Now the time has come to abandon this
pernicious obsession.
Almost forty years ago, Paul Streeten, Prof Emeritus at
Boston University, rigorously documented the perverse
connection between economic growth and injustice He
demonstrated that greater growth corresponded to greater
poverty and that there is a relation of cause and effect
between one and the other. He demonstrated as well that the
famous “trickle down effect” – the idea that concentrated
riches spill out onto the majority generating well-being in
their wake – is a perverse and unfounded illusion.
The exploitation of natural resources has defined the
relationship between the West and the Third World. The great
advantage of Western Europe was savagery and warfare.
People the world over were astonished at the brutality of
Western Europe. According to Noam Chomsky, the renowned
thinker and humanist, today’s global economic system is
designed to transfer wealth from developing nations to the
developed world.
To get as much growth as possible from the economy as well
as growth in population appears to be a common sense
principle. But it is not. Many things should grow until they
reach their correct proportion: plants, animals, people. When
34
something reaches its correct size and then continues to
grow, the resulting protuberance is called a cancer. Much of
what increases when formal economy continues to grow is a
type of social cancer. Speculation grows, irrational or
destructive production grows, corruption and waste grow –
all at the cost of what really should increase: social justice
and the well-being of the majority.
In every country there are things that have grown too much,
things which should be made smaller – and others that have
not grown enough or need to continue growing for the
greater good. A high rate of economic growth, measured
through the gross national product, habitually reflects a
growth in what is already large, an authentic social cancer
and a diminishing of what should continue growing.
Economic growth produces the opposite of what it promises.
It does not imply greater well-being or employment for the
people, or greater efficiency in the use of resources. Quite
the opposite: it generates poverty, inefficiency and injustice.
There is abundant historical record to support this argument.
To continue to propose a high rate of economic growth as a
social goal is pure nonsense. It can only be attributed to the
ignorance of a simple soul, cynicism or a combination of the
two. To concentrate social efforts on economic growth
disguises the real goal: greater opulence for a few, at the
expense of generalised poverty and the destruction of the
natural patrimony. This result is hardly logical, as the
economist’s obsession does nothing more than apply to the
whole of society, a strict capital necessity that applies only to
him: capital that does not grow, dies; and so it follows
indefinitely. For this reason, cultivating the obsession implies
writing a blank check to the market leaders or the State, so
35
 that they do their thing in the name of the well-being of the
majority, a well-being that doesn’t appear and following that
path, will never appear.
We need to recover a sense of proportion that is simply
another form of common sense: that sense that exists in
community. We must struggle against a culture of waste,
disposability, destruction and injustice and the culture that
has produced global warming to which disasters caused by
irresponsibility are now attributed. We can reclaim the
sensible and responsible rejection of what is unnecessary in
the name of socially viable goals and discard forever the
idolatry of economic growth.
The time has arrived to seriously propose the advantages of
a negative growth rate, clearly specifying what we would
continue to stimulate. It is time to stop the dominant
insanity. Some things need to grow and others need to
contract. Let our capacity to sustain ourselves and our vital
autonomy grow. Let our expressions and spaces for
exercising liberty and initiative grow. Let the opportunities
for a good life multiply, according to the way in which each
individual and culture defines that good life. And, to make
that possible, let us reduce the weight of a formal economy
that oppresses us and wears us down, through everything
that contradicts a good life for everyone or destroys nature.
36
Gurcharan Das’ counterpoint
In his article in the Times of India (14th November 2009)
Gurcharan Das begs to differ in favor of capitalism: If only we
would pause and look beyond the horizon of day-to-day
events, we would see a trend of great significance. More
people on the earth have risen out of poverty in the past 25
years than at any other time in human history and this has
happened primarily because of sustained high economic
growth in India and China. Unlike China, which has embraced
growth enthusiastically, India has a vast industry of
‘povertywallahs’, who incessantly raise doubts if our growth
is pro-poor.
These ‘growth sceptics’ tend to make our reformers
defensive, which slows reforms and the nation loses the
potential for even higher growth. Earlier they argued that
post-reform growth was ‘jobless’ until recent data has proved
them wrong. Nowadays, they usually say, “growth but…”
While the type of growth does matter, the truth is that
growth in itself is virtuous and we should celebrate that India
is experiencing this miracle.
Now, two experts on poverty have come up with new
research, which shows that India’s high economic growth
since 1991 is, indeed, pro-poor and has decisively reduced
poverty. Gaurav Datt and Martin Ravallion, both respected
economists, employed a new series of consumption-based
poverty measures from 1950 to 2006 and 47 rounds of
National Sample Surveys, to show that slightly more than one
person in two lived below the poverty line in India during the
1950s and ’60s. By 1990 this had fallen to one person in
three. By 2005, it fell again and only one in five persons now
lives below the poverty line.
37
 In their paper ‘Has India’s Economic Growth Become More
Pro-Poor in the Wake of Economic Reforms?’ the authors
conclude that “the post-reform process of urban economic
growth has brought significant gains to the rural poor as well
as the urban poor”. The poor in urban and rural areas are
now linked through trade, migration and transfers, which
explains why rising standards in India’s towns are helping to
reduce poverty in the villages. Even though agricultural
growth has been relatively weak since 1991, overall high
growth has positively affected the lives of the rural masses.
This is an outcome that the reformers had dreamt of. They
believed that the reforms would create a more efficient and
productive economy, which would raise the overall growth
rate and transform both urban and rural society. This had
happened during the great transformations that occurred in
the West during the 19th century and in East Asia in the
second half of the 20th century. It is now happening in India.
An earlier study by the two economists had examined the
period prior to 1991 when our economy grew slowly. India’s
per capita GDP grew at an annual rate of barely 1 per cent in
the 1960s and 1970s; it picked up to 3 per cent in the 1980s;
and accelerated to 4-5 per cent after 1991. In the pre-1991
period, modest urban growth brought little or no benefit to
the rural poor. (Rural poverty decreased only through rural
growth, such as the green revolution.) High growth after 1991
seems to be different – it has pro-poor backward linkages to
the rural economy. Hence, the effort to create a more
productive economy through the reforms is benefiting the
poor and we have the permission now to dream of becoming
a middle-class country. The dampener, alas, is that inequality
after 1991 is also increasing.
38
This happy news on growth, however, must be seen in the
context of lost opportunities. If only India had reformed
agriculture and had functioning schools and health centres,
the poor would have gained even more from high growth. In
another study comparing India, China and Brazil, Martin
Ravallion shows that China (with higher growth) and Brazil
(with lower growth) have done a much better job at poverty
reduction. India’s failure in education and health is not a
function of money alone, as the prime minister suggested
this week when he vowed to raise spending on education to 6
per cent. When one in four teachers is absent and one in four
is not teaching, we need accountability in delivering services
to the poor. Thus, administrative reforms are just as
important to the lives of the poor as economic reforms.
We have so far seen the essential features of business
operations in a free market economy, both positive and
negative. This form of economy is unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future, or at least till this book reaches your
hands, so let us see how we can weave in the elements of
social awareness and responsibility within the capitalistic
system without disturbing the profit motive or organisational
efficiency and productivity. We have of course come across
some experts who believe that the two, like oil and water,
simply cannot mix. Such a belief may even be partly true but
if it is allowed to influence our mindset permanently, it will
subvert and sabotage any attempt at helping the poor, weak
and needy sections of the society. Let us therefore move on
to see how the corporate capitalist world is looking at this
challenge in its own way.
39
 PROFIT-DRIVEN BUSINESSES ARE NOW WELL PROFILED
IN THEIR BEHAVIORS ACROSS THE GLOBE. ACCORDING
TO MARK WIERZBINSKI, PRESIDENT, EMPLOYEE
FITNESS SOLUTIONS, CHICAGO (EMAIL
COMMUNICATION, 12 NOVEMBER 2009), WHEN A
BUSINESS-FOR-PROFIT VENTURE HITS THE
MARKETPLACE, IT DOES (AND MUST) GO WHERE THE
MONEY IS! IT’S NOT AN EVIL ACTION, IT IS NECESSARY.
I CAN DO MUCH BETTER SELLING BMWS TO THE
WEALTHY CLASS, OR CLOTHING AND FOOD TO THE
HUGE MIDDLE CLASS, BUT TO DISTRIBUTE RICE AND

CSR SHELTER TO THE MILLIONS WHO HAVE NO MONEY

TAKES TREMENDOUS CAPITAL OUTLAY AND VERY
LITTLE REVENUE POTENTIAL. MOST SOCIETIES (NOT
ALL) HAVE A HEART AND DON’T WANT TO SEE THE
POOREST STARVE TO DEATH, FREEZE TO DEATH,
THIRST TO DEATH, OR DIE FROM NEGLECT OF BASIC
MEDICAL CARE. SO, THROUGH THEIR GOVERNMENTS,
THEY SUPPORT PROGRAMMES WHICH PROVIDE THE
VERY MINIMUM OF THESE NEEDS. WHAT MAKES UP
THE MINIMUM DEPENDS ON HOW SOCIETY DEFINES IT
AND HOW MUCH RESOURCES SOCIETY IS WILLING TO
“GIVE AWAY” TO ITS POOR. BUT THAT’S THE LIMIT –
BARE SURVIVAL LEVELS.

40 41
 When free market governments or other leaders begin to
propose aid for those excluded from the economy and that
aid comprises more than the minimum, the standard of living
of the “poor”, in theory, begins to approach or reach the
standard of living of those who do participate in the economy
and don’t get such aid. That angers society and therefore,
gets shot down. So, for the most part, the free market and
government working together can ensure that the poorest
survive, but perpetually fail to break the cycle of poverty
because to provide enough aid to begin an upward cycle of
success and growth, cannot happen politically. Hence,
according to Mark, there is a need for social businesses. Not
to keep people alive and not to provide BMWs, but to provide
services that are the next step above bare survival.
What Mark Wierzbinski describes is the backdrop against
which corporate social responsibility as well social business
concept have started evolving over the years. The traditional
extremes of profit-driven businesses on the one hand and
totally charitable, profit-avoiding institutions on the other
are just extremes. There can surely be an in-between stage in
which both profit and service should be able to coexist.
Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR belongs precisely in
that ballpark.
42
Triple bottom line
According to wikipedia (accessed November 2009), corporate
social responsibility (CSR), also known variously as corporate
responsibility, corporate citizenship, responsible business,
sustainable responsible business (SRB), or corporate social
performance, is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated
into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy would function as a
built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would
monitor and ensure its adherence to law, ethical standards
and international norms. Business would embrace
responsibility for the impact of their activities on the
environment, consumers, employees, communities,
stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere.
Furthermore, business would proactively promote the public
interest by encouraging community growth and development
and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public
sphere, regardless of legality. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate
inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making and
the honoring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, Profit.
The practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism.
Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR,
in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with
a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate,
short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts from the
fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it
is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; others yet
argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of
governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational
corporations.
J.J. Asongu is president of the African Policy Institute, a non-
partisan think-tank dedicated to general policy issues related
43
 to Africa, as well as a consultant with Global Thrust
Communications, a strategic management and marketing
communications firm. He has written an elaborate article on
the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility in
the Journal of Business and Public History of CSR (Spring
2007, vol 1, no 2). It is worth a close look for any student of
this important topic.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a controversial
subject that continues to attract a lot of attention – from
those who argue that the whole issue is irrelevant to
business (Freeman and Liedtka, Business Horizons, July-
August 1991), through those who see the relevance, but think
it is a bad idea for business (Friedman, Capitalism and
Freedom, University of Chicago Press 1962), to the vast array
of writers who think that CSR is of strategic importance to
business.
First of all, let us look at the etymological definition of the
term ‘company.’ It is derived from two Latin words, cum and
panis, which mean “breaking bread together” (Arndt,
Business Week, March 24, 2003, pp. 22-23). Thus, the original
idea of a company has communal or social connotation.
Tracing the etymology of the term ‘company’ is relevant here
because as the words ‘corporate,’ ‘social,’ and ‘responsibility’
rightly suggest, CSR covers the responsibilities that
companies or corporations have to the societies within which
they are based and operate. From a practical perspective,
CSR involves a business identifying its stakeholder groups
and incorporating their needs and values within the strategic
and day-to-day decision-making process (University of Miami,
2007, www6.miami.edu).
44
Defining Corporate Social
Responsibility
The concept of a company or corporation and even business
itself cannot be separated from society. However, a business’
‘society’ within which it operates, which defines the number
of stakeholders to which the organisation has a
‘responsibility’ is relative. The society may be broad (even
global), as in the case of a multinational oil company that has
to be careful of its impact on global environmental
conditions, or narrow as in the case of a small mom and pop
grocery store. It may also depend on the industry in which
the firm operates and its perspective (University of Miami,
2007, www.miami.edu). It is for this reason that the concept
may be seen as vague or imprecise and why there exist
various definitions of the term.
The online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia (2007) has one of the
best definitions of CSR. It states that it “is a concept that
organisations, especially corporations, have an obligation to
consider the interests of customers, employees,
shareholders, communities and ecological considerations in
all aspects of their operations.” It further clarifies that this
obligation extends beyond the corporation’s statutory
obligation to comply with legislation. Therefore, for
Wikipedia, most of what is called the ‘license to operate’ or
legal argument for CSR, would not pass the test for CSR.
Scholars like Porter and Kramer (Harvard Business Review,
December 2006) do see the license to operate as one of the
‘traditional reasons’ for CSR, although they argued in their
article entitled “Strategy and Society: The Link Between
45
 Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility”
that the real importance of CSR is in the “shared value” that
businesses have with society. The basic premise of the
argument is that businesses operate in societies and
societies need these businesses – that is, there is a mutual
benefit.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development
defines CSR as “the continuing commitment by business to
behave ethically and contribute to economic development
while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their
families as well as of the local community and society at
large”. This definition has been broadly accepted by CSR
practitioners and advocates and has come to define any
programme or activity engaged by a corporation that does
not directly bring profit and at the same time creates
tangible and intangible benefits for both the recipients and
corporation itself.
Scholarship and research grants, environment-friendly
practices and advocacy for a societal concern are lumped up
into CSR practices. This holistic and altruistic approach to
business regards organisations as contributing partners to
community development and progress in society, rather than
viewing them as money-grabbing, power-hungry institutions
whose primary function is to make a buck and serve the
needs of their shareholders.
As the Wikipedia (2007) article clearly shows, some authors
think there is a need to distinguish CSR from charitable
46
institutions and arms that sprang from a corporation’s
conscious effort to create goodwill in its locale. One example
that has been put forward is the Ronald McDonald House,
named after the food chain’s most famous mascot, Ronald
McDonald. Ronald McDonald House is an independent
charitable foundation that provides free lodging to parents
and relatives of children confined in nearby hospitals across
the globe. McDonald’s donates the equipment and materials
needed to build and maintain the houses but these are not
directly owned and operated by McDonald’s. The Ronald
McDonald House is a nonprofit organisation and is dependent
on donations from the public. These charitable institutions
bearing the name of the corporation that is the principal
sponsor are essentially non-performers in the bottom-line.
They do not directly add to profits and are normally not
included in financial statements. These organisations are
registered independently and have their own reports
removed from their principal sponsors. They are also
managed by a group that is not classified as employees
under the namesake corporation.
There is in fact no need separating this from CSR. According
to the four traditional arguments for CSR – moral (or ethical),
reputation (or brand image), license to operate (or legal) and
sustainability – these activities are genuine aspects of CSR.
Companies should take a strategic look at such investments
or expenditures and integrate them into their business
strategy. This is what is called “strategic corporate social
responsibility,” or simply “strategic CSR” (at times known by
47
 the acronym “SCSR”). There are corporations that willingly
spent money on community projects and donated substantial
amounts for certain advocacies such as music and arts. They
also encourage their employees to volunteer in community
work and thereby create goodwill in the community. This
enhances the reputation of the company and strengthens its
brand. Charity is a legitimate aspect of CSR as long as it is
approached from a strategic perspective. It requires that a
responsible company take into full account its impact on all
stakeholders and on the environment when making
decisions. This requires the company to balance the needs of
all stakeholders with its need to make a profit and reward
shareholders adequately.
Other CSR practices include affiliations with other non-profit
organisations and major advocacies. For example, The Body
Shop has always been an environmental advocate. It claims
that Body Shop products are biodegradable as well as
animal-friendly. The Body Shop products are not tested on
animals and do not use non-organic chemicals. The Body
Shop also has an advocacy against domestic violence,
especially against women. These practices go beyond the
bottom-line and extend to the community and society at
large. In essence, CSR calls for socially responsible activities
from corporation. These activities are not likely to bring
immediate increase in sales and improve returns for their
investors (though they sometimes do).
While it is arguable whether or not CSR practices actually add
48
to the company’s long-term gain, it is clear that it does
generate goodwill. There are other practical and more
concise definitions of CSR. According to Michael McComb
writing in the South China Morning Post (April 14, 2002, p. 5),
the notion of companies looking beyond profits to their role
in society is generally termed corporate social responsibility
(CSR). It refers to a company linking itself with ethical values,
transparency, employee relations, compliance with legal
requirements and overall respect for the communities in
which they operate. It goes beyond the occasional
community service action, however, as CSR is a corporate
philosophy that drives strategic decision-making, partner
selection, hiring practices and, ultimately, brand
development. Although I usually resist the temptation of
excluding profit motives from CSR, I think the above
definition captures most of what CSR is all about.
Another definition by Archie B. Carroll (Academy of
Management Review, 1979, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 500) suggests
that “the social responsibility of business encompasses the
economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that
society has of organisations at a given point in time.” This to
me is an even better definition than the previous one. The
Institute of Directors, a UK-based trade group, has also
presented another good definition of CSR: CSR is about
businesses and other organisations going beyond the legal
obligations to manage the impact they have on the
environment and society. In particular, this could include
how organisations interact with their employees, suppliers,
49
 customers and the communities in which they operate, as
well as the extent they attempt to protect the environment
(Lea, The Institute of Directors, UK, November, 2002, p. 10).
“A Guide to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)” has
proposed one of the best definitions of the term: CSR is a
means of analyzing the inter-dependent relationships that
exist between businesses and economic systems and the
communities within which they are based. CSR is a means of
discussing the extent of any obligations a business has to its
immediate society; a way of proposing policy ideas on how
those obligations can be met; as well as a tool by which the
benefits to a business for meeting those obligations can be
identified (University of Miami, 2007). What makes this
definition better than most other definitions is that it
acknowledges the fact that corporations have to contribute
to society and that making a profit from a CSR activity is
permissible.
There are a number of related terms or vocabulary often
associated with CSR. It should not be surprising to have
various authors refer to this very concept differently:
‘corporate’ or ‘business responsibility,’ ‘corporate’ or
‘business citizenship,’ ‘good corporate citizenship,’
‘community relations,’ and ‘social responsibility.’ Other
closely related concepts that are all contained with the total
CSR perspective include: social and environmental auditing,
stakeholder theory, business ethics, environmental
sustainability, sustainable development, sustainability,
50
strategic philanthropy (cause-related marketing), corporate
governance, or strategic corporate social responsibility. From
the available literature, it is fair to conclude that consistent
definitions, labels and vocabulary have yet to be solidly
established in the field of CSR.
The current emphasis on the role of businesses in society has
been promoted by increased sensitivity to and awareness of
environmental and ethical issues. Issues such as
environmental damage, improper treatment of workers and
faulty production that inconveniences or endangers
customers are highlighted in the media. In some countries
like the UK and other EU member states, government
regulation regarding environmental and social issues has
increased. In addition, standards and laws are often set at a
supranational level. For example the European Union has its
own set of law about the environment. Some investors and
investment fund managers have begun to take account of a
corporation’s CSR policy in making investment decisions –
this is called “ethical investing,” or “socially responsible
investment (SRI)”.
According to Freeman and Liedtka (1991), the idea of
corporate social responsibility has its roots in the writings of
Andrew Carnegie and others in his time. Carnegie, who
founded U.S. Steel, articulated two principles he believed
were necessary for capitalism to work. First, the charity
principle required more fortunate members of society to
assist its less fortunate members, including the unemployed,
51
 the disabled, the sick and the elderly. These “have nots”
could be assisted either directly or indirectly, through such
institutions as churches, settlement houses and other
community groups. Second, the stewardship principle
required businesses and wealthy individuals to see
themselves as the stewards, or caretakers, of their property.
Carnegie’s view was that the rich hold their money “in trust”
for the rest of society. Holding it in trust for society as a
whole, they can use it for any purpose society deems
legitimate. However, it is also a function of business “to
multiply society’s wealth by increasing its own through
prudent investments of the resources that it is caretaking.”
Almost every company worth its name has developed some
sort of CSR programme. These programmes vary from
company to company, but there seem to be no way to avoid
CSR. In countries like Germany and United Kingdom, there
are regulatory bodies involved in pushing for regulations of
certain CSR practices in order to create a more harmonious
relationship between the corporations and the society at
large. The concept of CSR is not new. However, it only
became a serious academic discipline being taught in most
business schools within the last decade. Companies should be
encouraged, if not forced through regulations, to improve
their operations to become more environmentally sound, to
create programmes that benefit their community and to push
for practices that develop the society.
52
TERI view
According to “Altered Images: the 2001 State of Corporate
Responsibility in India Poll”, a survey conducted by Tata
Energy Research Institute (TERI), the evolution of CSR in
India has followed a chronological evolution of four thinking
approaches:
Ethical Model (1930 – 1950): One significant aspect of this
model is the promotion of “trusteeship” that was revived and
reinterpreted by Gandhiji. Under this notion, the businesses
were motivated to manage their business entity as a trust
held in the interest of the community. The idea prompted
many family run businesses to contribute towards
socioeconomic development. The efforts of Tata Group
directed towards the well being of the society are also worth
mentioning in this model.
Statist Model (1950 – 1970s): Under the aegis of Jawahar
Lal Nehru, this model came into being in the post
independence era. The era was driven by a mixed and
socialist kind of economy. The important feature of this
model was that the state ownership and legal requirements
decided the corporate responsibilities.
Liberal Model (1970s – 1990s): The model was
encapsulated by Milton Friedman. As per this model,
corporate responsibility is confined to its economic bottom
line. This implies that it is sufficient for business to obey the
law and generate wealth, which through taxation and private
charitable choices can be directed to social ends.
53
 Stakeholder Model (1990s – Present): The model came important for the CSR programmes to be well defined and
into existence during 1990s as a consequence of organisation well accompanied by adequate human resources if they are
that with growing economic profits, businesses also have to meet the intended objectives.
certain societal roles to fulfill. The model expects companies
Myth # 3:
to perform according to “triple bottom line” approach. The
CSR is interchangeable with corporate sponsorship, donation
businesses are also focusing on accountability and
or other philanthropic activities.
transparency through several mechanisms.
The focus of responsible business practices in the profit
sector is hitherto largely confined to community charity-
based projects. While this may have been relevant for the
CSR myths historical context in the mid-90s, the current thinking of CSR
Myth # 1: has moved beyond philanthropy to in fact encompass all
Businesses invest the money, therefore they decide the internal and external segments of business operations:
modus operandi of the CSR initiative employees, market environment and community (source:
There is a notion that since businesses invest money in Corporate Social Responsibility – Towards a Sustainable
society, they are the ones who will be deciding upon the Future, KPMG-ASSOCHAM White Paper 2008)
modus operandi of the CSR initiative. However this is not
true. CSR driven by the mandate of an enterprise alone may
not generate desired results. Stakeholders must be involved
from the onset in defining an initiative to make it successful.
Corporates must not assume that they understand the needs
of a community by taking them at face value; stakeholder’s
needs must be considered within the local context and
culture.

Myth # 2:
Financial resources alone can meet CSR needs of an
enterprise.
In fact, financial resources are only part of the equation.
Besides financial resources, it is equally or even more

54 55
 Down IT IS SOMETIMES SPECULATED, SOMEWHAT
SKEPTICALLY, THAT THE REASON WHY CSR
IDEAS HAVE FOUND POPULARITY OVER THE

side
YEARS IS BECAUSE CORPORATIONS,
ESPECIALLY MULTINATIONALS OPERATING IN
SEVERAL COUNTRIES WORLDWIDE WISH TO
PREEMPT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND
REGULATION. BY ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN

of LOCAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND

SPEARHEADING PROJECTS THAT ADVOCATE
SOCIETAL CHANGE, THESE CORPORATIONS
CAN FOCUS ON ONE ASPECT OR
RESPONSIBILITY AND VEER AWAY FROM

CSR OTHERS.

56 57
 Freeman and Liedtka (Business Horizons, July-August, 1991)
have also pointed to the now-famous argument by Milton
Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago
Press 1962) that corporations should pursue their economic
self interest and that any attempt to promote corporate
social responsibility, however it might be defined, amount to
moral wrong.
Friedman questioned the logic of CSR as it had developed,
insisting that in a democratic society, the government was
the only legitimate vehicle for addressing social concerns.
Friedman’s thinking on this issue is very conservative,
restricting corporations to the sole economic purpose of
guiding supply and demand. It is the government’s purpose
to act as guardian and create legislation to regulate its
citizens as well as its corporations to impose order and
balance within society. By engaging in CSR, corporations
have found a burrow through which they can escape from the
hound dog sniffing of the government’s regulating bodies.
The response of management thinkers was to develop more
sophisticated models of corporate social responsibility,
variously called corporate social responsiveness, the social
policy process, social issues in management, business and
public policy, corporate social performance and so forth.
While there are real and relevant differences among these
models, they share an important common ground. They seem
to accept the terms of the debate on Friedman’s ground: that
business can (or cannot) or should (or should not) address
58
social issues in addition to economic ones (Freeman and
Liedtka, 1991).
According to some, the public discourse on CSR has evolved
into a quite stylised debate which tends to focus on one
particular facet of multinational economic behavior. This has
to do with the treatment of workers in manufacturing
factories in the developing world producing goods for
multinational enterprises with particular attention to the
manufacture of textiles, clothing and footwear. This has
brought with it, renewed interest in “sweatshops,” the
concept of extreme exploitation of vulnerable workers in
terms of living wages and dangerous working conditions. The
resultant effect of the focus on this aspect of CSR, especially
by the media, is that more is known about this sector than
just about any other and theoretical work tends to deal with
the subject of corporate self-regulation through the lens of
the production and consumption of these arguably
idiosyncratic goods. For them, it is important to identify the
potential distorting power of this emerging discourse and to
broaden the attention to labour market conditions in general.
In “Corporate Social Responsibility as Business Strategy,”
Rowe (London: Routledge, 2005) basically supports this view
in his treatment of CSR. He thinks that corporations do not
have a genuine intention of being socially responsible and
their CSR programmes are basically designed to prevent
governments from implementing compulsory regulation of
businesses with regards to their contribution to society. By
59
 implication, there are no truly good corporate citizens, just
clever executives or managers trying to avoid government
regulations. Rowe analyzes the corporate response to the
global justice movement, from intent to impact, over a 40-
year span. For him, CSR isn’t about business ethics. It is
about a business strategy to forestall popular power that
might result in effective regulation. He thinks that if
corporations were serious about social responsibility, they
would support having these responsibilities formalised in
law.
The importance of Rowe’s view is that it outlines an aspect of
CSR history over a four decade – long period. He calls the
global justice movement the “second wave” of public outcry
over corporate malfeasance. The first wave took place in the
1960s and 1970s following revelations about corporate
corruption, tax evasion and involvement in clandestine
political activities, including the U.S. - backed coup that
ousted Chilean president Salvador Allende. These ills fuelled
populist attempts to rein in corporate power and increase
accountability and in 1976 the UN began negotiating a
binding international code of conduct for corporations. The
pro - business Reagan administration created a stumbling
block as they accelerated environmental deregulation.
Corporate profits soared as global markets opened up in the
1990s under free - trade agreements negotiated by the
Clinton administration. Meanwhile, negotiations on the UN
code stalled permanently in 1981, after it had been made
60
voluntary instead of binding. Since then, the quest for profits
has encouraged corporations to spread across the globe in
search of cheap labour and lax environmental standards.
Social, environmental and human rights protections have
largely been neglected in the absence of strong government
regulation.
Prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
international organisations such as Amnesty International,
Friends of the Earth and the International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions had initiated a programme to develop
voluntary codes of conduct with industry that will focus on
improving wages, working conditions and environmental
degradation. The terrorist attacks shifted attention and
resources away from concerns about corporate behaviour,
but the spotlight is focusing once more on corporations.
According to Rowe, The consensus now is that voluntary CSR
isn’t working and these organisations are ready to bring
government back into the marketplace to protect workers
and the environment.
61

Profit motive vs CSR
An article written by Charlotte Denny in The Guardian
(5 November 2001) typifies the thinking in traditional
business models based on profit motive as the sole driving
force of the economy: The high priests of the Reaganite and
Thatcherite revolutions may no longer be in power, but they
haven’t gone away. Worried that their legacy is threatened
by dangerous notions like corporate social responsibility,
which threaten the supremacy of the market, a coalition of
right-wing think-tanks and commentators are fighting back.
The case against CSR harks back to the classical foundations
of economics – the observation made by Adam Smith in 1776
that overall wealth is maximised when individuals pursue
their own interests. “It is not from the benevolence of the
butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner,”
he wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “but from their regard to
their own self-interest. Every individual intends only his own
security, only his own gain. And he is in this led by an
invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his
intention. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently
promotes that of society more effectually than when he
really intends to promote it.”
In the case of companies, their job is to maximise profits for
their owners, the shareholders. Appeals for companies to
consider the welfare of other stakeholders – their employees,
the local community, the environment – can only distract
from the bottom line. The simplest illustration of this is a
firm which has to sack workers to cut costs. Putting people
before profits is all very well but when it comes to the
crunch, business is about making money, not employing
people and a bankrupt firm can’t afford to hire any workers.
62
The opponents of CSR are not suggesting that firms should
behave irresponsibly or unethically. They acknowledge that,
in a world in which firms’ brands are often their most
valuable asset, unpopular corporate actions can damage
business. But the new concept of CSR is dangerous because it
goes far wider than simply avoiding illegal or unethical
activities.
The problem is that while CSR may sound as obviously a good
thing as motherhood and apple pie, defining how a company
should fulfil the lofty goals of the CSR agenda involves
making value judgements over notions like social justice and
sustainable development. And these decisions should not be
made by unelected businessmen but by politicians who can
be thrown out by the electorate if they don’t like the results.
Moreover, calls for greater corporate social responsibility are
often driven by groups and lobbyists who distrust business
and the market and whose goal is to coerce firms into
adopting costly regulations. Once one firm has adopted the
CSR model it has an interest in demanding that other firms
do as well. They thus become “collaborators as well as
appeasers”.
Supporters of CSR will no doubt argue that its adoption need
not distract managers from their commercial responsibilities.
But all the same, the possibility that new, more elaborate
and less focused ways of conducting businesses will raise
costs and diminish revenues cannot just be set aside. That is
the real horror for the CSR opponents – that firms will burden
themselves with unnecessary costs which reduce their
competitiveness, reducing the economy’s ability to deliver
goods and services and making everybody worse off.
63
 What’s wrong with CSR?
That is the title of a Corporate Watch report published in
2006, by Claire Fauset, Corporate Structures Researcher.
According to her, corporate social responsibility is a
contradiction in terms. Companies are legally bound to
maximise profits to shareholders. This duty to make money
above all other considerations means that corporations can
only be ‘socially responsible’ if they are being insincere. Any
doubtful social benefits from CSR are outweighed by the
losses to society in other areas. CSR is an effective strategy
for bolstering a company’s public image; avoiding regulation;
gaining legitimacy and access to markets and decision
makers; and shifting the ground towards privatisation of
public functions. CSR enables business to propose ineffective,
voluntary, market-based solutions to social and
environmental crises under the guise of being responsible.
This deflects blame for problems caused by corporate
operations away from the company and protects companies’
interests while hampering efforts to tackle the root causes of
social and environmental injustice.
Corporate Watch is an independent not-for-profit research
and alternative media group, founded in 1996. It aims to
investigate the social and environmental impact of
transnational corporations and the mechanisms by which
corporations accumulate and maintain power. This report is
reproduced in large parts below so that the reader can get
the counter-view on the importance of CSR in the overall
scheme of things.
64
CSR does not pose any sustainable solutions. It can easily
be reversed if the economic climate changes. As well as
being voluntary, it reinforces rather than challenges the
power of corporations. A genuinely socially responsible
company would look so different from today’s corporations
as to be unrecognisable. Tackling the big issues of over-
consumption, climate change and massive economic
inequality requires major shifts in our lifestyles and systems
of social organisation. CSR seems to present us with an easy
alternative, using corporate power as a lever for social
change rather than seeing it as an obstacle. Ultimately, CSR
is not a step towards a more fundamental reform of the
corporate structure but a distraction from it. Exposing and
rejecting CSR is a step towards addressing corporate power.
Companies engage in CSR because, for a number of
reasons, they think it will be good for their profit margins.
The business case for CSR emphasises the benefits to
reputation, staff and consumer loyalty in addition to
maintaining public goodwill. Reputation management –
Increasingly, corporations are trading not on products or
services but on their reputations, brand value, ‘goodwill’ and
‘intellectual capital’. These are termed ‘intangibles’ and have
an actual numerical value on the company balance sheet. For
example, 96% of Coca Cola’s total value is intangibles and an
estimated 53% of the total value of the Fortune 500
companies, worth $24.27 trillion, is made up of intangibles.
With 85% of consumers reporting that they have a more
positive image of a company that is seen to make the world a
better place, CSR is an essential strategy for ensuring the
company’s reputation.
65
 Many organisations criticise CSR because they don’t see
business delivering on its promises. However, the problem
isn’t simply that companies aren’t practising CSR very well,
it’s that the corporate structure is not capable of social
responsibility. What is responsibility? Responsibility suggests
responsiveness, obligation, control, authority and a duty of
care. So is the word really appropriate in this context?
Through CSR, companies seek to engage with stakeholders,
but without implying a duty to respond. They claim credit for
positive, or simply less harmful actions, without taking on
any obligation. They prefer the word ‘commitment’ to ‘duty’.
For example, corporate and government definitions
invariably make reference to the idea that CSR means actions
taken by companies which go beyond legal requirements – in
other words, actions which they have no obligation to carry
out. The scope of a company’s ‘responsibility’ is therefore
self-defined and not socially defined. Also, it cannot be
measured, so value can be assigned arbitrarily: perfect PR.
Voluntary codes of conduct don’t work: The Asian
Monitor Resource Centre’s (AMRC) Critical Guide to Corporate
Codes of Conduct echoes in its criticisms the wider problems
with CSR. AMRC argues that, rather than being solutions to
corporate abuses in the workplace, codes of conduct are
generally insufficient to change the industry. Their study,
based on a decade’s experience of studying labour issues in
Asia, including child labour, leaves them undecided as to
whether codes have led to any improvement in labour
standards. Multinationals do not pay the cost of compliance
with codes but pass this on to suppliers and ultimately
66
workers, who have no guarantee that they will not be
victimised for speaking out. Workers are often forced to do
extra hours to clean up the factory before CSR monitors
arrive. Because the market refuses to pay the extra costs of
non-exploitative labour practices, codes are a threat to
workers and not a tool for their empowerment.
Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) isn’t enough: SRI,
or ethical investment, is used to describe investment that
seeks to have a positive impact on society, or at least to
minimise the negative effects. SRI can mean a range of
things, from investing exclusively in enterprises that have a
positive impact, to screening out companies from the worst
sectors such as the arms, tobacco and oil industries or
companies which test on animals to making no discrimination
as to which companies are invested in but simply trying to
influence companies in their portfolio through shareholder
resolutions and engagement The majority of SRI falls into the
latter two categories. Only a small number of ethical
investors pro-actively seek out genuinely positive social
enterprises. When companies are screened on the basis of
ethics, the criteria are often very crude. For example, funds
that screen on the basis of ethics also frequently invest in
banks, which in turn invest in the industries which were
originally screened out.
Corporations gain more than the society in CSR: CSR is
supposed to be win-win. The companies make profits and
society benefits. But who really wins? If there is a benefit to
society, which in many cases is doubtful, is this outweighed
by losses to society in other areas of the company’s
67
 operation and by gains the corporation is able to make as a
result? CSR has ulterior motives. One study showed that over
80% of corporate CSR decision-makers were very confident
in the ability of good CSR practice to deliver branding and
employee benefits. To take the example of simple corporate
philanthropy, when corporations make donations to charity,
they want to improve their image by associating themselves
with a cause, to exploit a cheap vehicle for advertising, or to
counter the claims of pressure groups, but there is always an
underlying financial motive, so the company benefits more
than the charity.
CSR diverts attention from real issues, helping
corporations to: avoid regulation, gain legitimacy and access
to markets and decision makers and shift the ground towards
privatisation of public functions. CSR enables business to
pose ineffective market-based solutions to social and
environmental crises, deflecting blame for problems caused
by corporate operations onto the consumer and protecting
their interests while hampering efforts to find just and
sustainable solutions.
CSR is in fact PR: CSR sells. By appealing to customers’
consciences and desires, CSR helps companies to build brand
loyalty and develop a personal connection with their
customers. Many corporate charity tie-ins gain companies
access to target markets and the involvement of the charity
gives the company’s message much greater power. In our
media saturated culture, companies are looking for
increasingly innovative ways to get across their message and
CSR offers up many potential avenues, such as word of
68
mouth or guerilla marketing, for subtly reaching consumers.
CSR also helps to green-wash the company’s image, to
cover up negative impacts by saturating the media with
positive images of the company’s CSR credentials. As
Deborah Doane points out in ‘From Red Tape to Road Signs’,
CSR enables business to claim progress despite the lack of
evidence of verifiable change. Since much of the business
case for CSR depends on corporations being seen to be
socially responsible, CSR will continue to be little more than
PR for as long as it is easier and cheaper to spin than to
change.
CSR is a strategy for avoiding regulation: CSR is a
corporate reaction to public mistrust and calls for regulation.
In an Echo research poll, most financial executives
interviewed strongly resisted binding regulation of
companies. Companies argue: that setting minimum
standards stops innovation; that you can’t regulate for ethics,
you either have them or you don’t; and that unless they are
able to gain competitive advantage from CSR, companies
cannot justify the cost. Companies are essentially holding the
government to ransom on the issue of regulation, saying that
regulation will threaten the positive work they are doing. CSR
consultancy Business in the Community supports corporate
lobbying against regulation, arguing that ‘regulation can only
defend against bad practice – it can never promote best
practice.’ These arguments, however, simply serve to expose
the sham of CSR. Why would a ‘socially responsible company’
take issue with government regulation to tackle bad
corporate practice? Why would this prevent companies from
69
 going beyond the legal minimum? Perhaps the explanation is
that companies want to be selective about which areas of
‘bad practice’ they eliminate and want to use their ‘best
practice’ to divert attention away from the bad, or that
‘socially responsible’ companies need the bad practice of
other companies to be a counterpoint to their own ‘best
practice’. If regulation distracts from best practice, then
companies cannot be acting ‘responsibly’ because they
believe it to be morally right to do so – only because they are
trying to get an advantage over their competitors.
CSR isn’t a sustainable solution: CSR as a tactic will only
last for so long. As the economic climate changes, will
companies continue to value their socially responsible
image? CSR will only enhance a company’s reputation or
access to capital if the public is convinced that they really are
having a positive impact on society. But the public, which is
skeptical at present, will only be fooled for so long, as
companies continue to pollute, profit from wars, exploit
vulnerable workers and exacerbate the gap between rich and
poor. Many companies have famously dropped their CSR
commitments when they hit financial problems. For example,
Littlewoods pulled out of the Ethical Trading Initiative and
disbanded its ethical trading team when it was bought out by
L. W. Investments Ltd in November 2002. What will be the
fate of CSR when we inevitably see a downturn in the
economy as a whole?
The so-called ‘leaders of the field’ in CSR will probably see
the financial rewards of their investment decrease as other
companies catch up with them and CSR no longer gives them
70
the competitive edge, which is why some are now pushing for
regulation. So, prospects for the long-term profitability of
CSR are probably over-hyped. Once CSR ceases to be ‘flavour
of the month’ with investors, will companies continue to
care? With the exception perhaps of pension funds, which
look for a return on investment over the long term, a
company’s quarterly results are the key benchmark of
corporate performance. This leaves little room for
investment expenditure in long-term shifts towards more
sustainable modes of operation. So is CSR just a bubble that
will imminently burst? Unless corporate power is reined in
through effective regulation, then CSR will fall off the agenda
when it ceases to be profitable
Well, we reproduced the above harsh assessment of CSR not
because we endorse or believe everything that was said, but
because we wanted to be aware of the criticism faced by the
CSR movement. We however believe that the best should not
become the enemy of the good and we should not throw the
baby out with the bathwater. Surely, there are flaws and
deficiencies in the CSR model, but that does not call for
abandoning or boycotting it. On the contrary, we have to
work more towards correcting them than rejecting the
system outright.
71
 IF INDIVIDUALS CAN FEEL THE URGE TO
GIVE, WHY CAN’T CORPORATE
ORGANISATIONS? TO GET A DEEPER INSIGHT
INTO THIS ISSUE, THE MCKINSEY
QUARTERLY CONDUCTED A SURVEY IN
JANUARY 2008 AND RECEIVED RESPONSES
FROM 721 EXECUTIVES AROUND THE
WORLD, 74 PERCENT OF THEM CEOS OR

CEO
OTHER C-LEVEL EXECUTIVES. ACCORDING
TO THE SURVEY (MCKINSEY QUARTERLY,
FEBRUARY 2008), CORPORATE
PHILANTHROPY CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE TOOL

SPEAK
FOR COMPANIES THAT ARE TRYING TO MEET
CONSUMERS’ RISING EXPECTATIONS OF THE
ROLE BUSINESSES SHOULD PLAY IN
SOCIETY. HOWEVER, COMPANIES AREN’T
USING THAT TOOL AS WELL AS THEY COULD.
EXECUTIVES DOUBT THAT THEIR
PHILANTHROPY PROGRAMMES FULLY MEET
THEIR SOCIAL GOALS OR STAKEHOLDERS’
EXPECTATIONS FOR THEM.

