There was a time when charitable donations by business entities were made by means of an annual cheque to a Community Chest or similar organisation. The attraction of this method was that companies, CEOs in particular, were saved from the trouble of having to assess the many worthy recipients and their needs. The Community Chest made the decision as to where the money went and for the most part did an excellent job of collecting and distributing funds. As for the companies, their annual budgets reflected support for a welfare need and consciences, if they are required by people who make profit, were salved. Apart from donations of this type, executive whim was often responsible for other donations or sponsorships. It has long been known by the recipient community that if funds are required for a particular purpose, the trick is to identify a CEO who has a matching interest. Schools wishing to send sports teams abroad have found it a lot easier to solicit a sponsorship from a CEO whose own son – girls’ sports teams go abroad very seldom by comparison – might be a member of this touring team, or the next, perhaps.

It is as well, I believe, that these are characteristics of the past, or at least a present that is fading very quickly. The moves towards better governance and, in particular, the ‘triple bottom line’ definition of what constitutes a progressive and responsible business, brought about a greater recognition of what was called corporate social responsibility. This, in its ideal form, demanded rather more attention to detail than the signing of a cheque. This meant, in turn, that companies began to make their decisions as to where their donations were going. I remember attending a seminar in which several large corporates were given the floor and spent the time allocated to them telling the audience just how responsible they were, as if they supported various programmes for the mileage that could be gained from doing so. I found them somewhat insincere and wondered whether money was a valid measure of responsibility.

Now, we have progressed to corporate social investment (CSI), which, I think, makes a lot more sense; provided it is approached in the right way. The introduction of government’s Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment policy has given considerable impetus to the rollout of CSI since engagement in it earns points for the all-important scorecard. However, better companies have moved in this direction for reasons that have to do with a better understanding of the concept of investment. Generally, investment in people has become a mode of business practice rather than just a cliché. It has also dawned on more people that the upliftment of communities and the alleviation of poverty are the best guarantees that political and social instability may be avoided in the future. It is a sad trend indeed that prosperity and that precious African cultural tradition of ubuntu should be increasingly incompatible. The advancement of people up the prosperity ladder tends to lead them to self-absorption and concern for those more harshly treated by circumstances beyond their control wanes. And in the South African context poverty is not just an absence of money. It is also an absence of employment, nutrition, skills and hope.

I believe that companies should draw up and adopt cohesive CSI policies. In order to reach this point, they should have consulted with their people, and not just those in an executive group. The programme should reflect the particular kind of investment that the company wishes to make and, because there is no investment without a positive return, the objectives of the programme should be clearly defined. This approach focuses the mind. The CSI programme may be directed at a particular community near the company’s premises, or the workers and employees, or, in the case of an engineering company, perhaps, education in maths and science. It should also provide for the allocation of resources in addition to money, and of these the time and care of individuals are the most significant. By drawing the staff in to commit to the programme, the value of the support is greatly enhanced and, as many companies have found, the return on the investment is a healthier corporate culture, higher morale and better teamwork.

Speaking for NGOs who rely on corporate support, business money is invaluable, but if it is accompanied by some passionate commitment and the accessibility of skills and real interest, this value is greatly enhanced.

Andrew Layman: PCB CEO

This article appeared in The Mercury on the 21 May 2008