Tis the hour of need!

Flood Relief: Opportunity to standardize CSR practices

Are we sinking?

It is the worst disaster in living memory; resulting in mass migration that even exceeds that which took place during partition. While the loss of human lives has not been colossal, the sheer number of families uprooted, livelihoods lost and crops ruined, and not just houses but the washing away of entire villages has disrupted life in a manner that is yet to sink in completely.

Misery has become as widespread as flood-waters with over 20 million people and around one-fifth of Pakistan affected. The ubiquitous image of large swathes of land submerged in water, with roofs of houses barely visible, has become the staple diet of news channels. Dominating the news in equal measure is criticism of the government’s response in relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction work.

President Asif Zardari says development has been pushed back by a decade. The financial loss from the calamity is estimated to be $43 billion while the finance ministry says that there will be zero growth for the next fiscal year and probably many more to come. Inflation has hit the roof and prices of essential items have nearly quadrupled. For instance, the price of one kg of sugar has now crossed the Rs. 100 mark from the contentious and much debated Rs. 50 just a few months ago.

Add to that the country’s perennially bad economic and developmental indicators and it can be safely said that the situation is a ticking time bomb; and unless remedial measures are taken, the situation would continue to deteriorate.

Clutching onto straws:

The country’s top leadership has once again taken out the proverbial begging bowl, with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani conceding that failure of the international community to help would leave the people from flood affected areas vulnerable to the overtures of extremist elements.

But the response of the international community has been lukewarm. When compared to the international community’s response to this decade’s other major disasters, like the tsunami in South-East Asia, Hurraicane Katrina or even the earthquake in Haiti, the contribution to Pakistan’s flood relief pales in comparison.

According to a BBC report, $6.82 has been pledged as donation per survivor of the flooding in Pakistan. The corresponding figure for the Haitian earthquake earlier this year was a whooping $669.60.

Similarly, ten days after the Kashmir quake in 2005, donors gave or pledged $292 million, according to the aid group Oxfam. The disaster in Haiti led to pledges nearing $1 billion within the first 10 days. For Pakistan, the international community gave or pledged $150 million after the flooding began in earnest in late July, according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, known as OCHA.

Why the Private Sector needs to step forward:

This clearly illustrates that there is a void in terms of relief efforts – which is there for all to see. A visit to any of the numerous relief camps whether on the extremities of Karachi or in small cities across the country will show the pathetic conditions in which flood affectees are currently living.

Lack of expertise in disaster management and the non-existence of planning in relief work have exacerbated the problem. The development sector – mainly NGOs – and individuals have done a commendable job but the sporadic nature of their efforts and a lack of management expertise has diluted the impact of relief work while the limited supply of funds means only a small proportion of the affectees from over 72 districts have received any kind of substantial aid.

The private sector, on the other hand, has the requisite management expertise to ensure that any relief effort is executed in a seamless manner with minimum wastage. But the corporate sector cannot be expected to send their employees to work at reliefs camps at the expense of their usually profitable ventures.

However, companies can partner with NGOs and transfer their expertise to development sector workers through focused and targeted training sessions. Their emphasis on systems, standard operating procedures and efficacious use of resources to ensure profitability can serve as a guiding light for the development sector workers, who often tend to overlook these core values driven as they are by the desire to bring positive change to society.

This problem in the development sector is illustrated by the lack of co-ordination between NGOs working on a similar mandate. Replication and duplication of effort is the most widespread problem in this sector with NGOs often wasting essential resources as they try to outdo the other.

In the current scenario, such ‘reinvention of the wheel’ would be an anomaly. A centralized entity that co-ordinates flood relief activities could eliminate this problem. However, there is no unified platform of NGOs where such decisions could be taken.

It is in areas like these that the private sector can show the way; as there are bodies that represent the interest of multi-nationals and even serve as a lobby group in government policy making.

Embedding CSR – Where do we stand?

Most important of all, the private sector – particularly corporations – have the budgets and resources that could make a phenomenal impact on developmental activities in general and flood relief in particular.

Most organizations have budgets allocated for developmental activities, particularly Multi-nationals as it is usually embedded in the mandate of the parent company due to regulatory requirements. Globally, companies are required to invest a part of their profits back into society to tackle the economic, social, environmental and cultural aspects that are affected by their activities.