72 73
 Companies and consumers have long seen corporate
philanthropy as a way for companies to benefit the
communities where they are located e.g. donating funds to
local schools, hospitals and orchestras, for example. In
recent years. However, as society’s expectations of
companies have risen and as many companies have begun
operating in more far-flung locations, they are expected to
address a growing list of needs. Companies that 20 years ago
were held accountable only for direct, contractually
specified, or regulated consequences of their actions today
find themselves held to account for the consequences of
their actions in areas as disparate as off-shoring, obesity,
excessive consumer debt, environmental sustainability and
the governance of resource-rich, low-income nations.
Although today’s expectations are wide-ranging, three-
quarters of the executives who responded to this survey say
corporate philanthropy is at least somewhat effective in
meeting the expectations.
In addition to social goals, the vast majority of companies
(nearly 90 percent) now seek business benefits from their
philanthropy programmes as well. When respondents were
asked what business goals they try to reach through
philanthropy, they most often say their goals include
enhancing the corporate reputation or brand. And some 80
percent of respondents say finding new business
opportunities should have at least some role in determining
which philanthropic programmes to fund, compared with
only 14 percent who say finding new business opportunities
should have no weight.
74
It is notable, however, that some 30 percent of the responses
to the question asking about business goals indicate that
some companies are trying to reach very concrete goals,
such as building knowledge about potential new markets and
informing areas of innovation. Respondents from companies
with these goals are likelier than others to say business
concerns should play a role in determining funding for
philanthropic programmes. Also, their philanthropic
programmes are much more likely to address at least some
of the social and political issues relevant to their businesses;
nearly two-thirds say they currently do, compared with just
under half of all respondents.
Strategy and social issues
Business leaders are now more inclined to incorporate
society’s expectations into their core strategies but face
many challenges when they do. Chief executives around the
world increasingly believe that they have a strategic
rationale for taking on environmental, social and governance
issues. However, they also understand the challenges that
must be overcome when they do, challenges that include the
difficulty of managing supply chains across countries with
different regulations and norms for corporate social
responsibility.
Debby Bielak, Sheila Bonini and Jeremy Oppenheim, wrote an
excellent review in McKinsey Quarterly, October 2007, which
we share with you here: According to the survey of CEOs at
75
 companies participating in the United Nations Global
Compact, more than 90 percent of them are doing more than
they did five years ago to incorporate environmental, social
and governance issues into their core strategies. Research
shows that while pressure from employees, consumers and
other stakeholders plays an important part in this trend,
some CEOs see the new demands as opportunities to gain a
competitive advantage and to address global problems at the
same time.
According to 95 percent of the CEOs in the survey, society
has greater expectations than it did five years ago that
companies will assume public responsibilities. More than half
predicted that these expectations would increase
significantly during the next five years as well. Low levels of
trust among consumers underscore the pressure to act. In a
2006 McKinsey global survey, for example, only 33 percent
of European and 40 percent of US consumers said they
believed that large global companies acted in the best
interest of society at least some of the time.
76
A new class of stakeholder
Many of the CEOs interviewed observed that satisfying the
shareholders is no longer good enough: consumers will
punish companies that don’t fulfil their public
responsibilities, causing their market shares to decline.
Socially irresponsible business practices could also make it
harder for companies to attract and retain talented people.
“It is important,” said the CEO of a retailer, “for our
employees to know and see that they are working for a
company where these things are held to be important.” CEOs
ranked employees as the stakeholder group that has the
greatest impact on the way companies manage their societal
expectations, with consumers a close second. Both groups
are joining nongovernmental organisations and activists in
making increased demands on companies. Over the next five
years, respondents expect consumers to become the most
influential stakeholder group, with employees dropping to
second place.
Globalisation ups the ante
The terms of the contract between business and society have
undoubtedly become more extensive and complex: difficult
environmental, social and governance challenges have
accompanied the rise of emerging economies, which are both
drivers of global demand and providers of goods, services
and talent. CEOs in the survey identified increasing
environmental concerns as the most important trend
influencing public expectations of business, followed by the
limited supply of natural resources and the emergence of
77
 China and India as powers in the global marketplace. Clearly,
companies operating in these countries will be affected by
local interpretations of environmental, social and governance
norms. They will have to find ways of demonstrating their
local loyalties and, at the same time, build globally
integrated systems of values.
Critical for success
The approach a global company takes in dealing with cross-
border environmental, social and governance issues, many of
which demand both systemic change and sustained
engagement by business, may affect not only its reputation
but also its competitive position. A company that offers
better working conditions and health care benefits than local
norms stipulate, for example, may have an easier time
finding skilled employees in areas with limited educational
systems. Likewise, a company that invests in water
conservation may be protecting vital resources for continued
growth. As the CEO of a consumer-packaged-goods company
said, “Water is the biggest issue for our company right now;
the ability to do business in water-stressed areas is critical to
our growth.” CEOs identified talent constraints, poor public
governance (such as corruption or underdeveloped legal and
judicial systems) and climate change as the most critical
environmental, social and governance issues their companies
must address to succeed in the future.
78
Barriers to engagement
These challenges seem daunting enough, but the barriers to
implementing strategic approaches to them — approaches
representing sustainable wins for companies as well as for
society – are formidable too. Competing priorities are the
biggest impediment. Shareholder demands for strong short-
term financial performance, for example, compete with
environmental, social and governance investments that are
longer – term by nature. The absence of clear and consistent
metrics that could relate such investments to (or correlate
them with) investor returns exacerbates this conflict.
In fact, fewer than one-fifth of the CEOs surveyed believe that
financial markets account for the way a company approaches
environmental, social and governance issues when they value
it. As the CEO of a financial institution noted, the standards
that do exist have “yet to become benchmarks to look up in
the Wall Street Journal, where we can see, alongside stock
prices, that a company’s ESG (environmental, social and
governance) impact rating went from 2 to 12 and this
somehow becomes a factor in how we value it.”
Another barrier is a lack of consistent industry regulations
(or even norms) that might level the playing field across
countries. One CEO described this complicated state of affairs
by saying, “The world is not flat, but quite hilly.” Companies
that wish to deploy tough international norms (on labour
practices, for example) therefore face a significant risk of
losing out to less scrupulous noncompliant competitors.
79
 Performance gaps
Substantive challenges await any company bent on
translating its good intentions into good deeds. While 72
percent of the CEOs surveyed said companies should fully
incorporate a stance on environmental, social and
governance issues in strategies and operations, only 50
percent said that their own companies actually do. Changing
the practices of suppliers is particularly complex. First, as the
CEO of a manufacturing company said, “There are questions
about how far up and how far down the supply chain
responsibility goes.” Moreover, if a company does decide to
implement a global code of conduct, local suppliers often ask
why they should invest in equipment or more humane
management practices to suit the whims of the customer.
While 59 percent of the survey respondents believe that their
companies should incorporate environmental, social and
governance issues into the management of supply chains,
only 27 percent say that those companies actually do.
The barriers to implementing strategies that benefit
companies as well as society often seem very hard to
overcome. Yet during our research we found that many
businesses are developing creative and commercially viable
solutions for addressing issues such as water conservation,
biodiversity management, finance for the poor and treatment
of HIV/AIDS. These corporate pioneers are redrawing the
global playing field around a new set of competitive
advantages and relationships with consumers.
80
Despite the downturn
With the recent downturn in the global economy, things may
appear to have taken different turn for corporate
philanthropy but that may not necessarily be the case. In
fact, the financial crisis seems to have increased the public’s
expectations of business’s role in society. Most companies
have maintained or increased their efforts to address
sociopolitical issues and many have already derived better-
than-expected benefits from doing so.
According to the fourth annual McKinsey survey covering
1,179 executives representing all regions, industries,
functional specialties and levels of seniority (McKinsey
Quarterly, November 2009), despite the global economic
downturn, a greater proportion of executives than last year
say large corporations make a positive contribution to the
public good. Although a smaller share of executives than in
2007 say large corporations make a positive contribution to
the public good (59 percent this year versus 67 percent in
2007), executives think the crisis has increased the public’s
expectations of business’s role in society. In response,
companies are maintaining or increasing their engagement
in social and political issues. As a result, most are already
reaping business benefits that far exceed a reputational
boost.
For the fourth consecutive year, executives answered
questions on which social and political issues will gain public
prominence and which will have the greatest impact on
81
 shareholder value. This year, the survey also explored the
impact of the financial crisis on companies’ sociopolitical
agendas and the financial benefits companies have gained
from addressing a variety of social and political issues.
Executives think the environment still commands the most
public attention, but, as a result of the crisis, they expect
executive compensation and companies’ political influence
and involvement to gain prominence. Nonetheless, the crisis
has not changed their own long-term views on which issues
will affect shareholder value the most: the environment
(including climate change), companies’ political influence,
health care and other employee benefits, executive
compensation and privacy and data security.
In last year’s survey, executives, for the first time, were more
likely to view addressing social and political issues as an
opportunity than as a risk (even though the survey was
conducted in mid-September, just as the financial crisis was
beginning to hit worldwide). The 2009 survey supports their
views: at companies with clear criteria about the business
goals of their sociopolitical agendas, executives report a
variety of business benefits, including access to new markets
and improved operational and workforce efficiency. The
specific benefits depend on which issue is being addressed.
Among the 87 percent of respondents whose companies are
addressing environmental issues, for example, executives
report an improvement in operational efficiency (cited by 53
percent), brand loyalty (48 percent) and access to new
markets (39 percent). In contrast, among the 85 percent of
executives who say their companies are addressing privacy
82
and data security, the proportions reporting business
benefits are much lower.
Improving reputation has long been the main business goal
of engaging with sociopolitical issues. For the fourth year in a
row, executives say the number one most effective action for
improving their reputations is increasing transparency of
business practices, at 50 percent of respondents this year.
However, executives seem increasingly dubious about the
effectiveness of most practices. Compared with last year, a
smaller proportion of respondents rated every practice —
except limiting the growth of executive pay — as effective for
improving reputation. Their responses may reflect the
public’s overall reduced trust in businesses.
Besides the business opportunities that result from
addressing social and political issues, the crisis has
intensified traditional reasons to engage, such as meeting
public expectations. Indeed, 72 percent of executives say the
public’s expectations of business have increased as a result
of the crisis. Most report that their companies have
maintained or increased engagement in social and political
issues as a result of the financial crisis and the accompanying
pressure from government and other stakeholders.
Executives’ long-term expectations about the issues most
likely to affect shareholder value have not changed much.
However, executives see the public’s concerns as more
closely aligned with issues they have long thought affected
shareholder value. For example, in the previous surveys, one
of the few issues executives saw as likelier to affect
83
 shareholder value than to receive public attention was the
political influence of companies. This year, many believe the
issue will become top-of-mind for the public too.
Oddly, despite the impact on consumer spending, job losses
represent the only issue to have dropped from the top five in
terms of perceived value creation. Among executives in
North America, health care and other employee benefits rank
number one in terms of perceived value creation — not
surprising, given the public debate on these issues in the
United States; 47 percent (compared with 25 percent
worldwide) say the issue will have high impact and 36
percent (versus 22 percent overall) say their companies’
engagement in this issue has increased
Companies’ political influence is far from the only issue
where executives see growing public concern. The
environment is a perennial leader among issues expected
to attract the most public attention and 52 percent of
respondents say the public’s attention toward the
environment has increased because of the crisis. However,
even more see growth in concern over other top issues: 94
percent see more concern about executive compensation and
78 percent see more concern about corporate involvement in
politics.
of the executives who select this issue, the proportion has
fallen to 49 percent, from 57 percent in the 2008 survey.
The relative influence of stakeholder groups on companies’
sociopolitical agendas varies by industry. Overall, board
members have the most impact on the way companies think
about their role in society. However, executives in the
financial and energy industries are much more likely to say
that government and regulators are likelier to affect their
sociopolitical agenda (46 percent and 55 percent,
respectively, versus 36 percent overall), while manufacturers
consider investors to be more influential than other
stakeholders (50 percent versus 39 percent overall).
Clearly, executives, including Chief Executive Officers,
continue to feel the need for a well thought-out CSR plan for
their organisations, despite the downturn in the global
economy. That is indeed good news for the corporate world
as well as the public at large.

Indeed, among issues expected to attract the most public

attention, executive compensation, which has markedly
decreased the public’s trust in business, surged to the
number two spot, from number eight in 2007 and 2008. And
although the environment continues to hold the top position,

84 85
 THAT’S THE TERM USED BY TRACEY KEYS,
THOMAS MALNIGHT AND KEES VAN DER
GRAAF TO POINT TO THE WAY FORWARD IN
CSR (MCKINSEY QUARTERLY, DECEMBER
2009). ACCORDING TO THEM, TOO OFTEN,
EXECUTIVES HAVE VIEWED CORPORATE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) AS JUST
ANOTHER SOURCE OF PRESSURE OR
PASSING FAD. BUT AS CUSTOMERS,
EMPLOYEES, SUPPLIERS AND EVEN THE
SOCIETY AS A WHOLE PLACE INCREASING
IMPORTANCE ON CSR, SOME LEADERS HAVE
STARTED TO LOOK AT IT AS A CREATIVE
OPPORTUNITY TO FUNDAMENTALLY
STRENGTHEN THEIR BUSINESSES WHILE
CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY AT THE SAME
TIME. THEY VIEW CSR AS CENTRAL TO THEIR
OVERALL STRATEGIES, HELPING THEM TO
CREATIVELY ADDRESS KEY BUSINESS
ISSUES.

86 87
 The big challenge for executives is how to develop an dangerous if it exposes a gap between the company’s words
approach that can truly deliver on these lofty ambitions and and actions.
as of yet, few have found the way. However, some innovative
None of these approaches realise the opportunities for
companies have managed to overcome this hurdle, with
significant shared value creation that have been achieved
smart partnering emerging as one way to create value for
through smart partnering. In such ventures, the focus of the
both the business and society simultaneously. Smart
business moves beyond avoiding risks or enhancing reputation
partnering focuses on key areas of impact between business
and toward improving its core value creation ability by
and society and develops creative solutions that draw on the
addressing major strategic issues or challenges. For society,
complementary capabilities of both to address major
the focus shifts from maintaining minimum standards or
challenges that affect each partner. In this article, we build
seeking funding to improving employment, the overall quality
on lessons from smart partnering to provide a practical way
of life and living standards. The key is for each party to tap into
forward for leaders to assess the true opportunities of CSR.
the resources and expertise of the other, finding creative
There is no single accepted definition of CSR, which leads to solutions to critical social and businesses challenges.
plenty of confusion about what constitutes a CSR activity. We
Initial questions for any leader should be, “Where have you
can begin to develop a working definition of CSR by thinking
focused CSR activities in the past?” and, more important,
about its dual objectives of benefiting business as well as the
“Where should you focus them for the future?” All
society and the range of potential benefits in each case.
organisations have to balance limited resources and effort, so
Many businesses pursue CSR activities that can best be
the challenge is how best to deploy yours to maximise the
termed pet projects, as they reflect the personal interests of
benefits to your business (and your shareholders and
individual senior executives. While these activities may be
stakeholders), as well as to society. Start by mapping your
presented with much noise and fanfare, they usually offer
current portfolio of CSR initiatives on the framework shown in
minimal benefits to either business or society. In the middle
Exhibit 1 and ask: What are the objectives of our current
are efforts that can make both sides feel good but that
initiatives? What benefits are being created and who realises
generate limited and often one-sided benefits. With
these? Which of these initiatives helps us to address our key
philanthropy, for example, corporate donations confer the
strategic challenges and opportunities?
majority of benefits on society (with potential but often
questionable reputational benefits to the business). Similarly, The examples in the two accompanying boxes illustrate smart
in what’s best referred to as propaganda, CSR activities are partnering initiatives at Unilever. Both address long – term
focused primarily on building a company’s reputation with strategic challenges facing the company and help to build
little real benefit to society. Some cynics suggest that this creative partnerships that accrue significant benefits to both
form of CSR is at best a form of advertising and is potentially sides.

88 89
 Addressing rural distribution challenges in
India
More than 70 percent of India’s population resides in rural
villages scattered over large geographic areas with very low
per capita consumption rates. For multinationals, the cost of
reaching and serving these rural markets is significant, as
typical urban distribution approaches do not work. Hindustan
Unilever Limited’s Project Shakti overcame these challenges
by actively understanding critical societal and organisational
needs. HUL partnered with three self-help groups, whose
members were appointed as Shakti entrepreneurs in chosen
villages.
These entrepreneurs were women, since a key aim for the
partnership was to help the rural female population develop
independence and self-esteem. The entrepreneurs received
extensive training and borrowed money from their self-help
groups to purchase HUL products, which they then sold in
their villages. By 2008, Shakti provided employment for
42,000 women entrepreneurs covering nearly 130,000
villages and 3 million households every month. In the same
year, HUL sales through the project approached $100 million.
Dalip Sehgal, then executive director of New Ventures at
HUL, noted: “Shakti is a quintessential win-win initiative and
overcame challenges on a number of fronts. It is a sales and
distribution initiative that delivers growth, a communication
initiative that builds brands, a micro-enterprise initiative that
creates livelihoods, a social initiative that improves the
standard of life and catalyzes affluence in rural India. What
makes Shakti uniquely scalable and sustainable is the fact
that it contributes not only to HUL but also to the community
it is a part of.”.
90
Ensuring sustainable supplies of critical raw
materials
Unilever’s Lipton unit is the world’s largest buyer of tea. In
1999, Unilever Tea Kenya started a pilot programme in
Kericho, in southwestern Kenya, to apply company
sustainability principles to the production of tea. The
initiative focused on improving productivity, sustainability
and environmental management, as well as energy and
habitat conservation. For Unilever, growing pressure on
natural resources means that securing high-quality supplies
of critical raw materials in the long term is of paramount
strategic importance.
The Kericho initiative had a direct impact on the company’s
ability to control the supply of tea not just today but also into
the future, while simultaneously enhancing Unilever’s
corporate reputation with both consumers and employees.
Company leadership felt that higher short-term costs were
far outweighed by the long-term strategic edge Unilever
gained for its raw-materials supplies and brands. In 2008, as
a signal of its commitment, Unilever expanded the scope of
its sustainable-agriculture programme, pursuing certification
from the Rainforest Alliance for all Lipton tea farms by 2015.
For society, the initiative increased farmer revenue through a
10 to 15 percent premium paid above market prices.
Additionally, it focused on topics of significant concern for
governments and farmers alike, including improving farmer
skills, environmental protection and sustainable production
methods (such as developing a self-sufficient ecosystem), as
well as enhancing local associated jobs. All these factors
contributed to strengthened rural income, skills and living
standards.
91
 Focusing choices
Companies are likely to have activities scattered across the
map, but that’s not where they have to stay — nor is it how
the benefits of CSR are maximised. Many companies start
with pet projects, philanthropy, or propaganda because these
activities are quick and easy to decide on and implement. The
question is how to move toward CSR strategies that focus on
truly cocreating value for the business and society. The
accompanying examples suggest three principles for moving
toward this goal.
Concentrate your CSR efforts.
Management time and resources are limited, so the greatest
opportunities will come from areas where the business
significantly interacts with — and thus can have the greatest
impact on — society. These are areas where the business not
only can gain a deeper understanding of the mutual
dependencies but also in which the highest potential for
mutual benefit exists.
Find the right partners.
These will be those that benefit from your core business
activities and capabilities — and that you can benefit from
in turn. Partnering is difficult, but when both sides see
win – win potential there is greater motivation to realise the
substantial benefits. Relationships — particularly long – term
ones that are built on a realistic understanding of the true
strengths on both sides — have a greater opportunity of
being successful and sustainable.
Applying these principles to choosing the appropriate CSR
opportunities prompts additional questions, namely: What
are the one or two critical areas in our business where we
interface with and have an impact on society and where
significant opportunities exist for both sides if we can
creatively adjust the relationship? What are the core
long – term needs for us and for society that can be
addressed as a result? What resources or capabilities do
we need and what do we have to offer in realising the
opportunities?

Build a deep understanding of the benefits.

Even after selecting your chosen areas of opportunity,
finding the potential for mutual value creation is not always
straightforward. The key is finding symmetry between the
two sides and being open enough to understand issues both
from a business and a societal perspective.

92 93
 business and society. If they are one-sided, be careful you
The business case
are not moving into the philanthropy or propaganda arena.
In smart partnering, mutual benefit is not only a reasonable
Remember that if the aim is to create more value from
objective, it is also required to ensure long-term success. But
partnering than you could do apart, then benefits must be
this commitment must be grounded in value-creation
shared appropriately.
potential, just like any other strategic initiative. Each is an
investment that should be evaluated with the same rigour in As you develop a clear array of benefits, a business case and
prioritisation, planning, resourcing and monitoring. a story to communicate to all stakeholders, ask : Do we have
a clear understanding of the entire array of benefits and the
Now you need to define the array of potential benefits for
associated business case, on which we can focus, assess and
both the business and for society. This will not always be
manage the potential CSR activity? Does the activity focus on
easy, but a clear business case and story is important if you
fundamental value creation opportunities where we can
are to get the company, its shareholders and its stakeholders
really partner with society to realise simultaneous benefits?
on board. You can assess the benefits across the following
Are the opportunities significant, scalable and supportive of
three dimensions:
our overall strategic priorities?
Time frame.
Be clear on both the short-term immediate objectives and
the long-term benefits. In smart partnering, the time frame is
important, as initiatives can be complex and take time to
realise their full potential.

Nature of benefits.
Some benefits will be tangible, such as revenue from gaining
access to a new market. Others will be equally significant, but
intangible, such as developing a new capability or enhancing
employee morale.

Benefit split.
Be clear about how benefits are to be shared between the

94 95

Consistency and determination
Partnering, as we all know, can be challenging. It requires
planning and hard work to assess potential mutual benefits,
establish trust and build and manage the activities, internally
as well as externally. But is it worth it? Companies at the
forefront of such partnering suggest the answer is a
resounding yes, but an additional two principles need to be
followed to ensure success:
Go in with a long-term commitment.
Having a positive impact on societal issues such as living
standards is not a “quick fix” project. Leaders who want to
partner therefore need to have a long-term mind-set backed
by solid promises and measurable commitments and actions.
Your initiative must demonstrate added value to both
shareholders and stakeholders over time.
Engage the entire workforce and lead by
example.
Your workforce can be one of your greatest assets and
beneficiaries when it comes to CSR activities. Increasingly,
employees are choosing to work for organisations whose
values resonate with their own. Attracting and retaining
talent will be a growing challenge in the future, so activities
that build on core values and inspire employees are key.
Unilever, along with other leaders in smart partnering,
actively engages its employees in such initiatives, seeing
improved motivation, loyalty and ability to attract and retain
talent as a result. Engaging the workforce starts at the top.
Leaders must be prepared to make a personal commitment if
the activities are to realise their full potential.
96
This is the tough bit of the process: taking action, rather than
speaking about it and keeping up the momentum even when
targets are far in the future. As you plan the implementation
of your chosen initiatives and follow through, ask: Can we
build the commitment we need across the organisation to
make this happen — and are we as leaders willing to lead by
example? Have we planned effectively to ensure that
implementation is successful, with resources, milestones,
measurement and accountability? How can we manage the
initiative, focusing on the total array of benefits sought, not
just the short-term financials?
When it comes to CSR, there are no easy answers on what to
do or how to do it. A company’s interactions and
interdependencies with society are many and complex.
However, it is clear that approaching CSR as a feel-good or
quick-fix exercise runs the risk of missing huge opportunities
for both the business and society. Taking a step-by-step
approach and following the principles outlined here offers
leaders a way to identify and drive mutual value creation. But
it will demand a shift in mind-set: the smart partnering view
is that CSR is about doing good business and creatively
addressing significant issues that face business and society,
not simply feeling good. And smart partnering is not for the
faint of heart. It requires greater focus, work and long-term
commitment than do many standard CSR pet projects,
philanthropic activities and propaganda campaigns, but the
rewards are potentially much greater for both sides.
97
 A HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC AND INTELLECTUALLY
PROFOUND PERSPECTIVE OF CORPORATE
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP WAS

CSE
PRESENTED RECENTLY BY JAMES AUSTIN
AND EZEQUIEL REFICCO (WORKING PAPER
2009-10, HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL),
WHICH WE SHARE WITH YOU VERBATIM:
CORPORATE SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
(CSE) IS A PROCESS AIMED AT ENABLING
BUSINESS TO DEVELOP MORE ADVANCED
AND POWERFUL FORMS OF CORPORATE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR).

