large portions of the CSR is also used in publishing luxury
advertising material which “shows” how good the CSR fund
is doing and how “socially impactful” programs or project
that they fund are. Account the CSR corporate management
salaries & expenses, the CSR project management third
parties, the advertising companies and the advertising,
media, & PR costs of covering the CSR project and the
beneficiaries are left with between 20 to 30% of the original
declared funds spent at CSR.
Anon contributor (Anon):
I do not believe money is the problem. I feel implementation
is the problem. The social sector requires certain attributes
– passion and commitment - to make a difference. Do we
have the right people sitting on the right seats in this Sector?
Do you think that the social sector lacks cohesion?
With over 90 000 registered NGO's do you think the
sector suffers from fragmentation and a lack of
effective cohesion?
TR: For sure, because there is no coherence in the sector
and the sector is highly emotional and opportunistic (Rhino
poaching massive money, for no results!).
It is not really cohesion that is lacking as you cannot prevent
any civil society member from being passionate about what
they are doing (for instance: personal pleas to give
sponsorship to young sport players to go overseas, to pay
for medical expenses for children with serious conditions,
etc). Also, we are in a curious mode of paying for the
Panado, and not looking at getting the headache sorted out.
CSR spending is dedicated at the cure rather than the
prevention, as it is more sensational and gives more
emotional exposure to a project. Simple things like
education, training, skills transfer, and essential research in
social cohesion mechanisms are often poorly covered. In
Organic Production and Agroecology Practices we are not
considered as a social issue, but as an economic issue, so
no CSR will be looking to support small holder and
subsistence farmers in producing healthy foods for the
communities they serve.
Do you think corporate money is being effectively
spent?
TR: The basis of the CSR spending is flawed:
30% maximum will reach the beneficiaries. The other is
feeding the “good friends” of the Corporate Fund managers
as “program” implementers. These people are just sourcing
professionals to do the job for them and pay them peanuts,
taking the lion's share for themselves. The others are the
advertising companies cosmetizing projects into good
looking materials for the public eye.
Anon: I think it differs from corporate to corporate but I
believe most corporates are now insisting on a return on
investment. Corporate are moving away from just handing
over a cheque to making a difference in people's lives A
number of CSR forums are active and through these, there
is good exchange of what works and what does not. These
conversations should be encouraged. (Ed: like this one!?)
What do you think about the increasing trend in big
corporate donors to entrust the management of their
CSR spend to third party agencies?
TR: Much more effective that bank robbery – with no risks at
all of being caught – CSR is not a sustainable practice if
nothing is done to ensure Norms and Standards in the
sector. Many third parties agencies are in the hands of a
specialised 'mafia', pretty similar to property developers or
auctioneers. Silent moves and making excellent money.
Anon: There are advantages and disadvantages. CSR is
not core business and it may be wise to out-source this
function. However, charges by these agencies could be so
high that the end user benefits very little. I believe, NGOs
could play a part.
Anon: Every year, the number of NGOs grows but the social
issues increase. Everyone is looking for funds from a
shrinking pool. NGOs should behave like businesses and
work on empowering people through specific goals and
outcome. I feel the dependence continues. More effort
should be put in changing mind-sets.
10
CORPORATE SOCIAL REVIEW
Photograph: Valerio Veo