Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

In the days of the command and control economy, most businesses were prevented from growing as they wished to. All their managerial decisions were subject to government permissions. The primary criterion for success was the ability to get government to give them or relax them in favour of the business. Tax rates were at penal levels for individuals and companies. Most business managers did not see any need for them to do things for the community. Government was expected to do them. If a business got involved in some kind of community work, it was usually to honour the memory of a departed parent, at the behest of a politician from whom favours could be expected or as personal favours. Tatas were an exception to this rule with their emphasis on ethics and value systems that pervaded all their companies and their setting aside a portion of annual revenues for social causes that might have little to do directly with their businesses.

Business managers saw their corporate social responsibility, as Milton Friedman wrote: “Here is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” But he also wrote, “Make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.” As Mitra asks, “What is this other than a call to, what social anthropologists have long called ‘economic embeddedness’ or an understanding that business must work within the norms of social expectations?"

Mitra covers a wide canvas, starting from CSR in Indian history in 320 B.C. and in subsequent Indian empires, when the “guilds were not merely economic work organizations but shared political and governance roles as well.” In periods of economic instability, guilds took over decision making and governance roles at local levels. This role was embedded in the moral order of the society, as well as the formalised commitment to these roles.

In the post-Mauryan phase, the nature of philanthropy by the guilds was directed at both its internal members and external society, for example, “donation for construction and maintenance of assembly hall, a shed for water, a shrine, a tank, or a garden, help to the poor and destitute in performing sacrifices and sacraments and assistance in times of famine and other calamities.”

Mitra points out that Gandhiji’s concept of “trusteeship” was a significant Indian rethinking on the role of business in society. There are Indian companies today who acknowledge “the concept as a guiding force in their CSR work today.” Mitra’s range of scholarship thus moves easily from Indian history to philosophy and politics, and its influence on business. At the same time the writing is effortless and highly readable.

She reports many examples of CSR and shows how it can range from direct corporate interest to the larger community, beyond the company and its immediate environs, and to the larger issues that concern society. She ends by looking ahead at CSR in India. She says that business must take “wider perspectives and engage with government to ensure the latter’s role in providing adequate safety net mechanisms.” She says quite rightly that “while (business) leadership at the top recognizes the need to internalize environments and social risk as part of business strategy, this message still has to strongly reach all levels of management.” The book displays considerable scholarship and effort, and is an excellent bible for any company that is planning to enter into CSR activities. It must be read by all serious business leaders and managers.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail