On Corporate Social Responsibility

Since I’m in Indonesia right now, I’ve been reading the papers here. The Jakarta Post reports an interesting case today:

Subarkah said it was unfair to make a smoking haram on the basis that it could be bad for some people. In fact, he said, forbidding smoking would only cause pain and suffering to tobacco farmers and their families.

"There are 1,367 tobacco factories in East Java, employing thousands of workers," Subarkah said.

According to the association, tobacco farmers in East Java supply 53 percent of the country’s total tobacco consumption with a total investment value worth Rp 682 billion.

Full story here.

I’m guessing that this might be a more general theme although I’ve not researched it much. But with more and more people quitting plastic bags and other packaging, a similar effect might be hitting the people who produce them. Is this necessary? Of course, I’m speculating a little right now.

Here’s an unrelated article that’s very pertinent too, and which might be a tad sensitive especially for bodies on the receiving end. Is corporate philanthropy CSR? Is it an important question at all? Coming from a student population with so many societies getting funds from corporates, I can’t quite tell if corporate money is a good thing. Our own CSR Student Movement does research sponsors a little and have rejected sponsorship offers for various reasons before, but we were always keenly aware of how much good we could potentially do with that money. Painful sometimes.

Have been looking into my bookmark folders and rediscovering links…

The New York Times covers the rise of "philanthropreneurs" - the new breed of successful businessmen who turn to profit-driven philanthropy:

""More and more people are asking who else is going to finance doing good if government isn’t," said Alan Abramson, director of the nonprofit sector and philanthropy program at the Aspen Institute, a public policy think tank in Washington. “These guys have firsthand knowledge of the market’s power, and they’re asking themselves why they can’t make money and tackle some of the problems once addressed primarily by government at the same time.”

It sounds simple, but the idea of such hybrid philanthropy is upsetting long-held conventions. These new philanthropists view the current foundation model, built on the fortunes of earlier industrial titans like Carnegie and Rockefeller, as hidebound and often ineffective. They have an urge to change the world, and argue that in some cases only the speed of capitalism is fast enough."

 Not all are impressed by Philanthrophy 2.0:

 "“I come at this from at least a wonderment of what are the advantages the melded or hybrid model brings,” said Mark Rosenman, a professor at the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati and an expert on nonprofit matters. “Though I have no problem with philanthropy and socially responsible business being joined, I do have one with a for-profit enterprise being called philanthropy.”

“I see no clear reasons to begin to develop corporate structures that need to consider themselves more closely aligned with philanthropic purposes,” Mr. Rosenman added."