Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business approach that contributes to sustainable development by delivering economic, social and environmental benefits for all stakeholders. CSR is the integration of socially beneficial programs and practices into a corporation's business model and culture. CSR makes the companies be conscious of the kind of impact they are having on all aspects of society including economic, social, and environmental. The four types of Corporate Social Responsibility are environmental sustainability initiatives, direct philanthropic giving, ethical business practices and economic responsibility.

• Prevent financial ramifications: Compliance with the spirit and letter of the law through self-regulatory processes will prevent fines, put your business low on regulators' radar screens, and lower legal expenses.
   
• Increase employee loyalty: Treating employees fairly and generously as a part of corporate social responsibility encourages high professional and moral standards increases employee loyalty and by procuring only those overseas products produced at factories where workers were treated ethically, you gain support among "Fair Trade" advocates.
   
• Maintain a positive reputation: Demonstrated consciousness in a variety of areas can garner publicity and give a business tangible proof of their conduct. These include

• ➢ Environmental consciousness: Reducing waste, recycling, minimizing carbon footprint, producing only sustainable products, lowering energy usage, and supporting environmental causes.

• ➢ Social Concern:  Donating to humanitarian causes that fight poverty, help the victims of epidemics, assist those displaced by natural calamities etc.

• ➢ Local Community: Involvement in local community projects, through donations, employee participation, connecting your customers, promoting the project through advertising and fundraising etc.

CSR is a concept with many definitions and practices. The way it is understood and implemented differs greatly for each company and country. Whatever the definition is, the purpose of CSR is to drive change towards sustainability.

I want India to be a happy country ... JRD Tata

JRD Tata (1904 - 1993)

JRD wished India to be a happy country before it becomes a great country and had conveyed his view to his friend and the country's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

JRD always believed that before one could excel in his chosen sphere, that person should be a good man. And a good man must have great credibility. He was always very sympathetic towards the needy, and there are umpteen anecdotes on how he helped families, particularly children. - JJ Irani

JRD's always aimed for excellence or even perfection. That drive was clearly reflected in his leadership of Air India. When JRD was its chairman, the carrier was recognized as one of the top three airlines in the world.

On the fire accident of March 3, 1989 that broke out during the Founder's Day programme inside Tata Steel plant, JRD was with Ratan Tata in Geneva but when he was informed about the unfortunate incident, he rushed back on March 5 (1989) and personally visited the victims undergoing medical treatment in TMH. JRD viewed the fire mishap as a personal loss and insisted on quality medical care to the victims regardless of the cost of the treatment.

On one occasion a senior executive of a Tata company tried to save on taxes. Before putting up that case, the chairman of the company took him to JRD. Mr. Vyas explained to JRD: "But sir, it is not illegal." JRD asked, softly: "Not illegal, yes. But is it right?" Mr. Vyas says that during his decades of professional work no one had ever asked him that question. Mr. Vyas later wrote in an article: "JRD would have been the most ardent supporter of the view expressed by Lord Denning: ``The avoidance of tax may be lawful, but it is not yet a virtue.'"

When JRD rang us in the office he would first ask: "Can you speak?" or "Do you have someone with you?" Except when he was agitated, he would never ask you: "Can you come up?" He was always polite.

Towards the end of his life he often said: "We don't smile enough." 

JRD said about his dealings with his colleagues: "With each man I have my own way. I am one who will make full allowance for a man's character and idiosyncrasies. You have to adapt yourself to their ways and deal accordingly and draw out the best in each man. At times it involves suppressing yourself. It is painful but necessary... To be a leader you have got to lead human beings with affection.''

In a speech in Madras in 1969 he called on the managements of industries located in rural or semi-urban areas to think of their less fortunate neighbours in the surrounding regions. "Let industry established in the countryside `adopt' the villages in its neighbourhood; let some of the time of its managers, its engineers, doctors and skilled specialists be spared to help and advise the people of the villages and to supervise new developments undertaken by cooperative effort between them and the company."

He never bent the system for his benefit. LK Jha recalled in 1986 that whenever JRD came to him when he was a Government Secretary, he came not on behalf of a company but the whole industry. He wanted no favours, only fairness.

He wrote in his Foreword in 1992: "I believe that the social responsibilities of our industrial enterprises should now extend, even beyond serving people, to the environment.''

When he was awarded the Bharat Ratna in 1992, Tata employees arranged a function on the lawns of the National Centre for Performing Arts in Mumbai. A gentle breeze was blowing from the Arabian Sea. When JRD rose to speak, he said: "An American economist has predicted that in the next century India will be an economic superpower. I don't want India to be an economic superpower. I want India to be a happy country.''

Read the source article

If I were to attribute any single reason to such success as I have achieved, 

I would say that success would not have been possible without a 

sustained belief that what I did or attempted to do would serve the needs and interests 

of our country and our people and that I was a trustee of such interests ... JRD Tata

The economy, which is a network of material relations, can always be revived, but the society, which is a network of human relations based on trust, may not be repaired so easily once damaged. The events of the past year can leave us without the slightest doubt that the sections who feel most threatened in India today are our Muslim and Christian compatriots. Historically, there have been other groups that have long felt marginalised.

