CSR is about real change—and for that, we need fewer ‘gods’ and more committed, humble practitioners willing to listen, learn, and adapt.
The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) landscape has dramatically changed over the years, evolving from boardrooms ruled by CEOs and country heads with a self-bestowed status of divine approval authority to a more decentralized system. However, today, another type of ‘God syndrome’ seems to have surfaced—and this time, it’s CSR professionals themselves taking on the role of arbiters of right and wrong.
A CSR marketing agency led by a ‘Boy’ runs a WhatsApp group where discussions revolve around how his organization could manage numerous aspects if entrusted with CSR implementation. This individual argues that CSR projects need not be taken too seriously when simpler projects can be carried out with ease. The agency, in turn, runs these projects itself and even awards the companies involved, creating a cycle of superficial involvement.
A senior CSR professional, who is also part of this WhatsApp group, took to LinkedIn to elaborate on how CSR is being steered away from its original intent and values. In her detailed post, she expressed concern that CSR is drifting away from its true purpose, driven more by convenience and self-serving interests than by genuine community impact. Many CSR professionals commented on her post, agreeing with her view that CSR has, in many instances, become more about showcasing rather than actual responsibility. They supported her perspective on how the integrity of CSR efforts is being compromised by individuals who see CSR as an opportunity for personal gains and influence, rather than as a tool for meaningful social change.
This conversation on social media highlights the troubling trend of CSR professionals assuming roles of moral authority while often neglecting the real impact on the ground.
The Shift in Power Dynamics Within CSR
The conversations in CSR WhatsApp groups these days can often be hilariously revealing. In the past, it was the financial powerhouses—CEOs and country heads—who wielded their ‘God-like’ powers over CSR proposals. Today, it’s the CSR in charge individuals who have donned the mantle of moral custodians. Rather than a focus on factual details, such as Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) guidelines or genuine impact, these self-proclaimed gatekeepers judge proposals through their subjective lenses.
A Hypothetical Scenario: CSR’s Subjective Judgement
Take, for instance, a simple question posed in a CSR group chat: “Is it okay to fund infrastructure for a police station?” The reaction is often swift. Instead of offering a fact-based answer, many jump in, spouting opinions rooted in their own moral systems. The broader context—like the purpose of the proposal or its potential impact—is brushed aside in favor of self-righteous pontification. Ironically, right after these moral grandstands, the same ‘custodian’ might turn around and casually ask, “Anyone know NGOs to set up a Diwali stall in my office?”
Has CSR Lost Its True Purpose?
It is worth asking: has CSR lost its focus in the pursuit of ethical superiority?
A Perspective on the New Breed of ‘Custodians’
A Deputy General Manager of CSR and Affirmative Action at Automotive Company aptly captured the new breed of ‘custodians’ who have emerged. Commenting on a recent post, he pointed out, “Interesting. There is another breed called ‘thought leader’—a being who paraphrases existing ideas into new jargon. What’s with custodian of funds is that with so-called thought leaders.” This phenomenon has led to an era where rebranding old ideas with buzzwords and jargon often overshadows meaningful dialogue about genuine impact.
The Arrogance of Senior CSR Officials
In another comment, the Executive Director at Social Foundation (Name Changed), endorsed this sentiment, sharing her frustration with senior officials’ arrogance. “The arrogance and air some senior officials have when they throw it in your face is unimaginable. Agree with your term ‘GOD SYNDROME,'” she writes.
The Transformation of Decision-Making in CSR
The ‘God syndrome’ isn’t just about ego—it’s about how decision-making in CSR has transformed. Today, many CSR professionals see themselves as the saviors, the gatekeepers of morality. As Manivita Bhattacharya (Name Changed) pointed out, “Saviorists exist galore across the ‘do good’ sector.” They make decisions not just based on MCA rules, impact assessment, or data-backed insights, but on a moral compass that may have little to do with the actual needs on the ground.
Disconnect Between CSR Design and Ground Realities
A fundraising professional, echoed this sentiment, describing the increasingly prevalent attitude of CSR folks acting as ‘custodians’ of program design without understanding the on-ground reality. “Gosh, Jiyotsana Ghatnagar (Name Changed), this resonates! Increasingly seeing this inclination of CSR folks who form part of their organisational team, taking on the role of ‘custodian’ of program design and implementation with absolutely no knowledge of on-ground reality,” she remarked.
CSR Practitioners Who Still Prioritize Impact Over Ego
It’s not all grim; there are still those who approach CSR with humility, prioritizing real impact over grandstanding. But as Swati Madathamana mentioned, “I wish there was a nodding my head in … state of affairs … Just a few. Like one or two who really know how this needs to go forward. For the rest, it is only … get a tick. Nothing else.”
The Rise of Demi-Gods: CSR’s Unintended Consequence
The evolution of CSR from being a top-down approach to a more decentralized effort is undoubtedly a positive step forward. But the unintended consequence—the rise of these ‘demi-gods’—poses a risk. When the emphasis shifts from the actual impact of CSR initiatives to who gets to wield moral authority, we risk losing the essence of what CSR should be about—social responsibility, ethical community engagement, and meaningful impact.
The Need for Balance in the CSR Sector
The challenge, then, for the CSR sector is to find a balance. We must recognize the difference between genuine thought leadership and performative moralizing. We must return to the fundamentals—empirical data, contextual understanding, community needs, and MCA guidelines—to guide our decisions, rather than letting the whims of a few loud voices dictate the course.
CSR is Not About Being a Savior—It’s About Real Change
According to the CSR Law, CSR is well-defined in India’. It’s time to recognize that CSR isn’t about being a savior or a moral guardian. It’s about real change—and for that, we need fewer ‘gods’ and more committed, humble practitioners willing to listen, learn, and adapt.
(India CSR)
