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