For instance, upstream oil companies’ CSR activities focus on areas where the drilling and exploration take place; the marine environment if its off-shore drilling; and the environment in general because of the degradation caused. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies can with focus on the health sector.

CSR activities are not necessarily limited to related fields but can be all encompassing and serve as a company’s contribution to society; often focussing on education and health sectors.

However, companies are yet to internally integrate CSR as one of the core business values in Pakistan, as its beginning point is organizational stakeholders, like shareholders, employees, internal environment, and only then can investments be made in society.

Globally, though, companies are coming up with socially responsible products, such as Toyota’s hybrid cars, General Motor’s hugely profitable Ecomagination initiative or IBM’s Big Green intiative.

In Pakistan, SECP’s recent ‘Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility) General Order, 2009’ sought descriptive and monetary disclosures from companies for their CSR activities. There is no regulatory requirement for private companies to allocate a certain proportion of their revenue or profit for CSR activities.

Need for more comprehensive regulations:

This means that the role of corporations remain sporadic and inconsistent, with companies often taking the easy way out by donating a certified amount (made mandatory due to regulation in the parent company’s country) to an international aid organization or a local NGO – which also tends to dilute the impact of relief work.

This is the practice that is being witnessed in flood-related relief work. Unilever’s (Global) donation of Rs. 138 million (€1 million+) was distributed among World Food Programme, Oxfam International, Save the Children & Population Services International.

Such international entities have a high percentage of administrative cost; which substantially reduces the aid amount that reaches the final recipient.

For instances, if Rs.100 is donated to the United Nations; then Rs. 52 will be used for administrative costs while Rs. 48 will go to relief efforts. On the other hand, a Rs. 100 donation to Edhi Foundation would mean Rs. 20 for administrative costs and Rs. 80 for the deserving.

While not all organizations tend to take the easy route, it remains a prevalent practice; and not just in times of such disasters but otherwise as well.

Mobilink is one stand-out example in this bleak scenario. It did a commendable job for the relief & rehabilitation of the affectees of the Kashmir Earthquake. The company invested $1 million in the setting up and running of a relief camp that was completely administered by their own team. And now, the company has donated Rs. 236 million, easily one of the largest donations by a private sector company in Pakistan, which is being used for emergency relief distribution, hygiene kits, shelter, portable health units and dispensaries, and other relief and rehabilitation activities.

Most importantly, the company has confirmed that no cheques were handed over. They are doing everything through their own employees and local NGOs that are involved on the ground and do not have exorbitant administrative costs.

Volunteering personal time is the best donation I can think of. Moreover, the company is using the expertise of relevant teams to drive efficiencies. A corporate procurement executive is far well versed in negotiating with vendors trying to make a quick buck from the crisis and a local contact is of course better suited to identify exact needs on ground.

Such activities appear to be more effective and exhibit genuine concern rather than the Rs. 100 million contribution of Pakistan Petroleum Limited that has gone to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

It also seems that private sector companies are cognizant of this fact; and hence, there has been minimal disclosure in terms of exact contributions made for flood relief. The information that has been made available clubs together the total contributions made and the names of contributing companies. For instance, members of the Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce & Industry (OICCI) have provided information that requires decryption, such as:

“..Companies like Unilever Pakistan, Mobilink, Aventis Pakistan, Johnson & Johnson, Nestle Pakistan, Coke and Pepsi contributed cash, besides donating their products for the affected families. Donations comprising food items were around Rs141 billion, while Rs202 million worth of products were also sent by some companies...”

Any queries concerning the exact details and nature of contribution results in the tepid response that the concerned company does not want to gain marketing mileage from their relief efforts. With the exception of Mobilink, the websites of most of these companies do not carry much detail of their donations either.

Time to change tracks!

Considering the overall economic and development scenario of Pakistan, all stakeholders need to come together and synergize their efforts to arrest our nation’s decline and ensure that we do not end up as a failed state.

Amongst all, the corporate sector remains the best-equipped to provide some sort of long-term solution through sustainable projects that can make a significant contribution towards the development of certain spheres of society – geographically, socially, economically, environmentally and also culturally.

