CSR So They Say

Corporate Social Responsibility, a big term corporations use to play Robin Hood once a year. Possibly as an act of penance.

I, for one, am not very keen on embarking on CSRs. I have no objections on companies coming up with long-term CSR plans and CSR projects as evident from the couple of Raleigh CSR partners. No, I'm not saying this because I've built my little yellow Kindergarten as part of my Raleigh expedition under sponsorship from Nestle. But, I'm of the opinion that long term structures such as this would play a role in improving lives of those who need them the most. The kindergarten that I built would now be able to accommodate all 20 pre-schoolers in the Kampung. Laying pipes for a new gravity water feed system, building a micro-electric generator (or something along those lines) serve to improve the lives of the villagers.

In contrast, short-term CSR projects are the ones of which I'm dead set against. They for certain would not bring about the 'noble goals and visions' of a CSR programme.

Organising parties in orphanages, old folks homes and probably in homes for the disabled serves nothing more than to show the philantrophic nature of a certain organisation. The organisers would definitely feel 'overwhelmed' by the sudden gush of attention and adulation 'showered' onto them during the few hours of kindness. It feels good ain't it?

In short, the above CSR contribution can be summed up with the following formula: Lucky pick (i.e. choose the home) --> Buy presents --> Go to location --> Play and Party --> Take a few pictures --> Leave --> Write annual report. What's the point? It's just another thing to tick off the corporate annual check list!

The 'best' CSR suggestion I've come across so far is a proposal which is akin to 'a message in a bottle'. No long term goals, superficial aims/targets, disinterested participants. Need I say more? I shall leave it as such.

To conclude, I'm dead against CSR, especially where they involve other people/community as I hate the Robin Hood (rich man save poor man) scheme of things. Worse still, the unsuspecting ones would be used as commodities(?) or tools in furtherance of the 'philantrophic' goals of an organisation. Notwithstanding the fact that there may be some employees who would genuinely and sincerely participate in the project, more often than not, it's involuntary.

Why make others do something they do not have the heart for?

-LV-