98 99
 CSE emerges from and builds on three other conceptual is to accelerate companies’ organisational transformation
frameworks: entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship into more powerful generators of societal betterment.
and social entrepreneurship. CSE’s conceptual roots begin
Carroll (Corporate Social Entrepreneurship: A Historical
with Schumpeter’s vision that nations’ innovation and
Perspective, 2006) provided a rich historical account of the
technological change emanate from individual
evolution over the last fifty years of businesses’ approach to
entrepreneurs. Schumpeter had projected that the engines
societal responsibilities. Over the past two decades, the
of entrepreneurship would shift from individuals to
traditional concept and practice of corporate philanthropy
corporations with their greater resources for R&D, which did
has undergone a significant evolution into Corporate Social
happen. However, over time, corporate bureaucracy was
Responsibility with a variety of labels, such as corporate
seen as stifling innovation. To remedy this, a focus on
citizenship, triple bottom line and strategic philanthropy.
Corporate Entrepreneurship within companies emerged, with
While significant progress is being made in involving
Covin and Miles (Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1999
companies in CSR, a national survey (Center for Corporate
23:47-63) defining it as “the presence of innovation with the
Citizenship 2004) in the USA revealed that most firms have
objective of rejuvenating or redefining organisations,
not been able to significantly integrate CSR into their
markets, or industries in order to create or sustain
organisations. Googins and Rochlin (Corporate Citizenship:
competitive superiority.” In parallel, the concept of Social
Top to Bottom. Westport, Praeger. 2006) assert: “What is
Entrepreneurship emerged. Dees (The Meaning of ‘Social
clear is the widespread agreement on the need for a more
Entrepreneurship. Boston, Harvard Business School.
active and strategic citizenship,” and they also note that
Comments and suggestions contributed from the Social
there is no dominant framework or model for bringing that
Entrepreneurship Funders Working Group, 1998) defined it as
about. Doing more of the same or making incremental
“innovative activity with a social purpose in either the private
changes will not bring about the needed change. CSE aims to
or nonprofit sector, or across both.”
provide an approach that will accelerate the CSR journey. It is
CSE integrates and builds on the foregoing concepts and has not another form of CSR but rather process for invigorating
been defined by Austin, Leonard, Reficco and Wei-Skillern and advancing the development of CSR
(Corporate Social Entrepreneurship: The New Frontier, 2006)
as “the process of extending the firm’s domain of
competence and corresponding opportunity set through
innovative leveraging of resources, both within and outside
its direct control, aimed at the simultaneous creation of
economic and social value.” The fundamental purpose of CSE

100 101

Key elements of CSE
CSE aims to produce a significant and comprehensive
transformation of the way a company operates. The following
elements are central to that process: creating an enabling
environment, fostering corporate social intrapreneurs,
amplifying corporate purpose and values, generating double
value and building strategic alliances.
Enabling Environment: For companies to move from their
old approach to CSR to the CSE approach, they must adopt an
entrepreneurial mindset and cultivate an entrepreneurial
environment that enables fundamental organisational
transformation. This can only happen if top leadership
champions the change. This requires a powerful vision of
where the CSR revolution is taking the company and why it is
vital to the organisation’s success. Orin Smith, former
President and CEO, Starbucks Coffee Company expressed it
this way, “Aligning self-interest to social responsibility is the
most powerful way to sustaining a company’s success.” That
vision and strategy must also be accompanied by changes in
the company’s structures and processes. There must be
performance measurement indicators for the economic and
social value generated and the incentive and reward system
must be aligned with these indicators. Through these
“guidance systems”, top management helps to assure that
operating performance is aligned with professed
commitment to social value creation.
With the entrepreneurial culture these companies seek to
“bring down the castle walls,” and to create internal
102
synergies in their decision-making processes. Thus, they rely
heavily on cross-functional teams which bring to the table all
relevant stakeholders in any given issue. This system helps
the company “think out of the box” and “work across silos.”
While in traditional companies management teams are
constituted exclusively of those who create revenue, when
companies engage in CSE, management teams are also filled
by those with the primary responsibility of creating social
value. This is meant to ensure that organisational values
permeate all units of the company and are thoroughly
integrated into its internal processes. The guidance systems
support entrepreneurial activity in a corporate setting, as
entrepreneurial talent is actively sought and recruited and
autonomous entrepreneurs are empowered and given clear
goals consistent with a solid value-based organisational
culture.
The Corporate Social Intrapreneur. The CSE process is
powered by multiple change agents or Intrapreneurs. Social
and corporate entrepreneurship differentiate the roles of the
social or corporate entrepreneur from the role of managers.
Both are distinct and usually sequenced: the former is a
change catalyst for the launching of start ups, the latter is
critical for seeing these initiatives through and implementing
them. In CSE, on the other hand, both roles coexist
permanently; corporations need to be entrepreneurial in
order to innovate and go beyond their traditional managerial
approaches. This means ultimately transforming the way the
company is managed. The key vehicles for moving the
company in this direction are individuals within the
103
 enterprise who are focused on fostering and bringing about
the internal organisational transformation and innovation
that moves the organisation to more advanced state of CSR.
Previous research has identified some defining
characteristics of CS Intrapreneurs. They are internal
champions, continuously advocating for the integration of
social and business value as a central tenet for the company.
They are good communicators, particularly articulate about
the rationale and importance of the transformation. They are
also active listeners to various stakeholders and are able to
speak to these groups in ways that reveal how the social
action is relevant to their needs and interests. They are
creators of innovative solutions: new resource
configurations, actions and relationships. They are not
managers of the status quo, but creators of a new,
sometimes disruptive one. They are catalysts for change, who
inspire and create synergies in the work of others. They are
coordinators, able to effectively reach across internal and
external boundaries, mobilising and aligning interests and
incentives. They are perceived as useful contributors who
support the success of others. Rather than being perceived
as building a new power center, Corporate Social
Intrapreneurs are team players who enable other groups.
Finally, they are shrewd calculators; cognisant of the realities
of the corporate environment, they are cost-conscious and
mindful of the bottom line. Change is not framed in terms of
ideals or intentions, but in terms of aligned incentives. Plus,
as organisational change agents, they need to be able to
assess how fast and far they can move the transformational
104
process within the realities of the organisation.
Corporate purpose: values-based organisations: One of the
key focal points of CSE is company values. Getting
organisational values right is vital to advancing CSR. The CS
Intrapreneurs need to ensure that social value generation –
fulfilling social responsibilities – is seen as an essential
component in companies’ mission and values statements.
The CSE process aims to ensure that the words are translated
into action. The values-based organisations see themselves
as trustworthy, moral agents, capable of generating trust
based on sustained ethical behavior and innovative solutions
to social problems. Their goal is not just to comply with the
law, or to be responsive to key stakeholders: they seek to
lead through example, to exceed expectations and to set new
standards.
In these organisations, social values are not viewed as a
shiny patina meant to embellish the “real” company, but
rather as a structural component, a cornerstone of their
organisational identities. Values were not adapted to an
existing strategy, but the other way around. This feature
empowers individuals and unleashes their creative energies.
Substantial levels of adherence to shared values bring down
the costs of coordinating the work of different organisational
units and facilitate working across departmental lines.
Timberland, in a fundamental move, formulated a set of
values – “humanity, humility, integrity and excellence” – that
held the company and its people should make a positive
difference in society and that its culture should foster
105
 involvement in confronting and solving social problems. A
Timberland Human Resources manager noted, “The
awareness of values is what we are trying to raise with folks.
It’s no longer going to be acceptable just to get the business
result.” The company translated these values into action
through supporting employee community service and
became a leading innovator by giving each employee up to
40 hours of company time off for such work, more than any
other company.
Value congruency across the organisation allows for the
infusion of a social entrepreneurship spirit under the
umbrella of a large structure. In the words of Colleen
Chapman, Starbucks Director for Brand Management, their
approach is “continued application of our values inside of
everything we do, from a marketing standpoint, from a
product development standpoint, who we hire, how we hire,
how we treat our people.”
Value creation and the double return: Entrepreneurship is
all about finding innovative ways to create value. CSE aims to
ensure that the very purpose of these corporations migrates
from one of maximising returns to investors to optimising
returns to stakeholders, with those being defined as groups
who are significantly affected by company actions and who
can in turn impact the company. The underlying premise is
that serving such a broader constituency will make the
company more sustainable. This amplified purpose means
that the company is producing both economic and social
value, which some have referred to as a double or triple (if
106
one breaks out environmental value as a separate category)
bottom line, or “blended value”. The important purpose of
CSE is to discover ways to make these returns
complementary and synergistic rather than competing. In
this approach, organisations’ social value creation is not
treated as something separate or peripheral. On the
contrary, it is embedded in a larger and transparent
accountability system that reports performance to the
internal and external stakeholders. We are witnessing the
emergence of a multitude of such indicators, standards and
codes. The CSE approach aims to ensure that these measures
of performance have parity with the traditional ones and
become part of the corporate DNA.
CEO Jeff Swartz stated, “I’m convinced business can create
innovative, valuable social solutions that are good for
business and society. Commerce and justice don’t have to be
antagonistic notions.” He explained the company’s approach,
“We operate on the core theory, on the belief that doing well
and doing good are not separate ideas; they are inseparable
ideas. That, in fact, they are inextricably linked and that
everything we do, every business decision we make, every
strategy we promulgate, every speech we make, or every pair
of boot or shoes that we ship, have to be the embodiment of
commerce and justice and that’s a different model.”
Co-generating value: A vital part of the value generating
strategies is collaborating with other organisations –
businesses, civil society, or governmental. These alliances
are the vehicles for achieving what the CSE definition
107
 referred to as extending the firm’s domain of competence
and corresponding opportunity set through innovative
leveraging of resources outside its direct control. Strategic
alliances that combine complementary core competencies
can create new resource constellations that enable
innovative solutions to long-standing social and economic
problems. This leveraging of distinct organisational
capabilities and resources produces powerful co-generation
of social and economic value. Strategic alliances also seem to
be critical to the success of emerging innovative business
strategies with low income sectors at the “base of the
pyramid” (Rangan, Quelch et al. Business Solutions for the
Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic Value. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 2007).
CS Intrapreneurs are also entrepreneurs who are constantly
reaching out to leverage these resources outside their direct
control, building internal and external bridges. Externally,
these companies leverage intensively their relationships with
stakeholders for joint action through partnerships. The
aligning of company agendas with those of external groups
to create social value becomes an institutional habit,
engrained in the company’s culture and carried out through
CSE. Partnerships are considered assets through which
organisations overcome their organisational constraints. By
engaging their external stakeholders decisively, these
companies are able to multiply the impact of their efforts.
extend our reach to areas where we have interests, but
perhaps not influence or expertise. It’s a real extension of
what we can do and often what we would like to do, or what
our customers expect us to do – issues that are very complex
and difficult to solve.” Starbucks entered into a partnership
with Conservation International to foster environmentally
sustainable coffee production among small farmers in
Chiapas, Mexico. This nonprofit brought to partnership its
environmental expertise and its capacity to work with small
farmers. Starbucks contributed its knowledge of quality
coffee production and its marketing channels. This
entrepreneurial combination of distinctive competencies
created a process that developed new production techniques
and new supply of organic coffee for Starbucks, which in turn
generated significant income enhancements to the farmers
and improved environmental conditions in the growing
areas. This initial partnership expanded to other countries
and even led to the reformulation of Starbucks’ basic coffee
procurement criteria and procedures.

In the words of Sue Mecklenburg, Starbucks Vice President of

Business Practices, partnerships allows the company “to

108 109
 fundamental change that can be particularly threatening and
The challenges and
opportunities of applying CSE resisted. Furthermore, it pushes the corporation’s actions
more broadly and deeply into the social value creation area
The penetration of the social realm into corporate strategy
where the firm’s experiences and skill sets are less
has gathered momentum in recent years. The movement for
developed. The sought after disruptive social innovations
CSR has “won the battle of ideas” (Crook, The Economist,
intrinsic to the CSE approach amplify this zone of discomfort.
January 20, 2005). By now, most well – managed companies
However, these challenges are superable, as experiences in
have adopted the practices and certifications de rigueur in
innovative companies reveal. Furthermore, it is continually
their industries, having gone through what Zadek (The Path
becoming more evident that values-based leadership,
to Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business Review. 2004)
synergistic generation of social and economic value and
calls the “defensive” and the “compliance” stages of CSR.
strategic cross-sector alliances are key ingredients to
Managing the social and environmental footprint of
achieving sustainably successful business. The CSE process
economic activity is generally accepted as part of the cost of
will contribute to our collective quest for superior
doing business. But much remains to be done. If companies
organisational performance and societal betterment. This is
are to move their CSR activities from satisfying behavior and
the great opportunity and action imperative.
take their commitment to society and the environment to the
next level, they will need to rethink their current approaches
to CSR, tapping into the creativity of every individual. CSE,
like all entrepreneurship, is not about managing existing
operations or CSR programmes; it is about creating
disruptive change in the pursuit of new opportunities. It
combines the willingness and desire to create joint economic
and social value with the entrepreneurial redesign, systems
development and action necessary to carry it out.

Accelerated organisational transformation faces a host of

obstacles well-documented in the change management
literature. Because CSE expands the core purpose of
corporations and their organisational values, it constitutes

110 111
 INNOVATE OR PERISH IS THE STANDARD
SLOGAN IN TODAY’S WORLD. IF SO, CAN
SOCIAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISES SURVIVE

Inn
WITHOUT INNOVATION? GREGORY DEES IN
HIS ARTICLE, SOCIAL VENTURES AS
LEARNING LABORATORIES, THAT
APPEARED IN THE SPECIAL EDITION OF THE

ovat
JOURNAL INNOVATIONS FOR THE WORLD
ECONOMIC FORUM ANNUAL MEETING 2009,
STARTS HIS CASE BY SAYING IF EVER THE
WORLD NEEDED NEW PATTERNS OF

ions
PRODUCTION, IT CERTAINLY DOES NOW
DURING THE WORST FINANCIAL DOWNTURN
IN DECADES. INNOVATIONS, DEVELOPED
AND TESTED BY ENTREPRENEURS, WILL
HELP US RESPOND TO THE CHALLENGES OF
THE CRISIS AND MOVE INTO A NEW ERA OF
PROSPERITY.

112 113
 Entrepreneurship is part of the solution to the crisis, but, supported, but it is extremely important to the quality of our
ironically, it was also part of the problem. Capital market lives on this planet. It is particularly important in times like
innovations, such as interest-only adjustable rate mortgages these, where financial pressures are likely to make social
and credit default swaps, helped to revolutionise the pattern problems worse. As economies shrink or, in the best cases,
of production in credit markets, resulting in permanent grow much more slowly than previously expected, we can
damage. Innovation can be risky business, especially if the anticipate increases in poverty and unemployment.
innovators and early adopters are focused only on what is
This will exacerbate the many problems associated with
likely to be profitable for them in the short term. These
poverty. Fewer people will receive adequate health care.
capital market innovations present a worst-case version of
Because of the financial burden that formal education can
Schumpeter’s idea of “creative destruction.” In this case, the
place on parents, fewer children will attend school. Tensions
harm from the destruction exceeded the value of the
and violence may increase as the poor compete for jobs and
creation. That is not the kind of entrepreneurship we need
income opportunities, as they did recently on the border of
more of. What we need now is entrepreneurship that creates
Zimbabwe and South Africa. Progress will be lost, as families
greater long-term value while drawing on fewer resources
that have been successful in moving out of poverty fall back
and generating fewer destructive consequences. We need
into it. Though carbon emissions should decline with
business entrepreneurs whose innovations will jump-start
declining economic activity (though the dropping price of oil
the economy, create jobs and cause minimal disruption. We
complicates matters), any decline is unlikely to make an
need more of the non-destructive creation that Columbia
appreciable dent in the growing problem of global warming.
professor Amar Bhide has written about. We also need more
As government, business and household budgets tighten,
social entrepreneurship.
costly environmental protection and clean-up efforts are in
jeopardy. With declining oil prices, the economics of
alternative energy may become less attractive.
Pressing problems
Because many social and environment issues are time
Nowhere is this kind of value-creating innovation more
sensitive, failure to recognise the importance of social
important than in our efforts to tackle pressing social and
entrepreneurship and provide adequate support for such
environmental problems. This is where social entrepreneurs
efforts during this downturn would be a serious mistake.
come in. They reform or revolutionise the patterns for
Damage will be done that cannot easily be undone. Social
addressing social issues. They measure their success in social
entrepreneurship is not a luxury that can be suspended while
impact. Social entrepreneurship has not gotten as much
we wait for the economy to turn around.
attention as business entrepreneurship and is not as well

114 115

Learning laboratories
Social entrepreneurs offer us a learning laboratory: they
develop and test innovative solutions to social problems. As
with any form of innovation, it is impossible to know in
advance what will work. This is especially true when “working”
involves reducing or solving a social problem. Only by
fostering a wide range of experiments can we hope to find
which proposed solutions are viable, cost-effective and
scalable. This is the beauty of the small, new, resourceful
ventures that social entrepreneurs tend to create. As Stanford
economist Nathan Rosenberg and his coauthor Birdzell Jr.,
have argued, “New enterprises are useful devices for
experimenting with innovation, because they can be
established on a small, experimental scale at relatively low
cost and therefore in large numbers and their efforts can be
intensely focused on a single target.” Independent social
entrepreneurs have greater flexibility to experiment,
uninhibited by the biases, standard operating procedures,
bureaucracy, cultures, strategic commitments and other
rigidities common in established organisations of all kinds.
Promoting resourcefulness
As a matter of necessity, entrepreneurs, social or otherwise,
have to be resourceful. They become quite skilled at doing
more with less and at attracting other people’s resources to
their ventures, directly or through partnerships. This
resourcefulness is reflected in their creative and pragmatic
approach to business model design. It is useful to think of
social venture business models as running along a spectrum,
from fully reliant on philanthropy and government subsidy at
one end to fully commercial at the other. In recent years, many
116
social entrepreneurs have been driving toward the commercial
end of that spectrum to reduce their dependence on
philanthropic or governmental subsidies. Commercial
strategies are not optimal for all social ventures. The business
model has to align with the strategy for social impact, but when
possible, social entrepreneurs do work to create sustainable,
scalable ventures. For-profit ventures, social business ventures
and hybrid ventures that mix elements from the philanthropic
and commercial worlds have become common.
For instance, Water Health International is a for-profit social
venture that combines an innovative, relatively low-cost
technology for water purification in rural areas of developing
countries with an innovative business model in which villages
finance the purchase of the equipment and the villagers pay a
small fee for the clean water they use. Vision-Spring is a
nonprofit example of creative business model development. It
provides low-cost reading glasses, a productivity-enhancing
product, by buying the glasses produced in China and selling
them through micro-franchisees, who live in the villages of the
countries where it does business. Thus, it provides affordable
glasses and creates income opportunities for its vision
entrepreneurs.
The emergence of for-profit social ventures and the increase in
nonprofits generating earned income are controversial, but this
kind of experimentation is essential if we are to find ways to
improve the productivity of the scarce resources we devote to
social problems. When it works (i.e. aligns with social impact), it
leads to a more effective allocation of scarce philanthropic and
government funds. These subsidies can be freed up to flow to
the organisations and causes that need them most. Through
creativity in business model development, social entrepreneurs
are crafting more sustainable and scalable innovations.
117

Impact and knowledge
While it is essential to support the early-stage innovations
that make up the “learning laboratory” of social
entrepreneurship, the real value comes in what society does
with the results of that learning laboratory. Value is created
when successful innovations are identified and then scaled or
replicated to maximise their impact. It is important to note,
however, that not every successful social innovation
(successful in the sense of achieving its intended social
impact) is amenable to scaling or replication. Local successes
sometimes depend on rare conditions, scarce skills, or
inefficient business models. Innovations need to be evaluated
not just on their social impact, but also on their
transferability and cost-effectiveness and on the
organisation’s readiness for a scaling or replication effort.
However, with the right kind of rigorous due diligence, key
resource providers (particularly philanthropists, social
investors, potential corporate partners and government
funders) can identify viable candidates for scale or
replication and provide the support they need to achieve
widespread impact. In a time of financial crisis, this
disciplined approach is even more important. It may be hard
to pick a few “winners” for major investment, since everyone
is well intentioned, but it is essential to capture the value of
the experimentation.
The second way to reap value from this learning laboratory is
to harvest the lessons from both the successes (scalable or
not) and the failures and to share this knowledge with those
who can put it to good use. Tremendous waste occurs in the
social sector when knowledge is not captured and shared
118
effectively. No one likes to admit failure and few are willing
to open their failures to inspection. Even the successes are
rarely analyzed in a critical way that can contribute to a
common body of knowledge. However, the learning
laboratory is more likely to yield effective scalable
innovations in the future if the players in the laboratory
know enough not to repeat past failures and can find ways to
build on past successes. This is a role for universities,
consultants, associations, think tanks and journals.
The current financial crisis will force us to be smart about our
investments in social change. This could be a healthy
development for social entrepreneurship, provided that
philanthropists, social investors, governments, corporations
and other key players actively foster a vibrant learning
laboratory of social entrepreneurs, assess the results of
these experiments, support the scaling or replication of high-
leverage ventures (those that promise greater social impact
per unit of financial investment) and collaborate with efforts
to capture and share knowledge along the way. Leaders in
any society have much to gain from taking the concept of
social entrepreneurship seriously and providing social
entrepreneurs with the same kind of disciplined strategic
support that they provide for innovation in business.
119

CSE skills
Social enterprises support their social objectives rather than
personal gain. They provide much-needed goods and services,
often where the private sector has chosen not to. Social
enterprises provide health and care services, recycling services,
new and recycled goods, transport, community facilities,
renewable energy, construction services, housing and access to
broadband telecommunications. This is often combined with
providing on-the-job training in a supportive environment for
disadvantaged people, including people who have a disability or
are long-term unemployed.
Because they eschew a “get rich quick” mentality, social
enterprises tend to suffer from low prestige. Yet working in them
is not easy; it demands flexibility and multiple skills. Incentives
and career paths are often limited. Social and financial aims may
clash and so do volunteer and paid employee mentalities.
Moreover, social enterprises predominantly offer employment to
people who have not gained formal qualifications.
As businesses, they must be well managed if they are to survive.
The specific nature of social enterprises means that they need
specific new skills and qualifications in the following areas
(wikipreneurship, accessed December 2009):
Working in a social enterprise is not solely a matter of gaining
a material reward. In personnel or human resource management,
social enterprises therefore depend to a far greater extent on the
motivation of their workers. Techniques of participative
management are required to maintain this. These depend on the
involvement of people in deciding the content of jobs and in
improving results, rather than simply carrying them out as
instructed. This relies on a keen appreciation of what it means to
work in a team and a commitment to a process of collective
problem resolution and decision-making. Positions of
responsibility may be held in rotation over longer or shorter
periods and jobs may be shared. Working hours may be
120
negotiated flexibly. To increase job quality, people may carry out
a number of different roles in parallel or in succession. Strategic
decisions will generally be reached through a process of
consultation of all stakeholders. Feedback on achievements and
results is to the general meeting of members, as well as to
stakeholders more broadly.
The success of social enterprises depends on keeping up good
links with a number of different stakeholders. There is a need to
manage their social capital, which is made up of levels of trust,
reciprocity, norms of behavior, a sense of belonging and
networks. This not only involves workers but suppliers, final users,
clients in both the public and private sectors and the community
generally.
Social enterprises do not rely on conventional, anonymous
marketing techniques. Instead, they focus on social marketing
based on proximity, personal contact and trust.
Finance is often a combination of private finance, public
funding and voluntary contributions of money or time. Managing
this mix also requires specific skills.
Finally, social enterprises have multiple bottom lines, that is to
say multiple objectives – social and environmental as well as
financial. They strive not only to ensure their continuity by making
an operating surplus, but also to produce outputs which are not
simple to translate into monetary terms (for instance in terms of
the improved social welfare of their members, their customers
and the local community). Methods of attributing monetary values
to the costs and benefits of social enterprise are continually being
improved (for instance their activity may reduce public spending
on unemployment benefit, social security, health and policing
services). Evaluating whether to support social enterprises and
monitoring their performance requires special reporting,
monitoring and evaluation techniques that take account of the
social as well as the economic objectives.
121
 AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IS
ENSURING SUSTAINABLE GROWTH.
ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA (ACCESSED
DECEMBER 2009), SUSTAINABILITY IS THE
POTENTIAL FOR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE
OF WELLBEING, WHICH IN TURN DEPENDS
ON THE WELLBEING OF THE NATURAL

Sust WORLD AND THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF

NATURAL RESOURCES. SUSTAINABILITY
CAN BE APPLIED TO ALMOST EVERY FACET
OF LIFE ON EARTH, FROM A LOCAL TO A

aina
GLOBAL SCALE AND OVER VARIOUS TIME
PERIODS. LONG-LIVED AND HEALTHY
WETLANDS AND FORESTS ARE EXAMPLES
OF SUSTAINABLE BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

bility
INVISIBLE CHEMICAL CYCLES REDISTRIBUTE
WATER, OXYGEN, NITROGEN AND CARBON
THROUGH THE WORLD’S LIVING AND NON-
LIVING SYSTEMS AND HAVE SUSTAINED
LIFE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.

