Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a private sector philosophy and platform conceived by big business as a way for them to “give back to society”, even while it also serves as a convenient conduit for soft marketing and tax reduction. It was promoted as a win-win solution to the big business conundrum of untrammeled wealth accumulation amidst widening social gaps in countries where they operate.
Before CSR became widely accepted from the 1990s onwards, it was assumed that nonprofits/NGOs and the private sector belong to two separate silos: the former provides social services for marginalized and vulnerable sectors of society, while the latter creates profit for private wealth accumulation. Despite efforts to marry the two disparate social functions, their fundamental difference remains: one is concerned with the equitable distribution of social wealth, while the other is focused with its private accumulation. This distinction is reflected in their respective cultural and operational norms.
Now that CSR has become a standard among big business players, the line between the two threatens to become increasingly blurred as corporate norms continuously permeate nonprofit culture and influence their operations. This creeping corporatization occurred mainly through two streams of influence.
The first one is a giving culture that requires NGOs receiving CSR funds to deliver exemplary ROI (“best bang for the buck”), and through impact metrics that closely aligns with those of corporate donors. In time, business framing became the nexus of understanding between giver and receiver, gradually transforming the qualitative-focused management culture of nonprofits into one that conforms (often awkwardly) to the tyranny of hard numbers (“measurable impact”). The same level of compliance extends across corporate and philanthropic foundations, which are established and operated by big capital.
The second stream of influence is operational and developed naturally from the first, mainly manifested by a preference for hiring ex-corporate staff. Since nonprofits receiving CSR funds are already sold on the benefits of having a businesslike culture in the workplace, it became seemingly logical that ex-corporates make for good NGO staff material. This assumption ignores the reality that having come from a profit-oriented environment that pays much higher salaries does not necessarily predispose ex-corporates towards social justice work and the altruistic commitment it requires. In the short term, this bias will likely result in hiring mismatches that can lead to long adjustment periods, lackluster performances and quick staff turnovers. In the long term, such a human resource mindset risks converting nonprofits into corporate doppelgangers run by overly transactional Boards and leadership teams.
Balancing between the need for corporate efficiency in NGO operations and preserving its humane culture (its “soul”, as some would have it) can be tricky. One does not preclude the other, but too much of either can undermine a nonprofit’s strategic goals. Striking the right formula means leaning primarily on empathetic social service rather than operational efficiency, while absorbing elements of corporate dynamics only as absolutely necessary. After all, what defines nonprofits is their humanity and quest for social justice, not fidelity to the imperatives of ROI and wealth accumulation.