Archive for the ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ Category

The Trellis of Sustainability: Engaged Stakeholders - Afia Mansoor

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

trellis

 

Engaging the stakeholders of an organization is crucial for ensuring its sustainability. Engaged customers, employees and even industry rivals make up a cohesive trellis on which an organization can grow securely.

At the very beginning however, it is important to analyse how an organization views its stakeholders. Are stakeholders the means to achieve the end of results or are they the end themselves; securing results as they grow?

We at Schuitema profess strongly that for any organization to flourish, its stakeholders must be viewed as an end to the means of results. The focus of the organization must be to serve stakeholders indiscriminately. And, the process leads to remarkable results.

How to Serve the stakeholder?

The foundation of serving stakeholders lies in giving them significance. And giving significance is really about giving respect to the other. Giving respect in turn, achieves stakeholder engagement in extraordinary ways.

When a stakeholder, for instance the employee, is recognised as the goal of the game, the focus of the organization switches from what it can get out of the employee to what it can give to the employee. That, is also the essence of social responsibility.

There are two important ways that an organization can serve its employees:

1. Affirming the Individual:

Schuitema’s Care and Growth Leadershipâ„¢ Model advocates that an individual working for an organization must be cared for. This care goes beyond the immediate results the individual is supposed to secure for the organization. So the individual is not just a toolkit, but a human being with aspirations and emotions.

Telenor, our client for the Care and Growth Leadershipâ„¢ Model has practiced this philosophy in interesting ways. The company invests a huge amount of money in gauging employee concerns, aspirations and responses to work demands. A survey called IVC (Internal Value Creation) is managed by an external party and asks employees questions about their work/life balance at the company or how their work has been made easier by their bosses. The company adjusts its own dynamics for employees according to these responses – thus realizing the benefits of the hard work behind the survey.

Recently Telenor Pakistan also initiated a campaign where employees submitted true stories of how they lived the core values of the company. Even though most stories had nothing to do with work, the company appreciated the best responses with a view towards affirming the individuals working with it.

Telenor’s management believes that since steps like these have been taken to give significance to the employees, the company has been earning accolades for being one of the best employers in the country. And, the company is also doing very well from a business point of view. No surprise there for stakeholder engagement proponents.

grapevine

2. Keeping the best interest of the individual in mind:

Serving employees in the best possible way also includes treating them appropriately in a given situation.

Serving and giving significance in an organization should not be misconstrued to mean management that is soft on all issues; including accountability. For instance, if an employee, despite having the Means (infrastructure, tools and systems required to do the task) and Ability (knowing how to perform a task and why it needs to be done) to deliver, shows consistent poor performance against the specified standards, then it is in the employee’s best interest to be held accountable for the lack of performance.

A workforce that feels accountable towards performing and has been given the means and ability to work, is an engaged team. No wonder that in many government sector concerns of Pakistan, where holding people accountable for their performance is often a low priority issue, workforce can be disengaged and do not act in sync with the objectives of the very organization they work for.

These two criteria form the foundation of the trellis of engaged stakeholders – who in turn spell the organization’s sustainability.

 

 

The article was published in Triple Bottom Line - A CSR Journal on 25 June 2010. Other insightful articles from the journal can be read from the website: www.tbl.com.pk

Photos Courtesy:

http://www.uncommoncloth.com/.%5C72%5Ctrellis_full_72.jpg

http://www.kristinbennettart.com/fresconuovo/grapevine%20firescreen.jpg

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Care and Growth Leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility | No Comments »

CSR – Going back to the Basics: Part 2. Afia Mansoor

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

afia1

We discussed in Part I, the need for companies to introspect on their basic duty towards the set of people that they need to serve. If that duty is fulfilled appropriately, with an intent to serve, then a company is socially responsible and it naturally does CSR.

 

This article will talk of how various companies illustrate our viewpoint.   