122 123
 In recent times, sustainability has been used more in the sense community had become dependent on a nonrenewable
of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted resource.
in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and
In the 21st century there is heightened awareness of the threat
sustainable development, that of the Brundtland Commission
posed by the human-induced greenhouse effect. Ecological
of the United Nations: “sustainable development is
economics now seeks to bridge the gap between ecology and
development that meets the needs of the present without
traditional economics and proposes an inclusive and ethical
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
economic model for society. Many new techniques have arisen
own needs.” This requires the reconciliation of environmental,
to help measure and implement sustainability, including Life
social and economic demands – the “three pillars” of
Cycle Assessment.
sustainability which are not mutually exclusive but mutually
reinforcing. Sustainability is studied and managed over many scales (levels
th th
or frames of reference) of time and space and in many contexts
The Western industrial revolution of the 17 to 19 centuries
of environmental, social and economic organisation. The focus
tapped into the vast growth potential of the energy in fossil
ranges from the total carrying capacity (sustainability) of planet
fuels to power sophisticated machinery technology. These
Earth to the sustainability of economic sectors, ecosystems,
conditions led to a human population explosion and
countries, municipalities, neighborhoods, home gardens,
unprecedented industrial, technological and scientific growth
individual lives, individual goods and services, occupations,
that has continued to this day. From 1650 to 1850 the global
lifestyles, behavior patterns and so on. In short, it can entail the
population had already doubled from around 500 million to 1
full compass of biological and human activity or any part of it.
billion people and today the growth is indeed relentless. The
As Daniel Botkin, author and environmentalist stated: “We see a
industrial revolution resulted in an exponential increase in the
landscape that is always in flux, changing over many scales of
human consumption of resources and an increase in health,
time and space.”
wealth and population.
Historically, humanity has responded to a demand for more
After the deprivations of the Great Depression and
resources by trying to increase supply. As supplies inevitably
World War II the developed world entered a post-1950s “great
become depleted sustainable practices are encouraged through
acceleration” of growth and population (the “Golden age of
demand management for all goods and services — by promoting
capitalism”) while a gathering environmental movement
reduced consumption, using renewable resources where
pointed out that there were environmental costs associated
possible and encouraging practices that minimise resource
with the many material benefits that were now being enjoyed.
intensity while maximising resource productivity. Careful
Technological innovations included plastics, synthetic
resource management can be applied at many scales, from
chemicals and nuclear energy as fossil fuels also continued to
economic sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and industry,
transform society. By the late twentieth century environmental
to work organisations, the consumption patterns of households
problems were becoming global in scale and the 1973 and 1979
and individuals and to the resource demands of individual
energy crises demonstrated the extent to which the global
goods and services.
124 125

Population
According to the 2008 Revision of the official United Nations
population estimates and projections, the world population is
projected to reach 7 billion early in 2012, up from the current
6.9 billion (2009), to exceed 9 billion people by 2050. Most
of the increase will be in developing countries whose
population is projected to rise from 5.6 billion in 2009 to 7.9
billion in 2050. This increase will be distributed among the
population aged 15 – 59 (1.2 billion) and 60 or over (1.1
billion) because the number of children under age 15 in
developing countries will decrease. In contrast, the
population of the more developed regions is expected to
undergo only slight increase from 1.23 billion to 1.28 billion
and this would have declined to 1.15 billion but for a
projected net migration from developing to developed
countries, which is expected to average 2.4 million persons
annually from 2009 to 2050.
Long-term estimates of global population suggest a peak at
around 2070 of nine to ten billion people and then a slow
decrease to 8.4 billion by 2100. Emerging economies like
those of China and India aspire to the living standards of the
Western world as does the non-industrialised world in
general. It is the combination of population increase in the
developing world and unsustainable consumption levels in
the developed world that poses a stark challenge to
sustainability.
More and more data is indicating that humans are not living
within the carrying capacity of the planet. The Ecological
footprint measures human consumption in terms of the
126
biologically productive land needed to provide the resources
and absorb the wastes of the average global citizen. In 2008
it required 2.7 global hectares per person, 30% more than
the natural biological capacity of 2.1 global hectares
(assuming no provision for other organisms). The resulting
ecological deficit must be met from unsustainable extra
sources and these are obtained in three ways: embedded in
the goods and services of world trade; taken from the past
(e.g. fossil fuels); or borrowed from the future as
unsustainable resource usage (e.g. by over exploiting forests
and fisheries).
The general trend is for higher standards of living to become
less sustainable. As always population growth has a marked
influence on levels of consumption and the efficiency of
resource use. The sustainability goal is to raise the global
standard of living without increasing the use of resources
beyond globally sustainable levels; that is, to not exceed “one
planet” consumption. Information generated by reports at
the national, regional and city scales confirm the global trend
towards societies that are becoming less sustainable over
time.
At a fundamental level, energy flow and biogeochemical
cycling set an upper limit on the number and mass of
organisms in any ecosystem. Human impacts on the Earth
are demonstrated in a general way through detrimental
changes in the global biogeochemical cycles of chemicals
that are critical to life, most notably those of water, oxygen,
carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.
127

Human consumption
The underlying driver of direct human impacts on the
environment is human consumption. This impact is reduced
by not only consuming less but by also making the full cycle
of production, use and disposal more sustainable.
Consumption of goods and services can be analysed and
managed at all scales through the chain of consumption,
starting with the effects of individual lifestyle choices and
spending patterns, through to the resource demands of
specific goods and services, the impacts of economic sectors,
through national economies to the global economy. Analysis
of consumption patterns relates resource use to the
environmental, social and economic impacts at the scale or
context under investigation.
levels of about 380 ppm. Above this level and temperatures
could rise by more than 2 °C (36 °F) to produce
“catastrophic” climate change. Reduction of current CO2
levels must be achieved against a background of global
population increase and developing countries aspiring to
energy-intensive high consumption Western lifestyles.
Reducing greenhouse emissions, referred to as
decarbonisation, is being tackled at all scales, ranging from
tracking the passage of carbon through the carbon cycle to
the exploration of renewable energies, developing less
carbon-hungry technology and transport systems and
attempts by individuals to lead carbon neutral lifestyles by
monitoring the fossil fuel use embodied in all the goods and
services they use.

The Sun’s energy, stored by plants (primary producers)

during photosynthesis, passes through the food chain to
other organisms to ultimately power all living processes.
Since the industrial revolution the concentrated energy of
the Sun stored in fossilised plants as fossil fuels has been a
major driver of technology which, in turn, has been the
source of both economic and political power. In 2007
climate scientists concluded that there was at least a 90%
probability that atmospheric increase in CO2 was
human – induced, mostly as a result of fossil fuel emissions
but, to a lesser extent from changes in land use. Stabilising
the world’s climate will require high income countries to
reduce their emissions by 60-90% over 2006 levels by 2050
which should hold CO2 levels at 450-650 ppm from current

128 129
 Water
Water security and food security are inextricably linked. In
the decade 1951-60 human water withdrawals were four
times greater than the previous decade. This rapid increase
resulted from scientific and technological developments
impacting through the economy – especially the increase in
irrigated land, growth in industrial and power sectors and
intensive dam construction on all continents. This altered the
water cycle of rivers and lakes, affected their water quality
and had a significant impact on the global water cycle.
Currently around 35% of human water use is unsustainable,
drawing on diminishing aquifers and reducing the flows of
major rivers: this percentage is likely to increase if climate
change worsens, populations increase, aquifers become
progressively depleted and supplies become polluted and
unsanitary. From 1961 to 2001 water demand doubled –
agricultural use increased by 75%, industrial use by more
than 200% and domestic use more than 400%. Humans
currently use 40-50% of the globally available freshwater in
the approximate proportion of 70% for agriculture, 22% for
industry and 8% for domestic purposes and the total volume
is progressively increasing.
Water efficiency is being improved on a global scale by
increased demand management, improved infrastructure,
improved water productivity of agriculture, minimising the
water intensity (embodied water) of goods and services,
addressing shortages in the non-industrialised world,
concentrating food production in areas of high productivity
and planning for climate change. At the local level people are
becoming more water–self–sufficient by harvesting rainwater
and reducing use of mains water.
130
Food
The American Public Health Association (APHA) defines a
“sustainable food system” as “one that provides healthy food
to meet current food needs while maintaining healthy
ecosystems that can also provide food for generations to
come with minimal negative impact to the environment. A
sustainable food system also encourages local production
and distribution infrastructures and makes nutritious food
available, accessible and affordable to all. Further, it is
humane and just, protecting farmers and other workers,
consumers and communities.”
Concerns about the environmental impacts of agribusiness
and the stark contrast between the obesity problems of the
Western world and the poverty and food insecurity of the
developing world have generated a strong movement
towards healthy, sustainable eating as a major component of
overall ethical consumerism. The environmental effects of
different dietary patterns depend on many factors, including
the proportion of animal and plant foods consumed and the
method of food production.
At the global level the environmental impact of agribusiness
is being addressed through sustainable agriculture and
organic farming. At the local level there are various
movements working towards local food production, more
productive use of urban wastelands and domestic gardens
including permaculture, urban horticulture, local food, slow
food, sustainable gardening and organic gardening.
131
 Materials, toxic substances,
waste
As global population and affluence has increased, so has the
use of various materials increased in volume, diversity and
distance transported. Included here are raw materials,
minerals, synthetic chemicals (including hazardous
substances), manufactured products, food, living organisms
and waste.
Synthetic chemical production has escalated following the
stimulus it received during the Second World War Chemical
production includes everything from herbicides, pesticides
and fertilisers to domestic chemicals and hazardous
substances. Apart from the build-up of greenhouse gas
emissions in the atmosphere, chemicals of particular concern
include: heavy metals, nuclear waste, chlorofluorocarbons,
persistent organic pollutants and all harmful chemicals
capable of bioaccumulation. Although most synthetic
chemicals are harmless there needs to be rigorous testing of
new chemicals, in all countries, for adverse environmental
and health effects. International legislation has been
established to deal with the global distribution and
management of dangerous goods.
Every economic activity produces material that can be
classified as waste. The average human uses 45-85 tonnes of
materials each year. To reduce waste industry, business and
government are now mimicking nature by turning the waste
produced by industrial metabolism into resource.
132
Environmental degradation
In the second half of the 20th century world population
doubled, food production tripled, energy use quadrupled and
overall economic activity quintupled. Historically, there has
been a close correlation between economic growth and
environmental degradation: as communities grow, so the
environment declines. This trend is clearly demonstrated on
graphs of human population numbers, economic growth and
environmental indicators.
Unsustainable economic growth has been starkly compared
to the malignant growth of a cancer because it eats away at
the Earth’s ecosystem services which are its life-support
system. There is concern that, unless resource use is
checked, modern global civilisation will follow the path of
ancient civilisations that collapsed through overexploitation
of their resource base.
While conventional economics is concerned largely with
economic growth and the efficient allocation of resources,
ecological economics has the explicit goal of sustainable
scale (rather than continual growth), fair distribution and
efficient allocation, in that order. The World Business Council
for Sustainable Development states that “business cannot
succeed in societies that fail”. Sustainability studies analyse
ways to reduce (decouple) the amount of resource (e.g.
water, energy, or materials) needed for the production,
consumption and disposal of a unit of good or service
whether this be achieved from improved economic
management, product design, new technology etc. Ecological
economics includes the study of societal metabolism, the
133
 throughput of resources that enter and exit the economic
system in relation to environmental quality.
The economic importance of nature is indicated by the use of
the expression ecosystem services to highlight the market
relevance of an increasingly scarce natural world that can no
longer be regarded as both unlimited and free. In general, as
a commodity or service becomes more scarce, the price
increases and this acts as a restraint that encourages
frugality, technical innovation and alternative products.
However, this only applies when the product or service falls
within the market system. As ecosystem services are
generally treated as economic externalities they are unpriced
and therefore overused and degraded, a situation sometimes
referred to as the Tragedy of the Commons.
One approach to this dilemma has been the attempt to
“internalise” these “externalities” by using market strategies
like ecotaxes and incentives, tradeable permits for carbon,
water and nitrogen use etc. and the encouragement of
payment for ecosystem services. Community currencies such
as LETS, a gift economy and Time Banking have also been
promoted as a way of supporting local economies and the
environment. Green economics is another market-based
attempt to address issues of equity and the environment. The
global recession and a range of government policies that
have been connected to that, are likely to bring the biggest
annual fall in the world’s carbon dioxide emissions in 40
years.
134
Indian scenario
“A sustainable organisation runs a profitable operation while
continually contributing towards the betterment of all
stakeholders. If any stakeholder — whether the environment
or your employees — shows deterioration, you’re no longer
sustainable,” says Tata Industries MD Kishor Chaukar.
Corporate India too is being drawn into this new regime of
operating business; at last count, 21 Indian companies had
taken up triple bottom line reporting (which, besides
financial disclosures, includes disclosures on impacts on
society and the environment). “It’s not our chairman’s
(Anand Mahindra) way to shove decisions down people’s
throats but today for us, there is no choice on sustainability,”
says Rajeev Dubey, president, HR & corporate services,
Mahindra & Mahindra.
At ITC’s 2009 annual general meeting, chairman YC
Deveshwar pushed a compelling case for sustainable growth,
emphasising that businesses had no choice but to build
capabilities to address the demands of a low-carbon global
business environment. “For a country like India with millions
below the poverty line this new paradigm of competitiveness
will not only require the creation of “green businesses”, but
also the generation of “green livelihoods,” he added. Being
the market leader in the cigarettes business has meant that
public perception of the Imperial Tobacco Company (ITC) has
always bordered on the pejorative. Today though, the
135
 company is also lauded for its 6,500 e-Choupals (knowledge
kiosks for farmers) that cover 40,000 villages and its
integrated watershed development initiative that has created
freshwater potential across 46,000 hectares in water-
stressed areas. ITC has also consciously aligned its new
businesses like paperboards and packaged foods with
socially and environmentally responsible practices. Its
paperboards business, for instance, sources fibre from
renewable plantations and has provided livelihoods to
marginal farmers and tribals.
In a world where consumers, employees and other
stakeholders are beginning to ask what role their
organisations are playing in the sustainability crisis,
corporates are finding that investing in sustainable growth
may be a necessary cost of doing business. In fact as Dhaval
Buch, executive director, Hindustan Unilever (HUL) says,
investing in low carbon technology is capital intensive. “Our
challenge is continuing to drive this agenda while ensuring
that our cost structures stay competitive,” he adds. HUL has
chosen to follow a strategy of sustainable growth built on
three levers – its brands (that come with clear messages of
hygiene and sanitation or environmentally friendly
attributes), people (last year its staff put in 49,000 hours of
volunteering) and processes (where it is reducing carbon
emissions of operations). “If you make a positive impact with
your business you connect with the consumer better,” says
Buch.
136
Sustainability is not do-goodery. “CSR used to work in silos
and issue cheques to the CEO’s favourite charity.
Sustainability today is deeply integrated with business
operations,” says Naina Lal Kidwai, country head HSBC India.
Three years ago HSBC India began lending to microfinance
institutions as a part of its commitment to financial inclusion;
today it’s a business worth at least $38 million. “They’ve
actually been better customers than our credit card
customers,” says Kidwai. Plus there is the intangible rub-off
on corporate reputation. “If your company is seen as a
responsible player in sustainability, it creates a lot of
enthusiasm among employees, vendors and customers,” says
Godrej group chairman Adi Godrej; Godrej Industries is a
signatory to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) code
for ecologically sustainable business growth which commits it
to protecting the environment in the pursuit of business
growth.
Interestingly, sometimes it’s the “dirtiest” industries that
lead the charge. Cement making is a highly energy and
mineral intensive process but ACC Cements came out with its
first sustainability report last year and has achieved
considerable results, for instance, in the utilisation of
hazardous industrial wastes to make blended cements.
“There are those who will do the right thing only if driven by
law and others who do the right thing because they believe in
it and see the all-round benefit of doing so,” says Sumit
Banerjee, managing director, ACC Cements. Tata Power, like
137
 ACC, believes strongly in sustainability stewardship. “In
Australia a law has been passed that by 2020 all power
distribution companies must procure 20% of all power
through renewable sources. Policy framework will catch up
here as well and when it does, we want to have a huge
upside,” says Banmali Agrawala, executive director-strategy
and business development. Given that 25% of the world’s CO2
emissions come from power generation, climate change is a
serious issue for the company. Despite large-scale plans for
expansion of coal-fired generation, Tata Power’s vision for
the longer term is to reduce the carbon intensity of its
portfolio by substantial investments in carbon sequestration,
clean coal technology and renewable sources like geothermal
and wind.
The drivers for sustainability in India are varied — energy
insecurity, regulatory frameworks or even because ethical
work practices and supply chain integrity are suddenly non-
negotiable for export. Independent think tank and strategy
consultancy SustainAbility India’s director Shankar
Venkateshwaran believes that leaders from long gestation
sectors like power tend to be more farsighted on the
business imperative of sustainable growth. “They are able to
recognise the dangers in the future,” he says. For some
companies, like Mahindra & Mahindra, the catalyst comes in
the form of a financial investor that requires disclosure on
the company’s environmental and social impact. In fact, the
volume of mainstream investors that now use Environmental,
138
Social & Governance (ESG) analysis as a standard practice in
their investment decisions is growing, compelling disclosure
by Indian companies. “Our assessment of ESG risks
associated with every investment always runs in parallel to
the business and investment due diligence,” says Ritu Kumar,
senior advisor UK at private equity major Actis, adding that
this approach has actually revealed greater opportunities for
value creation and reduces investment and portfolio risk.
What disclosure does is firmly establish a company’s
commitment to sustainable growth, but as Arvind Sharma,
associate director, KPMG Advisory Services says, the journey
is long and “most companies are still grappling with the
enormity of the sustainability challenge”. Footprint reduction
is typically the first step where companies try and reduce
specific energy consumption, recycle waste water or reduce
dependence on fossil fuels. HUL has committed to reduce the
carbon footprint of its operations by 25% from 2004 levels
by 2012. The next step is the greening of supply chains;
Godrej admits this is challenging when there isn’t a well-
defined supply chain but the group is committed to building
efficiencies and promoting sustainability performances
among its vendors. The final stages involve actually
designing new products and services based on sustainability
and eventually transforming the business model itself.
For Indian companies, as Deveshwar points out, social impact
and governance are critical parts of the sustainability puzzle,
139
 even if the Western discourse on sustainability places a
premium on the environment piece. At Wipro, according to
PS Narayanan, general manager and head – sustainability,
the pillars of sustainability are as much about ecological
impact as they are about health and safety standards and
employment practices. “Business today has to earn the
license to operate both from the social and environmental
perspective,” he says. SustainAbility is helping Tata Power,
through an exercise it calls Materiality, map community
groups displaced by company operations and articulate a
company-wide strategy covering land acquisition and
rehabilitation. “The idea is to ask each of your stakeholders
what their expectation is of the company, what they think are
the biggest risks, build your strategy around that and then
report based on that. That way you worry about what is
important as defined not by you but stakeholders,” says
Venkateshwaran. The Materiality exercise, also conducted at
ACC, generated much awareness. “I think our team is
convinced that sustainability pays in the long run; in some
cases even earlier,” says Banerjee.
Ultimately, sustainability has to go beyond the CEO’s
evangelism to touch every employee in the organisation. The
entire managerial team at Tata Power has just completed the
measurement of their individual carbon footprints using
three simple levers — fuel consumption, units of electricity
used and cooking gas consumed; Agrawala admits he was
embarrassed by his own personal footprint. Experts say
140
employees are best won over when CEOs position the whole
sustainability strategy as a business opportunity. Indeed,
being socially responsible doesn’t have to be at odds with
being financially profitable. GE led the way in 2005 with
‘Ecomagination’, a portfolio of products that aimed to “solve
the world’s biggest environmental challenges”. By 2008, GE
increased its portfolio of Ecomagination offerings by one-
third and grew revenues of Ecomagination offerings to $17
billion. “Ecomagination is not a campaign or slogan, it’s a
business strategy; how to make sustainable cleaner
technology while making a buck at it,” says Pratyush Kumar,
president & CEO – infrastructure, GE India.
M&M is making inroads into ‘greener’ businesses like electric
cars and three-wheelers. “In every business, we’re looking at
what opportunities are created by our sustainable agenda,”
says Dubey. And Godrej is particularly excited about Godrej
Garden City, a township development in the city of
Ahmedabad, a largescale urban development project that
strives to reduce the amount of on-site CO2 emissions to
below zero. The challenge however is not that there isn’t an
emerging consumer market that seeks products with a lower
carbon footprint, but that consumers still do not want to pay
more for them. But customers are evolving, says Agrawala:
“At every customer meet the standard question is: What can
you as Tata Power do to help me improve my energy
efficiency at home?”
141
 The greening of the consumer also requires credible systems expectations of society. When you start to think like this, you
of information to be made available so they can make see the world differently.” It is becoming increasingly clear
informed choices. Last year, IFC and Standard & Poors that while corporate executives can ignore the issue of
launched the ESG India Index, drawn from the largest 500 sustainability, they do it at their own growing risk (Economic
companies listed on the National Stock Exchange, whose Times 27 November 2009).
business strategies and performance demonstrate a high
It may appear that taking care of sustainability while at the
level of commitment to ESG standards. “We expect that as
same time serving the civil society in terms of development
ESG becomes more entrenched in company practices, this
and employment generation may appear to be a
index will provide evidence of that and in turn lead people to
contradiction in terms, at least in developing countries like
really value it as an investment tool,” says Alka Banerjee,
India. Long–term environmental goals and short–to–medium
vice president- index services, Standard & Poor’s.
term growth in GDP almost invariably appear to clash with
December 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen has come each other. But somehow, humankind has to learn new
and gone without much clarity on so many issues. Of course lessons in the years and decades ahead if we want our future
the fundamental sticking points remain between developing generations to thank us for our foresight.
and developed nations over the balance between the need
for development and the challenges of mitigating climate
change and the transfer of technology and aid from rich to
poor nations. “Ultimately, business in India will have to
enable development but the challenge will be to ensure that
the carbon footprint does not mirror the Western paradigm
of development,” says Venkateshwaran.

Whatever the outcome, it is clear there will be newer

challenges post-Copenhagen that will significantly alter the
paradigm of competitiveness for businesses globally. As
Andrew Witty, CEO, GlaxoSmithKline once said; “With nothing
certain, we (big pharma companies) should never take for
granted our right to exist. We are earning it by meeting the

142 143
 THE WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT HAS NOTED
THAT A COHERENT CSR STRATEGY BASED
ON INTEGRITY, SOUND VALUES AND A

The LONG–TERM APPROACH OFFERS CLEAR

BUSINESS BENEFITS TO COMPANIES AND
CONTRIBUTES TO THE WELL–BEING OF

road SOCIETY (CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY – TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE, KPMG-ASSOCHAM WHITE PAPER

ahead 2008). AS COMPANIES MOVE FORWARD TO

DESIGN A CSR STRATEGY THAT PROVIDES
THE LEVERAGE POINT AS INTENDED, MANY
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS NEED TO BE BORNE
IN MIND.

