There is no doubt that the corporate communications department of an organisation has the tedious job of sifting through, shortlisting and selecting individuals, groups and associations worthy of receiving financial support for causes they champion.
It has become expedient for the bigger and more financially competitive corporations to channel these applications for aid to the company foundation, usually handled by the top management and their staff.
As funds are limited and applications are many, strict policies and procedures will ensure that only the most deserving are successful in meeting the company’s criteria.
Two questions need to be answered:
WHAT constitutes corporate social responsibility (CSR)? and,
WHAT are the criteria for determining what is and what is not a
worthy cause?
There is a generic meaning of CSR and more specific ones, depending on the focus of the organisations and foundations.
They have evolved since the term was made fashionable from the early 1950s.
Among the interpretations identified by William C. Frederick, one of the founders of the study of corporate social responsibility in the United States, are:
CORPORATIONS’ obligation to work for social betterment;
CORPORATE social responsiveness or the capacity of a corporation to respond to social pressures; and,
HOW a business impacts upon human consciousness, human community and human continuity.
In their book Corporate Social Responsibility (2008), Crowther and Aras define and describe key dimensions of CSR, including social responsibility, ethics and corporate behaviour.
Needless to say, CSR is a company’s social responsibility but this must be accompanied by corporate behaviour that is not only ethical but is seen to be ethical.
However, in the course of achieving success in carrying out its key undertaking viz doing business and maximising profits, CSR is increasingly being interpreted as the “social responsibility of business” and in years to come, may lose its original aim of doing good for the betterment of society.
In certain sectors, it is being seen as converting social problems into opportunities for profitable business.
Social entrepreneurship is touted as the modern mode of social service, especially among career-oriented, money-making youth.
Volunteerism is likely to become the pastime of retirees with time and resources to spare.
In the course of doing voluntary community work with the Association of Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason (PCORE), the committee was inspired to reach out to a few “wealthy” corporations for sponsorship of what we thought was a worthy project: the publication of a book on peace, unity and national integration, societal balance and harmony, fairness and justice, and other causes for the good of society.
Sadly, PCORE was turned away by corporations.
They did not give us due consideration even when our hard-earned
money was parked with them and their directors were among the book’s authors.
As the Almighty would have it, PCORE was blessed with the generosity of organisations with big hearts, a German multinational, a local publishing house and the government of a small southern state.
To them, we say your CSR policy and corporate communication skills are exemplary.
From this experience, an aspect of ethical corporate behaviour missing from giant corporations is basic politeness in communicating a reply. Basic social etiquette such as replying to a letter or invitation is lacking here.
DATUK HALIMAH MOHD SAID
President, Association of Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason (PCORE)