 

Trust Springs from the Intent to Serve:

TCS, is a courier company in Pakistan that has almost completely wiped off international competitors like FedEx and DHL for local services. The name of the company has become a generic term for courier. People trust the company because it delivers on time and at extremely cheap rates as compared to international courier companies. That is the fundamental CSR for the customer. Of course, in delivering this level of service, TCS also has to measure up to the strategies of local competitors and in doing so it keeps bringing new services to the market. Companies like TCS grow only because of the trust customers have in them. And this trust comes with an unflinching focus on serving the stakeholders in the best way.

 

In fulfilling its primary economic responsibility, if a company focuses on serving stakeholders in the highest possible manner, there will be more chances of it acting appropriately even if its own interests are at stake. The Tylenol example of Johnson and Johnson is the quintessential case of J&J acting appropriately even though its entire public image was at stake. Following seven deaths in Chicago from having the defective batches of medicine, J&J ordered a complete halt to advertising of the brand and warned hospitals against it usage. The medicine was pulled back from market shelves and the exercise caused the company $100 million worth of losses, however the brand lived on. And befittingly so.

 

 

Enron: The Divorce of Generosity and Greed

Conversely Enron, the Texan energy giant that collapsed due to fraudulent activities, was the ‘CSR poster child’. The company invested millions of dollars in the development of wind and solar energy resources, and received several international awards from environmental agencies which have strict criteria of appreciating environmental advocacy initiatives. Enron was the best representative of CSR to many. Interestingly, it was also the best representative of unfettered capitalism!

 eating_the_world 

With Enron’s shameful collapse, critics began calling CSR a sham. However, we agree with what Robert Murphy, the author of ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism’ has to say on the matter:

 

Guilt-by-association is always a weak charge.  Obviously, just because the best representative of corporate social responsibility and sustainable development also happened to be the most notoriously corrupt company in business history, doesn’t actually prove that CSR or modern environmentalism are bankrupt movements.  But it certainly doesn’t help their cause.

Enron really did engage in all of the “sustainable” practices that the environmental movement champions.  Enron really did invest in wind and solar power, and really did lobby for renewable mandates and carbon dioxide emissions.  So at the very least, Enron’s leftist critics should concede that it unwittingly did “the right thing,” though for ignoble reasons.        

 

This vindicates the Schuitema viewpoint that if CSR is raised from the spawn of greedy intent, it contradicts its very need and essence of generosity and service.

  

CSR towards the Employee

One of our clients is a pharmacy which was having issues reaching its sales barrier. When we investigated the company through a service audit, it was found that the sales staff at the counter was not being able to engage customers. A deeper probe revealed that the staff was not getting adequate salary. When the pharmacy staff and management was given the Care & Growth training and raised the salaries of the counter staff, the pharmacy managed to overcome its sales barrier within a month.

 

The moral of the story, a company has a social responsibility to care for its employees because they are the face of the company. They bring in customers, they help produce the abundance that grows the company.

 

The first recipients of CSR for a socially responsible business are the customer and the employee. A greener, happier planet follows naturally. And for the right reasons. 

 

    

  

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Corporate Social Responsibility | No Comments »

The Citizen is the Steward of his World: Afia Mansoor

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

afia8

“The empowerment of the self coincides with the shift of attention of the self from taking to giving, from expectation to contribution. Empowering people means to focus their attention on the contribution they can make”- Etsko Schuitema from the Politics of Convergence.  

 

The Defence Housing Scheme in Lahore is one of the most affluent Pakistani residential estates. Situated in the Lahore Cantonment Area, it is home to the nation’s crème de la crème. There are nicely planned parks here, lots of adornments along the roads and well maintained facilities. It is prestigious to live in Defence, Lahore.

 

As you drive out of the boundaries of affluence, an adjoining area of impoverished settlers glares in contrast with its deprivation. Home to mainly the daily wage earners and servants of the mansions in Defence, the residents here have been manipulated by one famous politician after another promising development in return of votes.  

 

Some two decades of this façade of governance has finally brought a realization in some of the illiterate residents; that they will have to team up to better their living conditions themselves.  