144 145
 The originally defined concept of CSR needs to be interpreted
and dimensionalised in the broader conceptual framework of
how the corporate embed their corporate values as a new
strategic asset, to build a basis for trust and cooperation
within the wider stakeholder community. Though there have
been evidences that record a paradigm shift from charity to a
long-term strategy, yet the concept still is believed to be
strongly linked to philanthropy. There is a need to bring
about an attitudinal change in people about the concept.
By having more coherent and ethically driven discourses on
CSR, it has to be understood that CSR is about how
corporates place their business ethics and behaviours to
balance business growth and commercial success with a
positive change in the stakeholder community. Several
corporates today have specific departments to operationalise
CSR. There are either foundations or trusts or a separate
department within an organisation that looks into
implementation of practices. Being treated as a separate
entity, there is always a flexibility and independence to carry
out the tasks.
But often these entities work in isolation without creating a
synergy with other departments of the corporate. There is a
need to understand that CSR is not only a pure management
directive, but it is something that is central to the company
and has to be embedded in the core values and principles of
the corporate. Whatever corporates do within the purview of
CSR has to be related to core business. It has to utilise things
at which corporates are good; it has to be something that
146
takes advantage of the core skills and competencies of the
companies. It has to be a mandate of the entire organisation
and its scope does not simply begin and end with one
department in the organisation.
While conceptualisation and implementation seem firmly
underway, evaluation is still taking a back seat. There is a
need to incorporate an evaluation plan, which along with
presenting a scope for improvement in terms of fund
utilisation and methodology adopted for the project,
measures the short and long term impact of the practices.
While there have been success stories of short–term
interventions, their impact has been limited and have faded
over a period of time. It is essential for corporates to adopt a
long–term approach rather than sticking to short–term
interventions, involving the companies and employees in the
long-term process of positive social transition.
A clearly defined mission and a vision statement combined
with a sound implementation strategy and a plan of action
firmly rooted in ground realities and developed in close
collaboration with implementation partners, is what it takes
for a successful execution of CSR. An area that can be looked
upon is the sharing of best practices by corporates. A
plausible framework for this could be benchmarking. While
benchmarking will help corporates evaluate their initiatives
and rank them, it will also provide an impetus to others to
develop similar kind of practices. Credibility Alliance, a
consortium of voluntary organisations follows a mechanism
of accreditation for voluntary sector. Efforts have to be
147
 directed towards building a similar kind of mechanism for
CSR as well.
Sustainable development, like building a successful business,
requires taking the long-term view. The KPMG International
Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005 showed
that voluntary reporting on sustainability is increasing across
all countries. Sustainability Reporting is emerging as a key
vehicle to implement CSR and measure its progress in
organisations. As we move forward, an increasing number of
companies are expected to issue Sustainability Reports, with
the scope of issues broadening from purely environmental
reporting to a more comprehensive coverage of the
environmental, social and economic dimensions. There is a
strong corporate initiative on joining the Global Compact
Society in India, as well, with 43 Indian companies having
already joined Global Compact as of January 2008 (Corporate
Social Responsibility – Towards a Sustainable Future, KPMG-
ASSOCHAM White Paper 2008).
148
Incentives for CSR?
Should companies get incentives for CSR efforts? That was
the title of an article in the Economic Times (16 December
2009), in which Mr Amit Mitra, Secretary General, FICCI put
forth his case that more benefits will spur voluntary activity:
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is proactive on corporate
social responsibility (CSR), even as it is responsible for
ensuring corporate governance. Obviously, the two are
different from each other and must not be put in the same
basket. Corporate governance involves regulating a
corporate that has chosen to list on the stock market and,
thus, has major responsibilities towards its shareholders.
Therefore, mandatory laws, statutes and accounting norms
are invoked to bring transparency and accountability. On the
other had, CSR is a voluntary activity by a company, listed or
privately-owned, to serve bigger goals of society, beyond its
routine market functions. In fact, India Inc is taking several
initiatives in the space of CSR for the welfare of society.
FICCI, for the last 10 years, has been encouraging and
supporting industry’s CSR initiatives through an annual CSR
award. The question here is whether the voluntary activity of
CSR can be spurred through fiscal incentives.
Interestingly, many fiscal measures already exist in our
Income-Tax Act. If a corporate donates funds to an approved
NGO for social projects, it is eligible for 50% deduction of
that amount and 100% if it funds a not-for-profit
organisation (registered under Section 25 of the Companies
Act). A stellar example of this nature is the creation of the
FICCI Aditya Birla Centre for Excellence in CSR, paid for by
companies of the Aditya Birla Group. Similarly, if a company
149
 contributes to an approved scientific research association, it business-related or geographical, than initiatives that may be
can get up to 125% deduction. well-meaning but distant from its core business. With its vast
developmental needs combined with a strong
The moot point is: should we have more of such exemptions
entrepreneurial spirit, the country is fast emerging as one of
to attract more of corporates into the CSR net? Certainly.
the leaders in innovating such business models. However,
We may have to provide weighted deduction of 150% or
sustainable models of scale are just a few. What can be done
125% to encourage corporates for voluntary CSR
to support such initiatives where costs and risks are high and
contributions. This could possibly be done by inserting a
financial returns low?
new clause in either Section 35(2AA) or Section 35(2AB), to
provide for 150% deduction of the amount paid to the Instead of a tax-based incentive mechanism, a short-term
approved institution/NGOs involved in CSR. With such bold fund could be set up to catalyse innovation, disseminate
measures to promote CSR, the UPA government will truly live learning and encourage more companies to come forward.
up to its pledge for inclusion of the underprivileged and The fund could be set up with contributions from the
usher in a new paradigm of Public-Private Partnership (PPP). government, private sector and donors to be managed by
industry and/or their representative bodies with an
Mr Anil Sinha, GM, IFC Advisory Services for South Asia
independent investment committee. The funding could be
argues that a short-term fund is better than tax incentives.
based on outputs to be agreed, for example, income
What started as philanthropy and grew into feel-good or risk-
increased for a certain segment of society, or part-funded
mitigation initiatives by companies is evolving into business
upfront, while the rest is performance-based with strong
models that co-create value for themselves and society. CSR
monitoring and evaluation. These fund-sponsored initiatives
may not be the best term for such a model, but these private
should dovetail into other economic and social needs and
sector initiatives are now becoming central to business
programmes, related to skills development or healthcare.
strategy. As part of a group of development professionals
supported by the government that is drafting CSR guidelines
for public dissemination, I find that best practices in such
linkage programmes are still evolving.

A business case should be made to establish financial

benefits for all stakeholders and leverage strengths of all
parties through meaningful partnerships. Experience shows
that such initiatives are successful if they concentrate on
areas where a company has a strong influence, either

150 151

HBS speak
Harvard Business School (HBS) founded the Social Enterprise
Initiative (SEI) in 1993 to inspire, educate and support
current and emerging leaders across all sectors in applying
management skills to create social value. To achieve this
mission, SEI has taken an integrated approach to social
enterprise research, curriculum enrichment, career
development and community engagement activities. HBS
also made a deliberate decision to interpret the programme
to include the study of enterprises and organisations
engaged in social value creation, regardless of their for-profit
or nonprofit status. With this approach in mind, SEI has
grown significantly in many areas since those early days.
A confluence of forces is shaping the field of social
enterprise, changing the way that financiers, practitioners,
scholars and organisations measure performance. Kasturi
Rangan, Herman Leonard and Susan McDonald trace a
growing pool of potential funding sources to solve social
problems, much of it stemming from an intergenerational
transfer of wealth and new wealth from financial and high-
tech entrepreneurs. They examine how these organisations
can best access the untapped resources by demonstrating
mission performance and then propose three potential
scenarios for how this sector might evolve (The Future of
Social Enterprise, Harvard Business School Working Paper,
2008)
Consolidation: In this scenario, funding will keep growing
in a gradual, linear fashion and organisations will compete
for resources by demonstrating performance. The sector will
152
consolidate, with some efficient organisations gaining scale,
some merging and then growing and some failing to achieve
either scale or efficiency and eventually shutting down.
Entrepreneurial: In a more optimistic future, existing and
new enterprises will apply strategies to achieve and
demonstrate performance, improving efficiency and
effectiveness and attracting new funding sources. More
organisations will enter a reformed, competitive field of
social change with new entrepreneurial models, established
traditional organisations and innovative funding strategies
fuelling widespread success.
Expressive: Rather than focusing exclusively on
performance, financiers and organisations may view their
investment as an expressive civic activity. As much value is
placed on participating in a cause as on employing concrete
measures of impact or efficiency. In this scenario, funding
will flow as social entrepreneurs experiment with new
models based on a range of individual priorities and
relationships.
The March 2008 HBS Future of Social Enterprise Centennial
Colloquium convened at a most opportune time, as the social
enterprise field undergoes several major transformations.
Panelists and participants examined major cross-cutting
themes surrounding the future of social enterprise, including
philanthropic funding flows, organisational capacity and
management strategies for impact.
Philanthropic resources are growing. In the U.S., many
foundations sport enormous endowments while foundations
overall now number more than 71,000, an increase of 77
153
 percent between 1995 and 2005 Over the next 50 years, an
intergenerational transfer of wealth is expected to occur
between elderly adults and ageing baby boomers and their
families, with an estimated $6 trillion projected to go directly
to charitable causes. These resources in search of a cause
frequently require proof of concrete social returns, especially
given that many new donors are adopting a high-impact,
entrepreneurial approach to their giving.
Likewise, the social sector is growing. Currently, more than
1.4 million nonprofit organisations in the U.S. generate $1.36
trillion in revenue, constituting at least 5 percent of GDP,
while individual charitable contribution alone has reached a
high of $300 billion.7 As frequently noted, the sector itself is
expanding to include not only traditional nonprofit
organisations but also many for-profit and hybrid entities
operating with strong social missions. The current blurring of
boundaries among sectors means that nonprofits now
routinely engage in profit-seeking activities, for-profits
aggressively seek social value through business and
charitable activities and public agencies form partnerships
with both – all with the goal of reducing social harms and
advancing public benefits.
As the traditional nonprofit sector broadens to include a
range of social enterprise models, the social sector faces
three major transformations:
Changes in the flow of funds, due to commercial activity
by socially minded organisations as well as growing
154
philanthropic sources, especially the vast sums of anticipated
intergenerational wealth transfer and new wealth from
financial and high-tech entrepreneurs
A shift in the role of government, both in terms of
responsibility and distribution of resources, as traditional
models of grant funding give way to market competition in
which non–profit and for-profit entities compete for
government contracts and consumer subsidies
A transformation of ideas on how to allocate resources
and what results to expect as philanthropy is increasingly
viewed as a social “investment,” especially as more potential
financiers with entrepreneurial backgrounds enter the
philanthropic market
In the face of these challenges, the functional questions for
non–profit leaders and social entrepreneurs are how to
acquire resources, how to build successful organisations and
how to achieve impact – and for those actors and
intermediaries who support the sector with funding and
expertise, how to advance all three goals. In response to
these questions, the social enterprise literature is awash with
claims of groundbreaking innovation, from venture
philanthropy to corporate social responsibility, which offer
the equivalent of philanthropic ‘silver bullets.’ Data trends,
however, suggest a somewhat different story, one of steady
but not remarkable growth influenced by major demographic
and political changes and accompanied by a wealth of new
models whose potential has not yet been fully explored. In
155
 fact, many innovative approaches and models that have
emerged over the last 10 years remain in their infancy and
await a “quantum” push to exhibit widespread benefit.
Given the apparent challenges and opportunities in
designing, funding, staffing and measuring CSR performance
of organisations, what does the future hold for this sector?
Significant changes are occurring in the field of social
enterprise, including major developments in the flow of
funding, growing but often untapped philanthropic resources
and a shift in the role of government, as well as new social
investment models and impact measurement tools. These
development are occurring against a larger backdrop of
demographic and market change as boundaries blur among
the traditional non–profit, for-profit and public-sector silos.
Currently, the sector remains on the threshold of several
possible developments including consolidation,
entrepreneurial growth and experimentation. The scenario
that unfolds over the next 20 years will depend largely on the
ability of social enterprise leaders to make a leap forward in
thought and action to capitalise on the abundant potential
for social change.
156
Beyond charity
Ms Naina Lal Kidwai sums it up beautifully when she says
businesses are increasingly making the shift from
philanthropy to being sustainability-driven entities
(Economic Times 20 November 2009). Today CSR has
become a popular initiative for corporates. But how
ingrained and embedded is it in the business of the
corporate? Many years ago Tata’s vision was to build a
world-class city to house their workers even as they built the
first indigeneous steel plant in the middle of nowhere. And so
Jamshedpur was born and continues to run as a model city,
sustainable because it is embedded in the business.
Over the last few years, CSR has assumed centre stage with
an increasing number of companies focusing on it in a bid to
enhance their image as credible corporate citizens. This was
relatively easy prior to the financial crisis when companies
were making record profits and needed to show a humane
side. The real challenge, however, lies now when the going is
tough and profits need to be ploughed back into businesses.
It is at times like these, when every penny is being watched,
when businesses are required to re-invest every rupee back
in the business that the management, board of directors and
investors are likely to question the reason behind spends
that they term unnecessary. So how important is CSR?
In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman wrote
that “a corporation is an instrument of the stakeholders who
own it. If the corporation makes a contribution, it prevents
the individual stockholder from himself deciding how he
should dispose of its funds.” He argued that if charitable
157
 contributions have to be made, they should be made by
individual stockholders, or by extension, individual
employees — and not by the corporation. He stressed that the
only social responsibility of business is to increase profits.
Warren Buffett tried to emulate this thought when he
decided that individual stockholders could decide where
Berkshire Hathaway would donate money for an amount in
proportion to the number of shares held by them. This was
discontinued because of the conflicting causes that the
donations were made to and the lawsuits or customer
complaints / boycotts that the company had to face for
aligning with certain causes.
For corporate philanthropy to be effective in the best
interests of the company, it needs to have a long–term focus,
with this culture permeating right through the company. The
company has to believe it is an integral part of its business
and it has to build a contingency pool for the bad times.
Companies must address their CSR activity with the same
focus they apply to their business. They decide what is in
their best interest and approach it with the same zeal as
their business objectives.
Unfortunately this is where they run into criticism from the
public. Companies tend to, rightly, focus on only some key
areas and organisations. What they do is decide their sphere
of activity and do a good job of that. The problem arises
when the rejected party feels that such large companies
make such huge profits and are not willing to spend a few
thousands on such a good cause. The expectation is almost
as if they want companies to work like government,
158
supporting every good cause, forgetting the good work they
do in their focus areas.
Over time, corporate philanthropy has evolved – from
supporting a cause that was close to the CEO’s heart to
strategic corporate philanthropy where businesses support
causes that are aligned to their business objectives. For
example, IT companies donate computers to schools so that
the kids get comfortable using their operating systems and
opt for the same when they are ready to work. Strategic
philanthropy, however, got a bit mixed up with cause-related
marketing where the main aim was visibility for the brand
rather than the cause itself.
In the recent past, many companies have evolved from
corporate philanthropy to corporate sustainability where it is
not just a company trying to be a good corporate citizen but
investing in the future by creating a sustainable environment
in which they can grow their businesses. Those that stand out
are FMCG companies who, in their desire to reach the
bottom– of–the–pyramid markets, have evolved innovative
rural marketing strategies (HUL’s ‘Shakti’, or ITC’s ‘e-choupal’
initiatives) or those of food majors sourcing their raw
materials directly from farmers, thus giving them better
prices and providing consumers with better quality of
product (Nestle’s Moga milk programme). There is a growing
realisation amongst corporates that an emotional and
enduring connect with sustainability can only materialise if
there is a strong linkage with the business.
In this movement to support sustainability, even media
houses and communication agencies are not far behind. We
159
 have seen how brands can be marketed around a cause, be it
communal harmony, children’s education, hygiene or
sanitation or an appeal to vote. The “Jaago re” campaign by
Tata Tea was timely and a very successful and meaningful
initiative.
The growing practice of the head of Sustainability/CSR being
part of the top team is another measure of the recognition of
the importance of embedding this in the business. We are
seeing a growing number of businesses publishing their
stringently benchmarked sustainability reports along with
their financial reports, possibly borne out of shareholder
activism.
Corporates, along with governments, can play a significant
role in pooling resources for larger national good. And if this
can take the shape of corporate engagement while improving
their business performance, the economic gains ensure
inclusive growth and this leads to the progress of the country
and the company.
160
Corporate citizenship: A new way to market
CSR?
A new terminology that has been gaining grounds in the
business community today is corporate citizenship. So
what is corporate citizenship and is this fundamentally
different from corporate social responsibility? Corporate
citizenship is defined by the Boston College Centre for
Corporate Citizenship, as the business strategy that
shapes the values underpinning a company’s mission
and the choices made each day by its executives,
managers and employees as they engage with society.
According to this definition, the four key principles that
define the essence of corporate citizenship are: (i)
Minimise harm (ii) Maximise benefit (iii) Be accountable
and responsive to key stakeholders (iv) Support strong
financial results.
Thus, corporate citizenship, similar to its CSR concept, is
focusing on the membership of the corporation in the
political, social and cultural community, with a focus on
enhancing social capital. Notwithstanding the different
terminologies and nomenclatures used, companies
today should focus on delivering to the basic essence
and promise of the message that embodies these key
concepts – CSR and Corporate Citizenship. (Source:
Corporate Social Responsibility – Towards a Sustainable
Future, KPMG-ASSOCHAM White Paper 2008)
161
 IT IS INDEED HEARTENING TO NOTE THAT
THERE ARE NUMEROUS, WELL-CONCEIVED
AND WELL-EXECUTED PROJECTS UNDER THE
CSR/CSE UMBRELLA IN INDIA TODAY. IT IS
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GIVE THE
DETAILS OF ALL OF THEM HERE FOR WANT
OF SPACE, SO WE SHALL MERELY SHARE A

Case
studies
FEW EXAMPLES TO GET AN INSIGHT INTO
WHAT ACTUALLY GOES ON IN THESE
PROJECTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT OUR CHOICE OR OMISSION OF
CASE STUDIES IS ENTIRELY RANDOM AND IS
NO REFLECTION ON THE SIZE, IMPORTANCE
OR IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMME ON THE
COMMUNITY. WE RESPECT ALL CSR/CSE
INITIATIVES EQUALLY AND WISH THEM A
GRAND SUCCESS IN THE YEARS AND
DECADES AHEAD.

162 163
 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates effective July 31, 2008, to allow him to devote more time
Foundation) is the largest transparently operated private to working with the foundation.
foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda
On June 25, 2006, Warren Buffett (then the world's
Gates. The foundation is "driven by the interests and
richest person, estimated worth of $62 billion as of April
passions of the Gates family". The primary aims of the
16, 2008) pledged to give the foundation approximately
foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and
10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares spread over
reduce extreme poverty and in America, to expand
multiple years through annual contributions, worth
educational opportunities and access to information
approximately $30 billion in 2006. Buffett set conditions
technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington,
so that these contributions do not simply increase the
is controlled by its three trustees: Bill Gates, Melinda
foundation's endowment, but effectively work as a
Gates and Warren Buffett. Other principal officers include
matching contribution, doubling the Foundation's annual
Co-Chair William H. Gates, Sr. and Chief Executive Officer
giving: "Buffett's gift came with three conditions for the
Jeff Raikes. It had an endowment of $35.1 billion as of
Gates foundation: Bill or Melinda Gates must be alive and
October 1, 2008. The scale of the foundation and the way
active in its administration; it must continue to qualify as
it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it
a charity; and each year it must give away an amount
one of the leaders in the philanthro-capitalism revolution
equal to the previous year's Berkshire gift, plus another 5
in global philanthropy, though the foundation itself notes
percent of net assets. Buffett gave the foundation two
that the philanthropic role has limitations. In 2007 its
years to abide by the third requirement."
founders were ranked as the second most generous
philanthropists in America. To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must
donate at least 5% of its assets each year. Thus the
In 1994, the foundation was formed as the William H.
donations from the foundation each year would amount
Gates Foundation with an initial stock gift of $94 million.
to over $1.5 billion at a minimum. The Bill and Melinda
In 1999, the foundation was renamed the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation will give hundreds of millions of dollars
Gates Foundation. After a merger with the Gates Learning
in the coming years to programmes aimed at encouraging
Foundation in 2000, Gates gave an additional $126
saving by the world's poor.
million. During the foundation's following years, funding
grew to $2 billion. On June 15, 2006, Gates announced his
plans to transition out of a day-to-day role with Microsoft,