Luck is more important to success

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get that on your own,” President Obama declared years ago at a campaign rally. “If you’re successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.” In America, the belief that hard work and a touch of grit is all one needs to succeed. Talent and drive can take you a long way, but it’s often not enough. Luck is as important.

• Most Americans underestimate the role of luck in economic success.
• The current American tendency is to overlook the role of luck as a cultural bias and Americans are less likely than Europeans to favor high taxes on the rich and generous benefits for the poor.
• Conservatives have a narrative about success, which prioritizes hard work and skill. Liberals have an alternative narrative about success, which prioritizes structural constraints and privilege. Neither one is entirely right, but it does seem that liberals are closer to the truth.
• People who amass great fortunes are almost always talented and hardworking. But it is also true that countless others have those same qualities yet never earn much. 
• Chance plays a much larger role in important life outcomes than most people imagine.
• The rich underestimate the importance of luck in success and why that hurts everyone, even the wealthy.
• In this world dominated by winner-take-all markets, chance opportunities and trivial initial advantages often translate into much larger ones and enormous income differences over time. 
• Luck is as important as hard work in becoming successful.
• Fortune favors the fortunate. And not acknowledging that can have unlucky consequences.
• People who succeed on a grand scale tend to believe they did it all by themselves. They think that whatever dollars came their way are theirs to keep. If the government tries to tax it, they regard it as theft. 
• Believing that all the good fortune that came your way was earned in the traditional sense is a very difficult claim to sustain once you look at how the competitions unfold and the role chance events play in all our lives.
• Ethically speaking, we have no control over the most important determinants of our lives. Even if you think you succeeded purely on the basis of talent and effort, where do you think you got your talent? Where do you think that inclination to work hard comes from? These are things determined by genes and upbringing and it's quite ludicrous to claim moral credit for them.
• Privilege has a way of blinding the privileged. People born into good fortune can’t appreciate how much of their success stems from the care and attention and resources they received at every stage of their development.
• You're probably not going to succeed if you don't get really good at work and effort. You shouldn't expect and wait with hope that lightning strikes. Tell people to try to deserve whatever it is that they want. That doesn't mean you'll get it, but you're certainly not going to get it if you don't deserve it.
• We really need to make the investments where the environment is conducive for talented and hard-working chances of succeeding. In America it was always true that if you work hard and are good, you may not be a spectacular success, but you'd most likely prosper to a reasonable degree.
• Rich people could pay more taxes and scarcely feel it, but nobody thinks about it that way.

Markets are not perfectly meritocratic. They're more meritocratic now than ever before in the past. Privilege always matters. Most of the people who emerge as big winners today do tend to be talented and hard-working, so there's at least a semblance of meritocracy. What's also true is that being hard-working and talented are by no means sufficient to get you into the winner's circle. Luck matters a great deal.

Luck is far more important to success in this life than we imagine.
 Things we're not entitled to claim moral credit for are the driving forces 
behind success ... Robert H. Frank

Read the source article

Development is not a buzzword but a toxic word

Despite its widespread usage, the meaning of the term ‘development’ remains vague, tending to refer to a set of beliefs and assumptions about the nature of social progress rather than to anything more precise. Development fail to address poverty or to narrow the gap between rich and poor, but in fact it both widens and deepens this division and ultimately creates poverty, as natural resources and human beings alike are increasingly harnessed to the pursuit of consumption and profit. The survival of the planet will depend upon abandoning the deep-rooted belief that economic growth can deliver social justice, rational use of environment, and human well-being.