 

Ayub, a driver by profession reveals how the residents of his lane in Gohawa Mor area contributed their hard earned money into building a sewerage drain connecting to the main drainage pipe built by the government. He says, “The candidate who won the elections from our constituency promised us a network of sewerage pipes in the entire area including the lanes. After winning the election though, he kept dilly dallying. An incomplete main drainage pipe was built but since the drainage from lanes does not feed into it, it is useless.”

 

A lot of residents of the area are afflicted with water borne diseases like jaundice, hepatitis and malaria. Sewerage and rain water collects into empty plots to form opaque pools of filth and stench. The lanes are actually mounds of dust, rubbish and stone. For years, the people of this area have accepted this life as their destiny.

 

After frequenting the Provincial and Federal Ministers numerous times, the residents of a single lane comprising of about 28 houses decided to build their sewerage drain themselves. Ayub says, “Each house contributed at least 5000 rupees in building a drainage pipe that is 365 feet long. Many families in this lane find it hard to eat three meals a day, for them it was a huge amount. But we all contributed nevertheless because we realized that getting individual drainage tanks for each family was not only going to be expensive but would also mean poisoned drinking water since our sewage would be draining into the earth.”

  

In an unprecedented manner, all families were united to have their street improved. They had figured it out that their similar needs made them interdependent. And they had realized that waiting for and blaming the government for their woes was fruitless. Ayub says, “One of the families refused to contribute towards the initiative saying that they would wait for the government to fulfill its promise. The head of the family was told in clear terms that not a drop of sewage from his house will be allowed to fall into the street. He relented into paying as well.”

 

Ayub says, “The last man who lost elections from our area had quickly built a gas pipeline before the elections hoping for votes. He would had won the elections twice before and would frequent our little streets often for campaigning and would never be seen after winning. We could not even go to see him afterwards because he was too arrogant and would not allow us around him.” The politician is one of the wealthiest industrialists of the country who reportedly spent several hundreds million rupees on his 2008 election campaign. Ayub continues, “When we were getting our drainage pipe made, the representative of the current Minister got worried that his boss’s popularity might dip. He asked us to stop the works and he would get funds released from the 2 million rupees available for the area. But we told him to get lost!”

 

 

A change begins – The drainage has been laid

 

The residents of the street want to carpet their street as the second phase of development and have served an example for the literate, wealthier neighborhoods to gear up for communal self development. They have illustrated Etsko Schuitema’s viewpoint in his article, ‘The Politics of Convergence’; “The real struggle for liberation is still to come. It is the struggle to establish a society that is free from tyranny because the citizen is the steward of his world. By definition these are not ones who the society takes care of, they are the ones who take care of society. They are citizens with duties, rather than citizens with rights.”  

The street with drainage

The street with drainage

An adjoining street with no drainage

An adjoining street with no drainage

Gowha Mor

Gowha Mor

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Corporate Social Responsibility | No Comments »

Corporate Social Responsibility – Going back to basics. Afia Mansoor

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

afia6Commerce began with the purpose of getting goods and services to those who needed and wanted them. Business companies sprung up to build commerce on the basis of cooperation and convergence. Company literally means ‘breaking bread together’ from the derivation of Latin words cum and panis (Cushman: CSR Guide)

 

Somewhere down the road, the concept of producing goods and services to serve society got muddled up with the concept of producing maximum profits. Much like the hunter/ gatherer age of humans evolved into the agrarian age with power shifting from the cooperative gathering community that hunted for livelihood together, to those who could produce and amass agricultural surpluses.

 

When companies decided to focus on maximizing profits to serve shareholders, the focus on producing goods and services of real value was lost. Businesses forgot that their basic duty was to benefit the stakeholders; primarily the customer and the employee with the strength of their produce.

 

When this focus was lost, companies irrespective of their trade, started taking from the society in terms of physical and human resources, instead of giving back to the society from the abundance they created. Soon, the natural balance of nature tilted. Phenomenal imbalances were created by companies pursuing selfish interests in the shape of depleting natural fuel resources, pollution, financial recession and so much more.