164 165

Infosys
Infosys was founded in 1981 with the view that sustainability
and the success of the organisation would depend on how
much wealth they create for their customers, employees and
the society in which they operate. They have been
responsible for creating multiple frameworks involving
corporate governance, education, infrastructure and
inclusive growth. They believe that corporations must reach
out to the society if they want longevity. It is this belief that
drives their commitment to be fair and transparent to their
stakeholders, to help people and communities enhance their
living conditions and to improve the quality of education and
healthcare through various community development
programmes.
Their CSR activities are carried out at 4 different levels – at
the Infosys group level, through the Infosys Foundation,
through the Internal Board of Directors and by the Infosys
Employees at an individual or team level. Infosys as an
organisation runs global initiatives to develop human capital
by creating sustainable frameworks with educational
institutes for training students and faculty. At the Infosys
Foundation level, Mrs. Sudha Murty, Trustee and
Chairperson, manages a team of dedicated members to reach
out to the underprivileged and enrich their lives. At the
Board level, the members lead by example, by participating
in the advisory councils of NGOs and civil bodies, donating
their time, money and effort to various causes. At the
employee level, there are locational CSR teams to cater to
local requirements.
166
The five major CSR themes at Infosys include education,
healthcare, art and culture, rural upliftment and inclusive
growth. They identify partners and beneficiaries based on
their goals, credibility, performance and alignment to Infosys
vision and values. They are the first Indian company to
emphasise strong Corporate Governance practices and they
have expanded their practices significantly beyond the
norms. They complied with the US GAAP accounting
requirements and were first to incorporate a number of
innovative disclosures in financial reporting including human
resources valuation, brand valuation, value added statement
and EVA reports
They are very committed to supplementing government
efforts in branding India in global forums. As a strategic
partner of the World Economic Forum (WEF) they lead
discussions on social and economic issues. They help the
forum shape its agenda by actively participating in the
“Forum of Young Global Leader” and the “Global Growth
Companies” programmes. They are prime sponsors at several
flagship events like Gartner Summit, Sapphire, Oracle
OpenWorld and World Wide Webs Consortium’s W3C
Conference.
They have initiated the Infosys Young Indians (INFYi), the
first corporate chapter of the Confederation of Indian
Industry (CII), which will strive to provide a platform for
social entrepreneurs by undertaking activities in the areas of
economy, education, environment and healthcare and youth
affairs. They also participate actively in pro bono
engagements. Their mission to go beyond business translates
into every Infoscion and the Internal Board of Directors
167
 (IBOD) the sense of being responsible corporate citizens. The
IBOD serves as member of advisory council / founder trustee
in various government and non-profit organisations to
establish views or codes on corporate governance, global
warming, education and training, social welfare, healthcare,
infrastructure management and rural upliftment.
They have always been the forerunners in providing
asistance when disaster strikes – be it the Tsunami, the
Gujarat earthquake or Katrina. As responsible corporate
citizens, they not only rushed funds but their employees
personally spearheaded relief operations undertaken by
Infosys Foundation and other NGOs. They have been
recognised in fora where CSR is also one of the parameters
to measure a company’s success:
Citizen Award – 2001
Helen Keller Award – 2006, 2007
NASSCOM – India Today award for gender inclusivity –
2007
Ranked the “Business world most respected Company” in
a survey
Named the “Most Admired Company” for the sixth
consecutive survey by Asia Wall Street Journal. They touched
the lives of 150,000 beneficiaries during 2007 and will
continue to conduct business responsibly and ethically in the
years to come (Assocham-KPMG, 2008).
168
HSBC
HSBC in India has evolved to become a sustainability driven
corporate entity, from being a CSR focused organisation. This
is how they now describe themselves: our global focus is on
the environment and education. In our environment vertical,
we realise that to be sustainable we also have to ingrain
sustainability thinking amongst our customers in the belief
that long–term sustainability of corporates is in the interest
of all. We take our commitment to environment very
seriously and ensure that we do not support environmentally
harmful projects. We do this by abiding by the Equator
Principles and our own internal responsible lending
guidelines for industries operating in freshwater, forests,
minerals, metals and energy.
Globally, we were the first bank to demonstrate carbon
neutrality which we have achieved by monitoring our energy
consumption, reducing it where possible and offsetting the
balance by investing in clean energy projects. Our real estate
teams are tasked with the mandate of delivering energy
efficiency and optimising water consumption and waste
generation, which ensures that we have a progressively
reducing carbon footprint across our operations.
We partner with government, research institutions, other
funding agencies and corporates. Through partnerships we
maximise the velocity of the spend, creating a greater impact
with the same expenditure, using the strengths of the
different partners. We encourage our vendors to have
“given” certification favouring those that are environment –
friendly at no extra cost to us. In our education vertical again
169
 we follow the same principles and also use this vertical to
support our environment vertical. For example, we support
youth and street children projects which bring environmental
awareness into their agendas.
In addition to our focus on the environment and education,
we know that our expertise and strength is in being a
financial institution. Therefore, we align our work around
microfinance in the community and financial inclusion. While
we are in the business of lending to MFIs, we donate and
support NGOs in providing life skills and employability
training for youth and entrepreneurship capacity building for
women self-help groups in rural India. Thus, we have
supported SEWA and Manndeshi bank with their leadership
and skill training schools to help their women members and
self-help groups scale up and grow.
Today, when investors, regulators and citizens are asking for
more accountability and transparency from corporate
entities, businesses who have historically delivered on
sustainability have a clear lead and are much more respected
across stakeholders, compared to those corporates who have
paid mere lip service to community issues. Shareholders and
stock markets too are asking for community accountability
and the investment in socially responsible funds is finding a
growing fan following. Corporate philanthropy’s evolution to
corporate sustainability thus reflects the true manner in
which corporates can make a meaningful difference to
society (Naina Lal Kidwai, Economic Times, 20 November
2009).
170
ACC
Community development
The company commenced a round of Community Needs
Assessment studies by external agencies for those living in
the vicinity of all our plants across India. An important
partnership was forged with Development Alternatives, a
reputed NGO, to help launch a Sustainable Community
Development programme for those living near Wadi Plant in
Karnataka.
The time-bound plan spread over three years targets the
building of local institutional and human capacities, creation
of local enterprise-based livelihoods, healthier habitats with
adequate community physical infrastructure, household
services and village institution building.
HIV/AIDS programme
ACC’s effort to participate in the national effort against
HIV/AIDS included the establishment of a treatment center at
Wadi and partnership with Christian Medical College, Vellore
both of which address the challenges in the two states where
this virus is most prevalent. The Wadi Anti Retroviral
Treatment Center for HIV/AIDS has a complement of trained
medical and para-medical staff and caters exclusively to the
general public. ACC became the first corporate in the country
to have established a standalone center of this kind. It is also
the first outside the Government sector to be included in the
list of NACO’s approved Art Centres in the country.
171
 Knowledge development
The prestigious Sumant Moolgaokar Technical Institute at
Kymore was opened with a new educational curriculum to
complement the education provided at ITI’s. Similarly, the
focus of the Regional Training Centre in Jamul, Chattisgarh
was redirected to offer professional technical courses of
relevance to manufacturing sectors such as cement. A state-
of-the-art learning centre, ACC Academy, was opened at
Thane complex. ACC began work on partnering with the
government and industry to upgrade the seven ITI’s located
near the plants.
Sustainable construction
We are partnering with Holcim Foundation for Sustainable
Construction to promote the concept of sustainable
construction in India. We signed an understanding with
Development Alternatives to create a Center of Excellence to
pursue solutions for sustainable housing and rural
infrastructure, by providing innovation support, capacity
building and outreach services to the construction industry
and to enable the creation of livelihood opportunities and
provide support to small rural entrepreneurs in rural habitat
and infrastructure (Assocham-KPMG, 2008).
172
Ambuja Cement
Ambuja Cements Ltd established a foundation, called the
Ambuja Cement Foundation in 1993. With its cement plants
being situated in rural areas, the company realised the need to
address the needs of the rural people. These people formed
direct or indirect stakeholders of the company and therefore
were important for the company’s sustainability. Consequently,
the ACF’s focus has been on integrated rural development
programmes. The Foundation works with the mission to
“energise, involve and enable communities to realise their
potential.” It upholds as its guiding light, the parent company’s
core values and alongside pays due attention to international
trends in social development, expressed through guidelines like
the Millennium Developmental Goals. Poverty alleviation,
achieving universal primary education, reducing child
mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and
ensuring environmental sustainability are all integral to the
work of the company and its Foundation.
The Foundation in each location begins by working at the micro
level with the villages impacted by the Company’s operations
and gradually, as partnerships develop, expands its area and
scope of work. The Foundation at present reaches out to over
1.2 million people in about 670 villages spread across ten
states in India. The large chunk of work of the Foundation is
carried out by a team of well-trained and experienced
professionals. The range of work of the Foundation is
expansive / diverse and though there are common
programmes run across locations, regional variations due to
local needs exist. Provision of preventive and curative health
services including reproductive and child health, promotion of
education and generation of alternate sources of livelihood
coupled with capacity building are some of the key areas of
intervention of the Foundation.
173
 Natural Resource Management (NRM), by far, forms the largest
part of the community initiatives of the company. NRM
includes activities centred on conservation and management of
water, land, energy and livestock. Water, being the prime
mover in rural life and an essential factor for overall rural
development, presets their work in the area of water resource
management.
In the state of Gujarat, the rural communities are situated along
the coastal belt in Junagadh and Amreli Districts. Due to over-
utilisation and over-exploitation of ground water over years,
these areas faced a serious salinity ingress problem. The rivers
in this area were seasonal and the ponds that were fed by these
rivers also dried up by the time winter arrived, making the
water problem even worse. To tackle these problems, ACF
adopted innovative techniques like interlinking of water bodies,
tidal regulators and rivers through link water channels. This
technique proved to be effective in collecting the run-offs of the
rivers and consequently increased the quantity of water being
saved and stored. Ground water was recharged and the salinity
levels of the underground water declined to improve the quality
of water. The mined out pits of the company have been
converted into water reservoirs, creating a store of 11.04 MCM
of water for the use of the people.
Some salient features of the projects:
Salinity Ingress Mitigation
Interlinking of rivers and canals
Pond deepening and interlinking
Utilising mined out pits
Tidal regulator
Roof Rain Water Harvesting Structures
(Assocham-KPMG, 2008)
174
Aravind Eye Hospital
Spearheading the revolution of providing quality healthcare
to the needy, Aravind Eye Hospital (AEH), Madurai, has won as
many accolades from management gurus as from its millions
of patients for its effective business model. And why not?
From a 11-bed Hospital in Madurai to the largest provider of
eye care services in the world, Aravind has come a long way
indeed.
Working with the mission of 'Eliminating Needless Blindness',
the main hospital (paying section) has eight speciality clinics,
seven operating theatres (OTs) and 268 patient beds. Every
day, an average of 100 surgeries are performed and 1,200
outpatients are treated. While the free hospital, situated
adjacent to the main hospital, has four OTs with a capacity for
320 inpatients. Every day, on an average, it handles about
800 outpatients and 200 surgeries are performed. The camp
hospital, situated close to the main hospital, with two OTs
with a capacity for 600 inpatients on an average, handles
about 100 camp surgeries.
It has full-fledged super-speciality clinics including retina and
vitreous, cornea, glaucoma, IOL, paediatric ophthalmology,
neuro-ophthalmology, uvea and orbit and oculoplasty,
manned by highly-qualified specialists. The hospital is the
headquarter for the Madurai Eye Bank Association, which
receives corneas from various institutions in India and the US.
"The hospital was self-supporting for all the recurring
expenditures from the beginning and after five years it had
accumulated surplus for its own development and the
establishment of the new hospitals at Theni, Tirunelveli,
175
 Coimbatore and Pondicherry," beams Dr Aravind Srinivasan, camps and VSAT-mobile vans to go into the interiors of the
Administrator, Aravind Eye Care System. Around 70 per cent villages about 8-10 times a month," informs RD Thulasiraj,
of its patients are provided free treatment. Director IT and Systems, AEH.

Its self-sustaining model is being copied in at least 30

Effective model
countries around the world. "The staff is almost 10 times as
The model of healthcare used at AEH is not only innovative,
efficient as the national average. And the engine of growth is
but absolutely the most effective model of healthcare. It
not a hard-headed businessman, but a 86-year-old
operates under the notion of compassionate capitalism. With
philanthropist called Dr Govindappa Venkataswamy," beams
good management and a highly efficient fee system, the non-
Dr Srinivasan.
profit hospital is able to operate with a 40 per cent margin.
This is despite the fact that 7 out of 10 patients pay nothing,
Not a smooth ride
or close to nothing and the hospital does not depend on
One of the main hurdles was getting patients to the hospital.
donations. This economically self-sustaining model is based
The often elderly patients required escorts, or could not
on generating enough revenue from 30 per cent of the
afford transportation and the rural-urban divide was more
patients to cover the costs of providing free or low-cost eye
evident than ever. AEH started an outreach programme using
care to the majority. Instead of relying on donations and
community organisations to identify and assist potential
funding, AEH developed the ability to manufacture all the
patients with the help of tele-opthalomology. Today, the
materials it needed.
patient acceptance rate is between 95 to 98 per cent.
The hospital reduces costs by using ophthalmic paramedical
Another realisation was that the hospital alone could not do
staff to do all the preparatory and post-operative work on
it and that it would have to facilitate training for other
each patient, allowing ophthalmologists to perform an
surgeons and other staff members, such as nurses,
increased number of surgeries. Each ophthalmic surgeon has
technicians, administrators and managers. "So we started the
two tables, which allows a surgeon to perform one 10 to 20
training programmes. The direct impact was huge and the
minute operation and then swivel around to do the next.
indirect impact is compounding," informs Dr Srinivasan.
Post-op patients are wheeled out and new patients wheeled
in. With its efficient strategies, AEH is known to reach the
Spreading wings
bottom of the pyramid.
AEH has indeed spread its wings faster and higher. In
The hospital was also one of the early starters to integrate addition to hospitals, it has an ocular products
ICT in its healthcare services as early as in 1983. "Using Wi-fi, manufacturing facility, Aurolab. Its tele-ophthalmology
we created 'vision-centres' to generate awareness about eye network has become a global online resource for AEH and for

176 177
 the entire field of ophthalmology. AEH partners with over a
thousand community organisations and international NGOs
such as the Lions Club International, Sight Savers
International, Seva Foundation and Orbis International. The
World Health Organisation has designated it as a
'Collaborating Centre for Prevention of Blindness'. "Our focus
now is to expand throughout developing countries. The
long-term plan is to grow in capacity to reach out to a larger
population in need through a network of 100 managed eye
hospitals and attain the mission of Eliminating Needless
Blindness," visions Dr Srinivasan.
Looking ahead
With 30 years of steady progress behind it, it is in no danger
of fading into obscurity with the passing of its founder.
Having succeeded in building the capacity of over 200 eye
hospitals located all over India through a consultancy
process, AEH is moving one step ahead to provide
management services to eye hospitals in areas of need in
India and other parts of the world. Since it opened, AEH has
given sight to more than 2 million people. The operating
model is open for other hospitals to learn from and help
realise its vision of eliminating unnecessary blindness by
2020 (Express Healthcare, September 2007).
178
Development Promotion Group
(DPG)
The Asian Tsunami that struck India and a few other
countries on 26 December 2004 caused unprecedented
devastation in the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. It is
estimated that over USD 14 billion was contributed
worldwide to various international organisations to assist in
the myriad humanitarian reconstruction efforts.
Development Promotion Group (DPG), a Chennai-based
development agency received support to the tune of INR 277
million to assist in the rehabilitation efforts.
DPG has provided relief and rehabilitation services not only
to the affected fishermen, but also to few farmer and Dalit
communities. DPG, in the past three years, has provided
support to 1,894 families across 12 villages. The biggest
challenge during the first 6 months, especially between
March and June 2005 was the restoration of traditional
livelihoods of the affected families especially among the
fisher folk community. Eventually, the efforts of the
government, NGOs and others resulted in fisher folk
venturing into the sea from June 2005. DPG completely
replaced all the damaged boats in our working villages
Vanavanmahadevi (Nagagappitam), Thomiarapuram
(Tirunelveli) and Puthur (Kanyakumari).
Since 2005, every year, in May, more than 150 children
between the age of 4 to14, both boys and girls attended a 20
day summer camp. They were exposed to the art of glass
painting, fabric painting, etc. In our working villages, till date,
425 youths / girls / married women underwent vocational
training of different kinds – tailoring (embroidery), making
179
 seashell products and repairing of outboard motors, food
processing and domestic appliance mechanics.
DPG has handed over 652 new homes measuring 409 – 456
sq.ft, as part of the shelter programme. 170 more homes will
be handed over by January. 2008. Those families who have
already moved into their DPG homes are happy with the
standard of the housing, which was designed in consultation
with the local communities. The government is now providing
other basic amenities like internal road, water and electricity,
among others. The families are given joint ownership by
government. The shelter cost, depending upon the locality,
varies from INR 2.25 lakhs to INR 2.75 lakhs. DPG has also
constructed one Community Hall at Vilunthamavadi costing
INR 26.55 lakhs and two small ones in Mapillaioorani costing
about INR 9 lakhs.
Lessons learnt: Do we, as INGOs, NGOs and corporates need
to wait for a disaster? Instead, if possible, should we not
make efforts to arrest the occurrence of these disasters? DPG
in particular, has realised the importance of anchoring relief
and rehabilitation efforts in long-term development
programmes, which focus on improved community, creating
an environment that supports restoration of sustainable
livelihood, gender equity in all initiative and growth.
According to a study, “while the tsunami had given visibility
to the fishing communities, it had simultaneously degraded
a highly independent and self-reliant community to the level
of aid-seekers.” In view of the above DPG, has realised the
need to collaborate with corporate houses to make the
programme more sustainable with local support
(Assocham-KPMG, 2008).
180
JSW Steel
The JSW Group of Companies has interests in core
manufacturing, energy and infrastructure areas. In almost all
areas, the manufacturing facility/operation is in remote
locations, far from the cities. The primary source of income
in these areas is farming. As new manufacturing facilities are
built in these areas, the skill sets of the population around
the facilities do not always meet the requirements of the
operations. Providing meaningful employment to the local
population is thus seen as a challenge.
In order to provide a sustainable and alternate livelihood to
the population around the facilities, JSW Foundation, which
manages the CSR activities of the JSW Group, embarked upon
a novel approach of building a BPO at these remote
locations. This gave an alternative employment avenue to the
rural men and women, thus empowering them socially and
economically. The idea was spearheaded by Mrs. Sangita
Jindal, Chairperson of JSW Foundation. The first BPO at
Toranagallu was inaugurated on 15th August 2006. The BPO
focuses on non-voice activities and is located adjacent to the
JSW Steel Ltd’s Toranagallu facilities, near Bellary,
Karnataka. Starting with a mere 40 men and women, the
BPO now employs about 200 women.
The concept of a rural BPO sounds unique and challenging,
primarily because BPOs are typically associated with cities.
This unique innovation turns this concept on its head and has
demonstrated that the stigma associated with BPOs can be
challenged and proven otherwise. Considering the location
and activities carried out at the BPOs, the name Data Halli
181
 was selected. Halli, in Kannada, means village. Focusing on
womenfolk in the rural areas, where education levels are also
lower than in the cities, the rural BPO provides an avenue for
these womenfolk to work outside their conventional
livelihood and enrich their lives, with the aim of empowering
women socially and economically.
Jsoft Solutions Ltd, the IT and ITES company in the JSW
Group, currently runs a non-voice BPO at Toranagallu, next
to the JSW Steel Ltd’s integrated steel plant at the same
location. The BPO focuses on data entry activities for multiple
clients and employs about 200 women. Plans are afoot to
open more such BPOs across the country. Most women come
with little or no exposure to computers. A Computer skill is
therefore not mandatory. The eligibility criteria are simple –
should be 18 years or above and should have passed the
SSLC examination. Upon joining the BPO, the women are
given training for three to six months, depending on their
grasping ability, on basic typing and English reading among
other skills that enable them to be productive, earn a decent
living and deliver value at the BPO. In addition, professional
training, specific to the projects on hand, is provided for up
to two months.
Most women come from the near-by villages, from up to a
radius of about 60 km. Buses are provided for pick-up and
drop from the village to the work spot. In order to take the
skills development to the doorsteps, the requisite software is
also installed at the village schools where JSW Foundation
runs Computer-aided Learning Centres (CALCs). These are
supervised by the BPO women from the same village.
Potential candidates therefore do not need to travel to the
182
BPO to develop the requisite skills.
The rural BPO has had a positive impact on many persons. As
the nature of the initiative suggests, this impact has been
significant on the employees of the BPO. Some of the impact
areas are:
Transformed simple village girls into matured, positive,
confident and economically independent professionals who
hold a respectable place in their homes and are looked upon
as examples of transformation in the villages
Encouraged villages girls to continue their education up to
the 10th or 12th Standard, an impossible task prior to the BPO
Has given them the courage to postpone their marriages
which would have otherwise made them wives and mothers
at the young age of 14 or 15
Teaching of English and personality development boosted
their self-confidence and made them socially known figures
in their society as they are now affiliated with a large entity,
namely, the JSW Group
Sowed the seeds of leadership in these ladies by giving
them job responsibilities of supervisors and trainers among
others, through which they lead their respective teams which
has in turn helped in showing them a career path
Equal employment opportunity is given to quite a few
physically challenged ladies who have carved their own
identity
Providing a springboard to look for better work
opportunities in the vicinity
Along the way, there have been many challenges: social
183
 barriers, resistance from the men folk at home, training,
technology, quality of work, transportation and shift working
among others. Some of the challenges faced were:
Internal challenges
Skepticism about viability of the concept: Overcome by
focused efforts to streamline the processes, attack the issues
on hand and hire managerial talent with BPO experience. All
this led to a turn-around in the operations and show-casing
of the BPO for every one to see the success
Lack of infrastructure (IT, space, people, etc.) to handle
the daily stream of potential candidates: Overcome by taking
the skills development to the villages via the CALCs, thus
building a resource pipeline
External challenges
Lower quality and throughput: Overcome by providing
adequate training, dummy projects and hand-holding. With
the implementation of a batch–tracking software, individual
performance and throughput is also monitored and tracked
Hesitation by the village folk to send their women folk
away from their villages: Overcome by arranging for
transport up to the villages and making the BPO an all-
women centre (Assocham-KPMG, 2008).
184
Multi commodity exchange
Gramin Suvidha Kendra (GSK) is an innovative Public-Private
Partnership (PPP) model leveraging on the strength of one of
its partners i.e. India Post, to serve the basic objective of
creation of the other partner i.e. Multi Commodity Exchange
of India Limited (MCX), to disseminate the futures prices of
relevant commodities discovered on its platform while
making the entire model self-sustainable by creating
commercial activities to add value to the rural masses that it
caters to.
MCX provides a nation-wide electronic platform for players to
buy or sell the commodity futures contracts, whereby it aids
in efficient price discovery mechanism as all the information
available in the public domain is rganisa by the players to
arrive at the futures price of a commodity. It improves the
quality of decision-making process of all the participants in
the commodity chain. The GSK model benefits the small and
marginal farmer by helping him decide which crops to sow
and when to sell the harvested produce, by providing him
with the best available price-trends of commodities at a
future date.
GSK endeavors to create futures price-sensitivity among the
commodity eco-system participants and build a credible agri-
decision support framework in the rural arena to improve
returns to farming in areas where they are present. This
initiative caters to the fundamental and advanced needs of
the farmers for market information, services such as
warehousing, advisory and agriculture inputs. Operating on
trust and credibility, it also works on the principle of taking
185
 goods and services from reliable partners to the doorsteps of The project began in June 2006 at Jalgaon and was later
farmers, offering them a basket of services and providing spread over Dhamangaon too in Maharashtra, Unjha
market linkages. (Gujarat) and Itarsi in MP. Beginning with a registration of
mere 300 farmers, today, more than 2,200 farmers avail of
At MCX, it was their vision to partner with an organisation
the services offered by GSK across four locations in three
that could help them reach out to farmers located in far flung
States. Currently, it is an evolving model with National Bulk
remote areas of the country with an infrastructure that is
Handling Corporation providing the warehousing services,
available locally to overcome constraints such as power,
DCM Shriram, Mahyco, Syngenta and UPL providing
telecommunication, cost of price dissemination, etc. With a
agricultural inputs and Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Baramati
network of 1,55,516 post offices (with 1,25,148 in rural areas)
providing the query redressal services.
across nearly 5,94,000 villages across the country, India Post
provides unparalleled reach and depth to take across any They expect that many more partners are likely to join the
offering right to the doorsteps of the farmers. As the GSK platform to add value to it. Impact analysis and
minimum level of infrastructure remains available with each economic assessment of the model shows positive trends
post office, it helps control the project cost because of with 57 percent of farmers saying MCX futures prices help
established and time-tested systems and processes with them in deciding the crop to be sown in the coming season. It
India Post, besides making scalability much easier. Last but means that looking at profitability indications in advance, the
not the least, it minimises the efforts required on various farmers were willing to diversify into non-traditional crops.
government agencies to get their support and compliance for 66 percent of the farmers surveyed claim that their farm
the project. productivity has gone up on account of the quality agri-input
services available through GSK. The needs–based assessment
GSK operates from the taluka level to village level in order to
tool helps increase the scope of the model and bring in
cater effectively to the varying needs of the rural farmers.
value-added services (Assocham-KPMG, 2008).
Towards operational set-up, hub and spoke model is utilised.
The Sub-Post office (Sos) is made the hub and MCX provides
it with a PC, fax-copier-printer-scanner, web-cam, internet
connection and a centre-coordinator. Branch-Post offices
(Bos – usually one for a few villages) reporting to Sos,
function as the spokes of the hub. To display the
informational content of Gramin Suvidha Kendra, the Bos are
provided with the Blackboards along with necessary
stationery, suiting to the power-reality in rural India.