• The word ‘development’ as a buzzword is in vogue for almost 60 years and its actual meaning is still elusive, since it depends on where and by whom it is used.
• Everyone uses it as she or he likes, to convey the idea that tomorrow things will be better. 'Development' has been widely used as a hard drug, addiction to which may stimulate the blissful feelings that typify artificial paradises.
• President Truman merely wanted to include in his 1949 Inaugural Address as a fourth point that would sound ‘a bit original’. So from the very beginning, no one not even the US President really knew what ‘development’ was all about. This did not, however, prevent the word from gaining wide acceptance.
• There was an unquestioned assumption that “development”, whatever it was, could lead to improvement in the situation of 'poor people’. And no one cared to define it properly.
• Any measure (foreign investment, lowering or raising of trade barriers, well-digging, literacy campaigns, etc) was justified ‘in the name of development’, making even the most contradictory policies look as if they were geared to ‘improving the lives of poor people’. This trick has been highly instrumental in preventing any possible critique of ‘development’, since it was equated almost with life itself.
• During the cold war period (1947-1991), the great powers disagreed on almost all issues except one: ‘development’, the magic word that reconciled opposite sides. Its necessity and desirability were not debatable, and the two ideological adversaries vied with each other in promoting it across what was then known as the Third World. ‘Development’ was mainly used as an excuse for enticing ‘developing countries’ to side with one camp or the other.
• This political game turned to the advantage of the ruling ‘elites’ who were influential in international arenas, rather than grassroots populations.
• To reconcile the requirements to be met in order to protect the environment from pollution, deforestation, the greenhouse effect, and climatic change and to ensure the pursuit of economic growth that was still considered a condition for general happiness has resulted in the coining of the catchy phrase ‘sustainable development’, which immediately achieved star status.
• It is impossible to bring together a real concern for environment and the promotion of ‘development’. ‘Sustainable development’ is nothing but an oxymoron, a rhetorical figure that joins together two opposites such as ‘capitalism with a human face’ or ‘humanitarian intervention’. Hence the battle to define what ‘sustainable development’ is really about.
• The ‘new era of economic growth’ was certainly not in favour of those who considered environmental sustainability a top priority. Despite increasing concerns for the environment protection, but the popularity enjoyed by the idea of ‘sustainable development’ is overwhelming. Increasing number of people feel that something has to be done to lessen the impact of human activity on the biosphere due to the mounting environmental crises. And yet, ‘development’ whether sustainable or not remains high on the agenda, and no one seems about to forsake it.
• Irrespective of ideologies, no politician would dare to run on an election platform that ignores economic growth or ‘development’, which is supposed to reduce unemployment and create new jobs and well-being for all. Small investors and ordinary people expect an increase in profits or wages. ‘Development’ has become a modern shibboleth, for anyone who wishes to improve his or her standard of living.

The undeniable success of ‘development’, linked to its undeniable failures in improving the condition of the poor, therefore needs to be called into question. Those who are ready to recognise that ‘development’ has not really kept its promises are also loath to discard the notion altogether. Failures, they would say are from erroneous interpretation or ill-considered implementation. After all, God himself may not answer all our prayers or grant all our requests, but his righteousness remains beyond doubt. In a nutshell, ‘development’ could be defined as: the essence of is the general transformation and destruction of the natural environment and of social relations in order to increase the production of commodities (goods and services) geared, by means of market exchange, to effective demand. 

• A country is the more ‘developed’ the more limited the number of free things that are available: to spend an afternoon on the beach, to go fishing, or enjoy cross-country skiing is nowadays impossible unless one is prepared to pay for it.
• In a ‘developed’ country, human beings are also turned into ‘resources’ and are expected to know how to sell themselves to potential employers. Prostitution may be officially condemned, but it has become the common lot: everyone is for sale.
• Poverty is proof of the ‘good health’ of the capitalist system. It is the spur that stimulates new efforts and new forms of accumulation. Economic growth – widely hailed as a prerequisite to prosperity – takes place only at the expense of either the environment or human beings. 
• World segregation is such that those who enjoy a so-called ‘high standard of living’ hardly come into contact with the poor and may thus cherish the illusion that their privileged circumstances may sooner or later spread to humankind as a whole. But climatic change, the greenhouse effect, and nuclear clouds cannot be contained and affect everyone, rich and poor alike, perhaps in the not-too-distant future. This is the real meaning and the real danger of globalisation. 

It is clear that ‘development’ is not a buzzword but a toxic word. It has been used time and again to promote a system that is neither viable, nor sustainable, nor fit to live in. The benefits that it still confers on a tiny minority are not enough to justify its continuing acceptance, in view of the lethal dangers that it entails. This is being progressively admitted. Given the amount of information that have been gathered on the manifold man-made hazards that impinge on our daily lives, why is it that we do not believe in what we know to be certain? The answer, probably, lies in the fact that our belief in ‘development’ is still too strong to be undermined by the scientific certainty. A change could be conceivable if we recall the Amerindian wisdom that teaches us that ‘we hold the earth in trust for our children’. It is high time to debunk the ‘development’ buzzword. To do so means that we must define it relying on actual social practices, rather than wishful thinking. We must be aware of its inclusion in a corpus of beliefs that are difficult to shatter, expose its mischievous uses, and denounce its consequences. The most important thing is that there is life after ‘development’ – certainly a different one, but there is no evidence to suggest that we would lose on such a deal.

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us 

face to face with another problem - Martin Luther King Jr

Development as a buzzword - Gilbert Rist

In India there would be no speech by politicians or officials or anybody without reference to the buzzword 'development' which in fact justifies, promotes and expand their activities and vested interests in multiplying their profits albeit unjustly, undemocratically and often unlawfully. Every rich and 'street smart person' tries to jump into the bandwagon of  'development' gang and corners some share of the booty. Those who can't in the name of ethics & morals, will get lost in this siren world to lead ignominious life. Excepting escaping from extreme poverty by masses, there is no justification for destruction of ecological assets and deterioration of social life in the name of 'development' and 'capitalism'. China's development if loaded with the factors of ecological destruction and erosion of human values, it would be negative. Finite world doesn't have enough resources to support ever increasing population without erosion and degradation.