 

Fortunately, some decades ago the consciousness started emerging in businesses that their own survival depended on how they treated their environment, their stakeholders. This consciousness led to a growing sense of responsibility that businesses have a duty to give back to the society they operate in. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) then came into the picture.

 

XKL77426 Interestingly though, since the focus of companies by and large remains on maximizing profits for shareholders, CSR remains a fashionable buzzword bereft of its purpose and true essence that it should be a manifestation of a company’s stand on giving back to, and serving the society through its products and services. CSR is only a cosmetic effort if an organization is not focused on its primary economic responsibility to provide the customer with the highest standards of goods and services needed.

 

Putting it simply, if I buy a power generator from an electrical company, I will be concerned about how reliable the machine is, its warranty, its after sales services and its value for money. That will define my trust towards the company. The product’s quality will determine my own brand loyalty and how many times I purchase other products from the company. If the generator gives away within a month of purchase, I will summarily dismiss the company’s right to exist no matter how many trees it has planted in the hill stations or how many rare blind dolphins it has rescued from polluted waters.      

 

This does not mean that companies should not work for causes that are unlinked to their main line of business. It means in fact, that if a company works on fundamentally right foundations (i.e. to serve the customer and the employee) it cannot go wrong. It will naturally fulfill its legal and ethical responsibilities and will work for good causes for the sake of doing good and not for building an image!

 

A socially responsible business fulfills CSR through all spheres of its working, the need for it to start a CSR intervention separately becomes redundant. It is CSR in its entirety. 

 

References:

 

1. The CSR Guide; Ried Cushman

2. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral

Management of Organizational Stakeholders; Archie B. Carroll.

 

Photo courtesy: http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/moritz_stifter/souk_hi.jpg

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Corporate Social Responsibility | No Comments »

Philanthropy in Pakistan: Moving Beyond Conditional Generosity. Afia Mansoor

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

afia5It is interesting that in Pakistan, as per the National Survey on Individual Giving in 1998, voluntarism is 58% of individual giving. This is twice the global voluntarism rate and even exceeds that of the USA.

What this means is that Pakistanis are highly driven to voluntary acts of giving (time, money, gifts-in kind) benevolently. Some of the highlights of the survey are intriguing and very insightful. For instance:

§  The individual giving is estimated at Rs 41 billion in cash and goods.

§  Religious faith is cited as the greatest motivation for 98 percent of donors.

§  It is estimated that 34 percent of aggregate monetary giving or approximately Rs. 14 billion is given by individuals with little or no income.

§  Only 27% of the Zakat (obligatory poor due on Muslims) goes to organizations, the rest goes to needy individuals.

This data gives remarkable insights into what drives Pakistanis to give and why do they give it where they do. A Schuitemic Analysis infers this:

1.      Lack of Trust:

Pakistanis don’t trust the government with their hard earned money. This holds especially true if one witnesses the huge rush at banks for cash withdrawal before the first of the holy month of Ramazan when banks deduct Zakat from all Muslim account holders (except those that have expressly refused the permission to do so) and transfer it into the Government’s Baitul Maal (Official Zakat Collection Office) which uses it for charity and development causes. The most commonly cited reason for this is that the government is corrupt and cannot be trusted with money.   

The Survey also revealed that the bulk of charity donations are given to a few organizations which are headed by noted social workers. These individuals are deemed to be extremely trustworthy. This shows that a majority of people trust only themselves or a few individuals with their money when it comes to charity disbursement.

2.      Lack of Unity:

The lack of trust is not only restricted to issues of money. It is manifest in every sphere of society. If Pakistanis are as benevolent and generous human beings as these figures indicate, then the very donors should produce immense abundance at places where they work. For surely, the public and private sector organizations employ the same benevolent donors. Why then does the country suffer from deep rooted corruption?

This is precisely why corporate philanthropy flourishes in Pakistan and Corporate Social Responsibility partnerships are still nascent.  Surely, if resourceful individuals team up to do good, it shall produce massive results in the social development sector, rather than money going to individuals in unsustainable forms.

