Quid pro quo
There is a deep seated sense of mistrust on either side of the fence that separates non profits from profit making entities. Non profits in India are largely and not inaccurately viewed as anti - capitalist organizations who, while working to remedy a social ill, also go about denouncing those making perfectly legal money off society. "Unprofessional" is a word often ascribed to non profits in this country, again not without reason.
Corporations are perceived as large, sinister behemoths; looking at global domination and promoting conformity consumerism (read greed) and sloth, whilst also claiming to care about the community in which they operate. My interactions over the last year in circles of activists young and old, non profit trustees and policy workshops bears out that this view of corporations is widely held to be true.
There is of course no black and white here. Both the opinions are true and false and yet having dealt with and in the corporate world for several years, I found that companies are more malleable when it comes to subscribing to views of non profits or understanding why a certain social problem occurs or even why non profits display some of the idiosyncrasies they do. This display of intellectual honesty is not something I've often encountered in the non profit world, with an almost militant anti capitalist attitude at most times.
In recent times, there is a strong push toward the mantra of public - private - non profit partnerships. While there is enough doubt for the very existence of this kind of partnership, it is one of the solutions that seems to be working, especially in countries with an apathetic political machinery. Companies and non profits are working together more than ever before and yet the feeling from the smaller non profits is still unilateral, "companies are here to fulfil their agenda, pay lip service to scoreboard items decided in far away board rooms and eventually, screw us over and leave"
Not far from the truth honestly. The small non profit I've been involved with for the last year experienced this recently. Although our "loss" in actual terms was almost negligible, the hit that our belief system took has been colossal. We conducted a couple of small activities with SAP Labs, a supposedly reputed multi national corporation with a significant presence in India. These activities were outings and workshops conducted with SAP employees and a group of disadvantaged children we work with and were conducted in December 2006 or early 2007. Obviously these cost money and we paid for them with the explicit understanding that SAP would reimburse to the full. The amount was embarrassingly paltry: a meagre $300 USD. Through 10 months of follow ups and email reminders we were told there were "vendor" related payment complications and finally SAP asked us today to write off this amount citing reasons that can best and most succinctly be described as bullshit.
I really don't care about the money here. What is excruciatingly painful about this situation is that my organization will never recommend this company to any other non profit to work with, will always view any genuine programs of this company with distrust and worst of all may become even more stand-offish when working with corporations. Personally, I'm quite appalled that something like this has happened but it only goes to show that if companies pay mere lip service to community engagement and hold "volunteer week" once a year, you'll be found out pretty soon for what you really are.
Corporations are perceived as large, sinister behemoths; looking at global domination and promoting conformity consumerism (read greed) and sloth, whilst also claiming to care about the community in which they operate. My interactions over the last year in circles of activists young and old, non profit trustees and policy workshops bears out that this view of corporations is widely held to be true.
There is of course no black and white here. Both the opinions are true and false and yet having dealt with and in the corporate world for several years, I found that companies are more malleable when it comes to subscribing to views of non profits or understanding why a certain social problem occurs or even why non profits display some of the idiosyncrasies they do. This display of intellectual honesty is not something I've often encountered in the non profit world, with an almost militant anti capitalist attitude at most times.
In recent times, there is a strong push toward the mantra of public - private - non profit partnerships. While there is enough doubt for the very existence of this kind of partnership, it is one of the solutions that seems to be working, especially in countries with an apathetic political machinery. Companies and non profits are working together more than ever before and yet the feeling from the smaller non profits is still unilateral, "companies are here to fulfil their agenda, pay lip service to scoreboard items decided in far away board rooms and eventually, screw us over and leave"
Not far from the truth honestly. The small non profit I've been involved with for the last year experienced this recently. Although our "loss" in actual terms was almost negligible, the hit that our belief system took has been colossal. We conducted a couple of small activities with SAP Labs, a supposedly reputed multi national corporation with a significant presence in India. These activities were outings and workshops conducted with SAP employees and a group of disadvantaged children we work with and were conducted in December 2006 or early 2007. Obviously these cost money and we paid for them with the explicit understanding that SAP would reimburse to the full. The amount was embarrassingly paltry: a meagre $300 USD. Through 10 months of follow ups and email reminders we were told there were "vendor" related payment complications and finally SAP asked us today to write off this amount citing reasons that can best and most succinctly be described as bullshit.
I really don't care about the money here. What is excruciatingly painful about this situation is that my organization will never recommend this company to any other non profit to work with, will always view any genuine programs of this company with distrust and worst of all may become even more stand-offish when working with corporations. Personally, I'm quite appalled that something like this has happened but it only goes to show that if companies pay mere lip service to community engagement and hold "volunteer week" once a year, you'll be found out pretty soon for what you really are.
Labels: business, social impact
posted by Abs @ 10/04/2007 10:42:00 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Abhi, well articulated as always...its stunning that even as almost the entire business community seems to be in active dialogue about engagement with the development sector, instances like this continue to happen a little too frequently. However, i think the case for business and private organisations to engage with NGOs could not have been stronger than it is now.
Have some thoughts on how places like ours can actively participate and evolve our own ways of working within the development space. Will chew your brains on this soon enough :-)
~b
Yes, I'm alive and still reading your blog now and then :)
I for long have been cyncical and beleived corporates often have false intentions of partnering with NGOs. There is an obvious philisophical divide between a boardroom and Mr. John Doe in cubicle 653297 on the 2nd floor. Furthermore if John Doe was to pay this $300, I question his ownership to manage the transaction. Will there ever be any cultural solution to the building of this ownership? Its deeply relative to an individual.
Smooth move on publishing the name of the corporate at fault here ;)
Aneesh: To clarify, its almost never random employees who don't adhere or follow through on these things but almost always, its the people who are responsible for driving community engagement agendas that fail. And about publishing the name of the company...not sure what you mean by smooth move. :-)
Well then you confirm my point. The random employee is fairly influenced by their superiors attitudes and intentions. As the hierachical levels divulge in any direction, the attitudes to such activities should vary linearly?
Dont worry about the smooth move comment, you're always as slick as Kerpal in his deathproof airport taxi.
Aneesh: I'm lost as far both your points go. I don't think you're able to contextualize the situation I speak of which is understandable. And I similarly, am not able to, yours.
Post a Comment
<< Home