Informatics Publishing Limited

Seema Sharma ¹, Deepa Mann ¹

Affiliations
1 Department of Social Work, University of Delhi, Delhi, IN

Abstract

The present article aims to underscore the role of state in developing the context within which corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged in India. The paper traces the trajectory of the Indian economy through the five year plans which were considered to be its backbone and which have now been jettisoned. In addition, it takes a critical look at the public rhetoric of the political class to justify CSR in India. The analysis shows that Indian state since Independence has been dominated by the bourgeoisie class and hence even while focusing on planned development, it continued to create pockets of want in the social sector which have eventually been used to provide justification for the mandated CSR in India. The state had neglected the social sector throughout the plan periods. With the onset of privatisation, liberalisation, and globalisation under the structural adjustment in India, the involvement of state in social sector was likely to reduce further. The state therefore pushed for mandatory CSR to fill the likely gap and the political class of the country provided necessary rhetorical justification for the same.

Keywords

Government, CSR, Five Year Plans, Globalisation, Development, State, Political Economy.

Full Text

     

Seema Sharma ¹, Deepa Mann ²

Affiliations
1 Department of Social Work, University of Delhi, IN
2 Labor Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, IN

Abstract

This paper discusses the communication strategies adopted by the corporate while planning and implementing their CSR initiatives in India. Based on the data collected from five companies – a private sector, a public sector, a private-private joint venture, a public- private joint venture and a multinational corporation- the paper finds that the CSR communication within the companies is top driven. There are different levels of stakeholder involvement in CSR communication. With respect to the communication between the corporate and the communities, the paper contends that the companies simply may not have communication specifically focused on them. In addition, the communication strategies adopted by the corporate and implementing partners in the communities run the risk for the corporate houses of either hearing what they want to hear or of the communities’ dominance over the company.

Full Text