The Layton Rahmatulla Benevolent Trust (LRBT) Pakistan is a foremost example in this case. The Trust was formed 25 years ago by Graham Layton; a British with Pakistani citizenship, and Zaka Rahmatulla with a total of Rs 1 million and with a vision to provide free eye care to Pakistanis irrespective of their religion or creed. Today, the Trust has flourished into 16 custom-built hospitals and 39 primary eye care clinics providing state-of-the-art treatment at absolutely no cost, across the length and breadth of Pakistan.       

3.      Temporary Relief:   

The usual means of charity in Pakistan are cash payments to individuals or gifts in kind. A more prudent approach to charity is that which enables the recipient to self reliance. Sustainable framework of charity disbursement needs to be taken up by individuals so that greater good comes to the society. For instance, rather than distributing food rations among needy widows, sewing and garments finishing machines can be distributed after a funded vocational training programme.

4.      Conditional Giving:

Edhi, the most prominent social figure of the country laments in his autobiography on the reasons why people give charity in Pakistan, “Those who gave something, gave without understanding the purpose of giving. They contributed towards personal rewards, to forestall punishment, erase sins, assuage bad consciences and make impressions. Hardly anyone gave out of human compassion, a purpose greater to the Almighty than any good deed. In fact, humanitarianism was the only method that did guarantee His blessings. Even in that they were motivated by self-interest and the intention lost the reward. The world remained illiterate about Life and God.”

philanthropy_pic

His view succinctly sums up the Schuitema Analysis that Pakistanis do good in great numbers, but they do good conditionally. The condition is better rewards from God. In our view, this makes benevolence a means to the end of greater rewards. The focus then is not on doing good, but gaining personal rewards in the hereafter. Which is why the great good happening is not begetting greater good in the form of self reliance, development and progress. 

 The Earthquake 2005:

On 08 October 2005, a colossal earthquake shook the northern areas of Pakistan. Estimated casualties exceeded 70,000. With mountains collapsing into each other, villages and entire bloodlines were wiped away without a trace.

The concerted community relief efforts in the wake of the devastating tragedy showed that Pakistanis are capable of donating, with no exaggeration, hundreds of planes full of relief goods with their hard earned money. This was perhaps the single moment in the country’s history where people contributed with unity, irrespective of their religious and social standing. The catastrophe had shaken up the public to such an effect that despite stories of relief theft and looting in the northern areas, people continued to give in whatever form they could. School children collected money for burial shrouds. Women wearing western attire sorted relief for shipment alongside heavily bearded mullahs. A nation which is otherwise averse to forming queues at public places witnessed car queues stretching several kilometers where cars would quietly inch ahead to deposit their contribution in the P.A.F. Museum Karachi from where relief laden trucks and planes were leaving continuously.

The tragedy showed that the nation is indeed capable of unconditional benevolence that is synergized and well planned.

References:

§  http://pcp.org.pk/philanthropy%20in%20pakistan%20-%20by%20SWA.jpg    

§  http://www.asiapacificphilanthropy.org/node/61

§  Abdul Sattar Edhi - An autobiography: A Mirror to the Blind by Tehmina Durrani

§  http://www.lrbt.org.pk

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Corporate Social Responsibility | 7 Comments »

The Intent Behind CSR: Afia Mansoor

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

afia2

Times are tough for the planet Earth. Numerous warning bells are ringing furiously in the shape of depleting physical resources, global warming, the financial meltdown and political turmoil, calling for urgent and a radical transformation of the way we have been thinking and acting for thousands of years. The lesson is clear. Our survival as a species rests on the degree to which we give back to the world that we have been taking from it unceasingly.

 

We cannot afford to exist as independent silos of assorted resource. For that would like an arm or a leg pretending to be the whole human body. Only the acceptance of our interconnectedness as the human race will quieten the warning bells and the disasters they portend. Unconditional cooperation and collaboration across all sections of a society are the key to its survival. Corporate Social Responsibility is one of the ways in which this ‘collaborative giving back to the world’ can be achieved.   