186 187

Reliance Industries Limited
Reliance Industries Limited has embraced sustainability as a
core business strategy and regards sustainability as a
foundation for lasting economic success. After all,
sustainability is about meeting the needs of the present
generation without diluting the ability of the future
generation to meet their needs. Their commitment to
sustainability is backed by active initiatives on the ground,
together with a detailed reporting system with third party
external assurance certification. Further, they actively
engage with their stakeholders (along with their partners
who are associated with their various CSR projects) to take
their feedback and monitor the progress of the work.
Their maiden Corporate Sustainability Report (2004-05) was
the first Corporate Sustainability Report from the Indian Oil &
Gas sector. Further, this report obtained “in-accordance”
2002-guidelines status from the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) – the official collaborating centre of the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP). Pursuing their goal of
continual improvement in their reporting, the report for FY
2005-06 has an enhanced scope based upon the feedback
received for its maiden CSR. Further, it focuses on “issues”
and “stakeholders” and includes numerous case studies from
different locations and divisions. This report is the only “GRI
Checked A+ level” rating report from India.
Their belief, “What is good for India is good for Reliance”,
drives their effort in positively impacting the life of more
than one billion Indians. They will use sustainability to drive
process innovation, new product development, improving
manufacturing efficiencies and reducing material and energy
consumptions. They manufacture products that have made a
positive impact on millions of people in the country, i.e. fuels
188
for transportation, plastic bags to fibre optics, synthetic
fabrics to name a few. Continuing this strategy is their plan
to provide a cleaner fuel to millions of households by way of
natural gas.
On the health front, they have the distinction of being the
founder member of the India Business Alliance of the World
Economic Forum. They have resolved to share the
responsibility of combating diseases such as Tuberculosis
(TB) and HIV/AIDS. To achieve this, they have collaborated
with a large number of agencies working on these issues to
create some rather unique Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).
In addition to setting up hospitals at some of their
manufacturing locations, they offer medical services at all
their manufacturing facilities and offices. These include free
outdoor medical services for nearby communities, outreach
mobile medical services, family planning camps, blood
donation drives, antenatal check-ups, vaccination centres,
pulse polio camps, school health check-ups, diagnostic
multidisciplinary camps, eye camps and other outreach
programmes.
On December 28, 2006, over 40,000 villagers and other
stakeholders located near their Dahej Manufacturing
Division, Gujarat State, got a unique ‘Gift of Life’ from this
manufacturing facility. In a unique Public-Private Partnership
initiative, Dahej Manufacturing Division in partnership with
the State Government of Gujarat adopted the existing Public
Health Centre (PHC). This is the only public health centre
located in this vicinity. The other nearest one is at least 45 to
50 kms away, located at district Bharuch.
Aligned with the goals and vision of the management, several
educational initiatives have been proposed / established as
189
 leaps into the future. These ventures aim at building conservation of natural resources, environmental and
confidence, capacity, global mindsets and communication ecological protection; rural development and assistance to
skills among young people. Their growth will shape and give other organisations with similar objectives.
direction to the growth of our country.
The DAF joined hands with the management of Sir
Reliance Rural Development Trust has undertaken a unique Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas Hospital and Research Centre in
corporate initiative to create infrastructure facilities in rural December 1997 with the commitment to restore the hospital
areas. The projects undertaken in rural areas are to its erstwhile glory. Consequently, the hospital services
construction of roads, anganwadis (kindergarten school), were restructured and state-of-the-art healthcare
panchayat offices and community halls. These are some basic technology, conforming to international standards was set
development priorities of rural areas. up. Project Drishti, launched in 2003, in association with the
National Association for the Blind (NAB – a non-profit
In order to give focused attention to the needs of
institution serving the blind in India for over five decades), is
surrounding rural communities, Baroda Manufacturing
a nationwide corneal grafting drive to bring light in the lives
Division, Gujarat State, initiated a collective action
of visually challenged from the underprivileged segment of
programme by setting up a voluntary society SVADES with
the society – has illuminated lives of over 5,000 Indians – all
the co-operation of all the neighboring industries in
free of cost. This project is the largest (corneal grafting
Vadodara. SVADES is a collective endeavour that binds
surgery) project undertaken by any corporate entity in the
industry and rural community together towards
country. Till date, this project has conducted corneal grafting
socioeconomic development in the rural areas surrounding
surgeries in over 16 cities in India and efforts are on to
the industry. SVADES works in 40 villages covering a
spread to far-flung mofussil areas of the country.
population of nearly 200,000.
Dhirubhai Ambani International School, Mumbai, provides
Dhirubhai Ambani Foundation (DAF) – founded under the
international educational opportunities in the context of the
Patronage of Shri Dhirubhai Ambani (registered under the
emerging educational needs of students. The school prepares
Bombay Public Trust Act in August 1995) – has been working
students for the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education
in partnership with RIL in most of its social initiatives.
(ICSE), Cambridge University’s International General
Shrimati Nita Mukesh Ambani leads the CSR initiative at DAF
Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) and the
and RIL. The overall objective of the Foundation is to make
International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) examinations.
philanthropic interventions for the welfare of Indian Society
Faculty members with rich experience in national and
and promote sustainable development of its people through
international curricula educate, mentor and guide the
initiatives in the fields of: health, hygiene and sanitation,
children through these developmentally critical years of
education. community revitalisation, promotion of social and
growth (Assocham-KPMG, 2008).
economic welfare of and upliftment of the people;

190 191
 TCL believes in partnering with the government and other
Tata Chemicals Limited
NGOs to bring resources and expertise for the benefit of the
The community is an important stakeholder for TCL and
community. Capacity building and training of village
engaging with and support to the key community is a well-
committees, user groups, self-help groups etc., cash or kind
established process and includes:
contribution and transferring the asset created to the
Understanding their needs: Includes diverse methods like community through a withdrawal phase ensures
participatory appraisals (PRA) and open discussions – formal sustainability.
and informal, verbal and written requests/ grievances raised,
Water and water management: Three complementary
output from impact assessments/ surveys, inputs from
programmes viz. Integrated Watershed Development, Water
national / global concerns
and Sanitation Management and Salinity Ingress Mitigation
Prioritisation of programmes: Through correlation of
programme target augmenting water-holding capacities,
needs with specific projects, ranking them in their order of
recharging ground water and drinking water supply at the
importance and highest impact on a larger section of society
doorstep focusing on availability, quality and sustenance.
Community development programmes: Programmes
Land and agriculture: An integrated agriculture growth
under three heads – Natural Resource Management (NRM),
programme targets improvement in crop quality and variety,
Income Generation Programmeme (IGP) and Health,
crop yields, land quality and promotion of latest technology.
Education and Infrastructure (HEI)
More than 100 farmers are annually trained. More than 300
Listening and learning: Evaluation of Effectiveness is
farmers benefited from loans and inputs. Around 273
done through periodic monitoring, impact assessments, third
hectares have been brought under Diversification of
party audits, community satisfaction surveys and self-
Agriculture Programme and more than 350 hectares of saline
assessment by CS protocol (Tata group wide) process. Gaps
lands reclaimed.
are identified and recommendations are made for future
action for short and long–term planning Animal husbandry promotion: Through providing support
for breed improvement, animal healthcare, fodder
Sensitisation of employees: A robust volunteering
improvement and creating market linkages through dairy co-
programme for employees and their families is guided by the
operatives, training of paravets for healthcare at doorstep,
“volunteer policy.” Employees volunteer in all community
pond management and pisciculture
development programmes. The guiding principles enshrined
in the community development policy include: sustainability, Environmental programmes: Biodiversity Reserve
transparency, participatory approach, partnering with Plantation across 90 acres. Save the whale shark campaign:
others, sharing knowledge and promotion of volunteerism. Launched in 2004-05 in partnership with Wildlife Trust of

192 193
 India (WTI), sensitises communities living along the coast to
prevent the killing of the whale shark – the largest fish in the
world–leading to proactive action by fishermen to release
and save them.
Income Generation Programme
Self-help groups: 240 self-help groups covering
approximately 2,500 households
Rural Entrepreneurship Development Programme:
Training of youth and women to equip them with skills
needed to start small enterprises on their own. Around 350
have been trained and more than 150 enterprises were
improved/ started
Handicrafts development: Branded as “OKHAI”, 450 rural
women earn up to Rs. 2,500 monthly
Vocational Training: Trades include typing, tailoring
classes, Khadi weaving, Sarkanda furniture making, house
wiring, diesel motor repairing and computer education
Health
“Mithapur Hospital” caters to the community through
subsidised services at the hospital and free mobile clinic
services in 42 villages.
Other programmes include awareness activities, polio
drives, health camps, AIDS awareness programmes, eye
camps, Life line express camps, Vision 20/20 programme and
trainings.
Intensive family welfare programme, in collaboration with
PFI, aims to improve infant and maternal mortality rate and
194
reduce the crude birth rate. Around 7,500 patients are
treated every month, covering 96 villages.
Education
Quality schools for all (60 percent of the students from
nearby community)
Infrastructure support and facilities in the rural schools
“Desh ko Arpan Programme” where 0.10 INR from every
packet of salt sold during a specified period is used to
promote education
More that 20,000 children have benefited
90 scholarships are given every year to the children of
salt workers
Adult education programmes
Bal Mahotsav, informal education for rural children
Infrastructure
Repair and construction of schools/ anganwadis, roads, brick
pathways, roadside drainages, culverts, toilets, community
health centres, community cattle sheds, low–cost housing,
new community wells and water storage Rural Energy
Programme e.g. solar water pumps, solar cookers, solar
lights, biogas plants and electrification (Assocham-KPMG,
2008).
195

Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd
CSR has always been an inherent part of the company;
reporting on issues of social relevance is an inseparable
component of its character as a media organisation. Focused
CSR activities through Times Foundation were a natural
evolution after recognising the importance and future impact
of CSR on development in India.
Times Foundation was set up as a ‘strategic organisation’,
working on a macro canvas – connecting, highlighting,
facilitating – creating effective bridges among stakeholders
of civil society. Thus, Times Foundation’s role encompasses
facilitating, networking and effectively bonding with all
stakeholders in their pursuit of an inclusive society where
people and their concerns are mainstreamed and effectively
addressed. Times Foundation is a central organisation; it acts
as a catalyst primarily through Public-Private Partnerships,
public policy advocacy, csr, capacity building and information
dissemination.
Times Foundation is a point of convergence for government
agencies, NGOs, the corporate sector and individuals to
synergise initiatives for inclusive and equitable socio-
economic development. Partners are chosen on the basis of
their defined mandates, credibility, financial accountability
and scope of initiatives. Times Foundation has formed
enduring relationships with organisations such as Human
Rights Watch, London School Of Economics, World Bank,
INTRAC, John Hopkins University, Corporate Foundations,
Government of India, governments overseas and grassroot
organisations, among others.
Times Foundation’s operational philosophy is that of an
outcome driven approach; campaigns are executed to
196
timelines mutually agreed with the partnering organisations
with due diligence and monitored closely through
comprehensive and periodic project reports. Times Foundation
uses long–term reporting and statistics on campaigns to trace
variance and impact. In some cases the impact is immediate
and easily gauged. Times Foundation has been actively
involved in the writing of various policies including the
National Compact on Voluntary Sector, bringing into play an
enabling environment in the Voluntary and Civil Society Sector.
Times Foundation has implemented large projects in the social
sector arena. Highlights of Times Foundation’s achievements
include:
Successful building of 94 homes for Tsunami affected
people in Nagapattanam with support from the Government of
Tamil Nadu and an NGO. The houses were handed over to the
needy and affected, bringing relief and respite to those
affected by the disaster. Successful initiation of social
development projects with the Governments of Tamil Nadu and
Jammu & Kashmir
On the international front, Times Foundation participated in
the Global Assembly on Measuring Civil Society and
Volunteering in Bonn, the INTRAC Conference on Counter
Terror Measures in Damascus, the LSE lecture series, the 8th
International Conference on Corporate Governance organised
by the World Council for Corporate Governance in London and
dialogue with European Union, donor agencies and foundations
in Maastricht, among others
Public Policy Advocacy by bringing together focus groups of
stakeholders for a series of interactive sessions with Mr. Shao
Qiwei, Chinese Minister for Tourism, Mr. Brad Adams, Asia
Director, Human Rights Watch and Ms Daniele Smatja, Head of
Delegation of the European Commission to India, Nepal and
197
 Bhutan. Times Foundation is also part of CII’s National
Committee on NGO-Industry Interface
Times Foundation initiated Legal Literacy sessions in
community Centres and an advocacy drive on women’s issues
with Mumbai colleges. ‘YouVa’ and ‘Impressionable Minds’ –
value based education programmes, were initiated along with
an Economic Empowerment Programme for women
The Times Centre for Disaster Management was inaugurated
in Mumbai. The institute has commenced offering full and part-
time courses for professionals and students. Times Foundation
also signed an MoU with SNDT’s Women’s University for the
establishment of Times Centre for Youth Development and
Research at Palghar, Mumbai. This initiative is specifically
aimed at women
Anti-smoking campaign was launched in Mumbai, aimed at
sensitising the youth. Interactive theatre was used as a
medium to communicate the message of the programme.
‘Paramarsh’ a comprehensive corporate health programme
focusing on holistic well-being of employees began in New
Delhi for ToI employees and has been incorporated as a
permanent initiative
Launch of ‘CONCERN PLANET’ – an initiative in schools and
colleges in India – to sensitise young Indians on Climate
Change. Times Foundation also partnered with organisations to
conduct events on various fronts: The Times-IMF adventure
workshop, the FMS Annual Convention, FICCI Workshop for
Women Leaders, to name a few.
Launch of Times Foundation Communiqué – The Times
Foundation Communiqué, a civil society monthly e-newsletter
aimed at dissemination of information in the civil society
sector.
Times Foundation’s CSR initiatives have made measurable
198
impacts to the company, as a ‘doer’ rather than a mere
observer. As a media organisation, it has taken the important
step of consciously making a difference rather than just
exhorting and reporting on it. In addition, the CSR has also
created goodwill for the company, which believes in going
beyond the bottom line and impacting people on the ground
positively. The company is perceived widely as a socially
sensitive and responsible organisation, promoting
inclusiveness and benefiting all its stakeholders – internal and
external.
Times Foundation has initiated and completed numerous
projects and campaigns in the span of the last six years across
the country. Topically speaking, significant inroads in
education via Public-Private Partnerships were made in 2007.
Times Foundation, in association with the Government of Tamil
Nadu, initiated building of houses for Tsunami affected
families. Times Foundation has, with the Governments of Tamil
Nadu and the J&K, undertaken the task of creating social
assets including schools, health centres and multi-purpose
community centres in disaster prone and affected areas.
All such work is being carried out in consultation with local
self-government after ascertaining local needs and after due
diligence. The projects also aim at providing local community
vocational training, health-check-ups and sustainable
livelihood options at the local level. Times Foundation has also
been assisting John Hopkins University, USA and United
Nations in implementation of the UN handbook guidelines in
India, a move which underscores Times Foundation’s presence
and credibility globally (Assocham-KPMG, 2008).
199
 “MAN SHALL LIVE, NOT BY BREAD ALONE”
(MATTHEW 4:4). BACK TO ANU AGHA. MONEY IS
NECESSARY FOR BUSINESS TO SURVIVE BUT IT
CAN’T BE THE SOLE REASON FOR BUSINESS TO
EXIST. WHAT INDEED IS THE REASON TO EXIST?
NO MARKS FOR GUESSING THE ANSWER. NOT
AFTER READING THIS BOOK ANYWAY.

Post-
EXISTENCE BRINGS WITH IT RESPONSIBILITY AS
WELL AS RIGHT. RESPONSIBILITY TO ONESELF IS
NOTHING TO WRITE HOME ABOUT.
RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS IS. ANDREW

script
CARNEGIE FAMOUSLY SAID, “HE WHO DIES RICH
DIES DISGRACED.” FOR CORPORATES, THE SAYING
MAY BE REPHRASED: MERELY LIVING RICH IS
LIVING DISGRACED. IF CARNEGIE COULD PUT IT TO
PRACTICE AT ALL LEVELS A CENTURY AGO, WHAT
PREVENTS US FROM DOING IT NOW? SURELY NOT
JUST A FEW DOLLARS AND RUPEES.

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS FACED

NUMEROUS CHALLENGES IN THE PAST AND COME
OUT WITH FLYING COLORS. WILL IT DO IT NOW
FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY? THE ANSWER IS A
RESOUNDING YES WITH A CAPITAL Y.

200 201
 Index
A Bill & Melinda Gates
ACC, 137, 138, 140, 171, 172
Adam Smith, 62
Adi Godrej, 137
Aditya Birla Centre for
Excellence in CSR, 149
Aeschylus, 6
Amar Bhide, 114
Ambuja Cement, 173
American Philosophical
Society, 9
Amit Mitra, 149
Amnesty International, 61
Anand Mahindra, 135
Andrew Carnegie, 10, 11, 12, 13,
51, 201
Andrew Witty, 142
Anil Sinha, 150
AMRC, Asian Monitor
Resource Centre, 66
Archie B. Carroll, 49
Aravind Eye Hospital, 175
Arvind Sharma, 139
Asongu, 43, 44
Aurolab, 177
B Constantine, 6
Banmali Agrawala, 138
Barriers to engagement, 79
Benjamin Franklin, 8
Bennett, Coleman & Co, 196
Beyond Charity, 157
Bill Gates, 164
202
Foundation, 164
Blended value, 107
Body Shop, 48
Breaking bread together, 44
Brundtland Commission, 124
Business ethics, 15, 16, 50,
60, 146
Business philosophy, 13
C Determination, 96
Capitalism, merits and
demerits, 25
Carnegie Endowment, 10
Charlotte Denny, 62
Child labour, 66
CII, Confederation of Indian
Industry, 137, 167
Claire Fauset, 64
Co-generating value, 107
Coca Cola, 65
Colleen Chapman, 106
Computer-aided learning
centres, 182
Conservation International, 109
Consistency, 96
Corporate paternalist, 13
Covin and Miles, 100
Corporate citizenship, 43,161
Corporate DNA, 107
Corporate purpose, 105
Corporate social
intrapreneur, 103
CSE, corporate social
entrepreneurship, 98, 120
CSR, corporate social
responsibility, 40, 57, 87,
92, 97, 101
CSR myths, 54
D Get-rich-quick mentality, 120
Dalip Sehgal, 90
Daniel Botkin, 125
Debby Bielak et al, 75
Desh ko Arpan programme, 195
Deveshwar, 135, 139
Dhaval Buch, 136
Dhirubhai Ambani
Foundation, 190
Double return, 106
Downturn, 81
DPG, 179
Dutch East India Company, 3
E Hindustan Unilever, 90, 136
e-Choupals, 136
Ecomagination, 141
Enabling environment, 102
Enlightened self-interest
school, 14
Environmental deregulation, 60
ESG (environmental, social and
governance) impact, 79
EVA (economic value added), 17
Ethical model, 53
Exploitation, 34, 59
Ezequiel Reficco, 99
F
Focusing choices, 92
Food, 131
Friendly visitors, 7
Friends of the Earth, 61
G
Gaurav Datt, 37
Globalisation, 77
Godrej Garden City, 141
Good samaritan, 4
Golden age of capitalism, 124
Gospel of Wealth, 10
Gramin Suvidha Kendra, 185
Great Depression, 124
Great acceleration, 124
Gregory Dees, 113
Gurcharan Das, 37
H
Hague Palace of Peace, 10
Harvard Business School, 152
HSBC, 137, 169
Homo economicus, 14
Human consumption, 128
I
Incentives for CSR, 149
Industrial Revolution, 7, 124
Infosys Young Indians, 167
Institute of Directors, 49
Intangibles, 65
Intellectual capital, 65
International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions, 61
203
 ITC, Imperial Tobacco
Company, 135
J Naina Lal Kidwai, 137, 157, 169
Jaago re, 160
James Austin, 99
Jeff Swartz, 107
John W. Gardner, 8
JSW Foundation, 181
Junto, 9
K Orbis International, 178
Kasturi Rangan et al, 152
Kericho, 91
King Hammurabi, 3
Kishor Chaukar, 135
KPMG-ASSOCHAM White Paper,
55, 161
L Philanthro-capitalism, 164
Learning laboratories, 116
Lester Salamon, 8
Liberal model, 53
Liberation theology, 4
Life cycle assessment, 125
Lipton, 91
M Sustainable Development, 46,
Mahindra & Mahindra, 138
Mark Wierzbinski, 41, 57
Martin Ravallion, 37, 39
Marxist theory, 21
McKinsey, 73, 75, 76, 81, 87
Mesopotamia, 3
Michael McComb, 49
Milton Friedman, 14, 53, 58, 157
Moga milk programme, 159
204
Multi commodity exchange, 185 Robert Bremner, 8 T
Robert Payton, 8 Tata Chemicals, 192
N
Ronald McDonald House, 47 Tata Power, 138, 140
Rousseau, 14 Tele-opthalmology, 177
Nathan Rosenberg, 116
Rural distribution challenges, 90 TERI, Tata Energy Research
‘New Prometheus’, 9
Institute, 53
Noam Chomsky, 34 S
Timberland, 105
Non-destructive creation, 114 Sangita Jindal, 181
Times Foundation, 196
Norman Bowie, 16 Schumpeter, 100
Toxic substances, 132
Seva Foundation, 178
O Tracey Keys et al, 87
Shaftesbury, 15
Trickle down effect, 34
Shakti, 90
Orin Smith, 102 Triple bottom line, 43, 54,
Shankar Venkateshwaran, 138
101, 135
P Sight Savers International, 178
Paul Streeten, 34 Social Enterprise Centennial V
People, planet, profit, 43 Colloquium, 153 Value based organisations, 103
Performance gaps, 80 Social enterprise initiative, 152 Value creation, 106
Peter Drucker, 15, 17 Socialism, 21
W
SCSR, strategic corporate social
Water, 78, 117, 130, 174, 193
Philanthropic ‘silver bullets’, 155 responsibility, 47, 48
Wallace Donham, 13
Philanthropos tropos, 6 Smart partnering, 87
Warren Buffett, 158, 165
Population, 126 SRB, sustainable responsible
Wealth of Nations, 62
Poor Law, 7 business, 43
Wildlife Trust of India, 193
PPP, Public-Private SRI, socially responsible
Will of nature, 15
Partnership, 150, 185, 189, 196 investment, 51, 67
World Business Council for
Prodigal Son, 4 Stakeholder model, 54
Project Shakti, 90 Starbucks, 102, 106, 108, 109
133, 145
Profit motive, 22, 39, 62 Statist model, 53
Profit vs greed, 27 Sumit Banerjee, 137 Z
Prometheus, 6 Sustainability, 123, 127, 133, Zeus, 6
135, 137
R
SustainAbility India, 138
Rajeev Dubey, 135
Reliance Rural Development
Trust, 190
Ritu Kumar, 139
205
 About the authors
It is indeed extraordinary that at an early stage of his career,
Huzaifa Khorakiwala decided to dedicate his entire life to
serving humanity through Wockhardt Foundation which he
heads as CEO. An MBA from Yale University, USA and
Executive Director of Wockhardt Ltd, Huzaifa now spends all
his time, effort and energy on disseminating human values
especially amongst the youth through lectures, seminars,
workshops and group events. He has authored many books
on human values and he travels widely in India and abroad in “Mankind is one family”
pursuit of his mission.

S Srinivasan enjoys a four-decade experience in healthcare

and human resources. A former member of the faculty at
CWRU School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio and former Senior
Vice President, Aventis, Mumbai, he has authored many
books on behavioural issues and is actively supporting
Huzaifa Khorakiwala in his noble mission through live
interactive sessions and communications.

206 207
 To order copies contact
Poonam Hudar, 09820421039
phudar@wockhardtfoundation.org

208