                                                                                                                             

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not just a fashionable mantra to be intoned by corporate firms seeking to atone their grave misdeeds in the age of consumerism. It is in fact the inevitable and smart way for business companies and social concerns to pair together in a symbiotic relation and fill out the resource gaps that aid development and prosperity slowly but surely. More and more people around the world are waking up to this dire need of the day. For instance, the Social Enterprise Development Centre at the Lahore University of Management Sciences in Pakistan organised a roundtable conference in August 2009 with some of the leading business companies, their philanthropic concerns and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) as participants to deliberate upon how CSR could be launched from a formalised platform and how should the hurdles in the way be removed.

 

Interestingly, some of the challenges highlighted during the event were (a) the presence of mistrust between NGOs and business companies towards each other and a feeling that each side is being used up as a means to an end, (b) the lack of communication between the CSR stakeholders, and (c) relationships formed to achieve a project rather than to build each other. Most of the participants voiced their opinion that the problem seemed to be a sense of paranoia between the companies and the social concerns that each one was out to have an upper hand on the other and the idea of win-win collaborations seemed far fetched. It emerged that before anything else, all stakeholders wishing to engage in CSR partnerships needed to be brought to the table and taught a lesson or two in teambuilding, trust, generosity and giving.

 

The findings of this event confirmed what Schuitema has been saying for long.

 

That an action is measured by the intent that drives it.

 

Corporate Social Responsibility becomes a cosmetic procedure if carried out without a will or intent to enable the individuals tied to it. No matter how much money is thrown into a CSR programme or how much it is marketed with fanfare, it becomes a superfluous exercise unless the stakeholders and specially the corporate firms injecting finances into the projects realise that their intent in the exercise must be to GIVE rather than TAKE.

Schuitema propounds that there are two intentions that drive all kinds human action; the malevolent intent that drives actions which are concerned with acquisition or taking for the self, and the benevolent intent that drives actions that enable and give to the other. The degree to which each intent influences a particular action is where the attention of an individual rests.

                                                                           

 

 

 

 3_attentions_pic2The heart bed of benevolent intent is therefore when an organisation dwells in the third attention which makes it say: I am here to GIVE. When an organisation acts as per this intent and attention, it naturally excels in enabling the CSR stakeholders as well as achieving its own CSR targets beyond its expectations. This is the ultimate win-win situation for the business company, the NGO, and the community that benefits at large.  

 

CSR programmes for organizations which are externally formulated (as in case of many multinational firms following an international plan of CSR projects), politically motivated or driven by random and temporary philanthropic attentions are not sustainable because they fail to enable the involved stakeholders to their best potential. These approaches seek to enforce their own agenda onto what actually needs to be done and therefore are driven by the attention to take. A CSR initiative therefore succeeds only when it is based on the benevolent intent to give to the stakeholders and partners that which is in their best interests. Such an approach is responsive to the needs of the partnering firms and community and naturally filters out the feelings of mistrust and paranoia                                    

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Corporate Social Responsibility | No Comments »

CSR101: Afia Mansoor

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

honey-beeafia5

Corporate Social Responsibility is the current buzzword with business corporations, public sector concerns and society watchdogs. The concept of CSR, sustainability or triple bottom line began to gain currency in the 70’s however, in all fairness; it has existed since the beginning of commerce itself!

Simply put, CSR is to a company as ethics and responsibility is to a human being. In corporate speak, CSR involves a business identifying its stakeholder groups and incorporating their needs and values within the strategic and day-to-day decision making. Companies can no longer be considered as mere engines of wealth creation with no social concern and duties. The fact that out of the 100 largest economies of the world, 51 are business companies (Chris Pinney, 2007), is a testament of corporations being platforms of affluence in an increasingly deprived world. That in itself puts a whole lot of responsibility on business companies to be the drivers of equitable wealth distribution and community development.

Arguments and Counterarguments:

1.       CSR is a goodwill exercise restricted to times of prosperity: We say, CSR brings prosperity if planned and executed smartly. The key is in identifying the stakeholders accurately and then serving their needs and values strategically. If a company acknowledges that its employees are the most crucial stakeholders and serves the needs of these as well as the people buying its product or service, there is a natural case for it to flourish. This is exactly why CSR is strategically embedded within a company and is not a philanthropic exercise to be carried out in times of boom.

2.       CSR is a hoax. That is why corporate giants have practiced CSR and yet cheated on their stakeholders:  That’s a fair argument considering the examples of Enron and Shell. Both these companies invested a huge amount of money into CSR and yet indulged in intentional misreporting. This is precisely why we insist that a company must clarify its intent before pursuing a CSR policy. CSR indeed becomes a hoax if executed with an intention to paint a saintly picture of a business that is malevolent at heart. We say a company need not be in the market if its core function is other than to serve its stakeholders in a responsible and ethical manner.      

3.       CSR is a soft concept: No more. There are several authentic reporting standards for CSR now, which are based on stringent financial criteria and evaluated by experts who mean business; literally. These include reports by FTSE 4 Good, The United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative to name just a few.

Approaches to CSR:

 

American definitions of CSR encourage a philanthropic approach whereas European approaches follow a rather holistic, embedded and voluntary approach (Baker). This is why that despite American companies leading European firms in CSR efforts currently, we believe that these efforts will be sustained comparatively stronger in Europe during recession.      

Schuitema and CSR: Schuitema’s models on Intent, and Care and Growth™ present the groundwork to companies who wish to initiate CSR frameworks. Our job with CSR begins way before the action sets in. 

Over the past 30 years, Schuitema has trained, researched with and given consultation to over a hundred clients from various sectors, industries and from diverse cultures. We have seen through our experience that organisations which have aligned their core values and business strategy to Service, Care and Giving grow steadily over their competition both in terms of market presence and employee satisfaction. To us, CSR means serious business because our own ideology is based on cultivating the Intent to Serve, to achieve Growth and Excellence.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Corporate Social Responsibility | 2 Comments »

CSR and the issue of Trust: Afia Mansoor

Monday, October 19th, 2009

We are an interdependent species no matter how we look at it. We need others to fulfill our simple and complex needs. We need a weaver to make our clothes, a farmer to harvest our food and a doctor to cure our ills not to mention scores of other individuals and creatures who contribute to defining our state of being.

Afia Zahoor

Like the cyclical nature of all things happening on this planet, what comes to us must go to others. Imagine the consequences if honey bees refuse to carry pollen grains on to their legs after they’ve had their fill from a flower, or the bee community refuses to produce more honey than it needs. The bee community knows instinctively that its own survival depends on what it does for the eco system it is in.

The banyan tree does not discriminate which creatures it will provide its shade to, and the wheat grain does not announce its rights of being consumed by a certain class of creatures. What nature provides, it provides unconditionally.

The least that we as human beings can do living on an interdependent and a naturally unconditional planet is to understand that our own survival as a species depends on how we let the good that comes to us flow onto others in whatever shape we can best transform it into.

Businesses are evolved forms of individuals working together to create some sort of abundance that is beyond their immediate need. Companies that operate with the realization that their abundance must be utilized completely by the eco system they exist in, have cracked the code. But what businesses need to realize even faster is that the more this abundance is shared and the more people served this way, the more a company flourishes. In simplest terms, the more pollen grains a bee carries, the more chances there are for more flowers and fruits to be produced.  This is beyond the ‘job description’ of the honey bee and yet it continues to do so after it has had its own fill.

Corporate Social Responsibility is achieved best when businesses get together with other businesses and especially social concerns (NGOs as we call them) and formulate relationships that are based on letting the abundance that they have formed with the help of others, flow onwards into society. A collaborative effort to engage into CSR is always better than an individual effort by a single company. A petroleum company that decides to serve the educational needs of the community it employs and sells its products too, can effectively understand the needs of this community if it engages with an NGO working on education projects.  

For the sake of serving and not for the sake of meeting corporate responsibility goals, organizations need to trust each other and the NGOs to fulfill the needs of the planet which in turn sustains them.

Tags: ,
Posted in Afia Mansoor, Corporate Social Responsibility | No Comments »