No one expects a single organization to shoulder the burden for societal improvement. Rather, a comprehensive plan ought to be put together that not only demarcates spheres but also creates partnerships with reputable NGOs as well as entities from the development and public sector.

Furthermore, the government needs to step forward and formulate regulations that makes CSR a mandatory part of business practice. In case the government fails to take such steps, then the corporate & private sector should exhibit its professional nature and evolved state by forming a self-regulatory body to ensure CSR practices are put into place.

But before the private sector begins the reformation of society or the rehabilitation of flood affectees, it has to make sure that CSR practices are embedded internally and incorporated in their organizational culture.

Because, like charity, CSR also begins at home!

Review: American History X

"Blacks are inferior to Europeans but superior to apes," said Voltaire, the French philosopher who is universally acknowledged as the beacon of democracy and advocate of tolerance and reason. While Enlightenment took humanity forward, it also had a dark side; nurtured and manifested for centuries by an ethos on which Western civilizations have supposedly flourished: racial superiority.

American History X is a movie about the culture of hatred that has origins in notions of racial superiority. It is about people who hate. It also attempts to explore the reasons behind the hatred, but most importantly, it is about the damage the hatred does to the world around them.

The protagonist, Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), is a bald-shaved, swastika-tattooed avowed neo-Nazi, and the leader of a group of white supremacists in sub-urban Los Angeles. Called the skinheads, the group gets in constant turf wars with black gangs, along with terrorizing helpless minorities at will.

A former literature student, the charismatic and articulate Derek falls under the influence of a local neo-Nazi guru, after the murder of his fireman father by a black-man. The extent of his rage results in the shooting and killing of two black thieves - including the legendary curb stomp scene – earning him a three year prison sentence.

Narrated in two time frames, the movie begins right after Derek's release from prison, with liberal doses of flashback to various stages in Derek's earlier life to provide insights about his current situation. It also attempts to give the viewer an idea why the now-reformed Derek is trying to stop his younger brother Danny from following in his footsteps.

On the same day, Danny's book-report extolling Mein Kampf earns him censure from the Messiah-like school principal, who also taught Derek and frequently visited him in prison. He creates a personalized course for Danny, called American History X, and the first assignment is an essay examining his brother's hate crime.

As Danny writes his paper, the story of Derek's ascent to the leadership of the Klu Klux Klan inspired skinheads unfolds. The director, Tim Kaye, employs the cinematic technique of using black and white scenes to signify past events to put the protagonist's evolutionary tangent in context.

As the director attempts to tackle a subject as vast and insidious as racism, the movie suffers in character development barring that of Derek. American History X falls short of providing a comprehensive overview of racism, hatred, or inner city violence. Instead, it examines ways these elements tear at the fabric of family.

Scant attention is paid to Derek's conversion to right-wing fanaticism and notions of Aryan superiority, other than a dinner table conversion in which Derek's father uses the word 'nigger' while he riles immigrants and the Civil Rights Movement. Derek's association with the local neo-Nazi guru is also glossed over. But Edward Norton's dominating performance and eloquence reinforces the idea that Derek's character was single handedly responsible for the recruitment and conversion of frustrated youth to the pernicious ideology.

The lack of depth in the support characters means that Edward Norton has to carry the film on his shoulders. The young Danny, despite his intelligence and bellicose outlook, is a blank kid who will do whatever Derek does. The rest of the characters appear to be weak stereotypes with point-of-views that level out Derek's extreme outlook.

The mother is a meek character who is both afraid of and for her sons. The academia inclined sister is a liberal who engages in argument with her brother to moderate his point of view. The mother's Jewish boyfriend also echoes the liberal sympathies echoed by the sister, while Derek provides the negation of these ideas using fascist quotes and skewed statistics on illegal immigration and African American crime rates. The static identities are best portrayed in a dinner table scene – wherein the crisp exchange of ideological barb takes a grotesque turn with Derek shoving food in his sister's face and launching a fascist tirade against the Jewish boyfriend.

Danny is impressive in his role, but his overwhelming desire to ape his elder brother turns him into a non character. Derek's rabid girl friend also fades in and out of the movie as she willingly parrots his ideology. Another one of the subversive iconoclast is an overweight exterminator, who finds empowerment with his affiliation with Derek's group.

The script, laced with sociological undertones, fails to add any punch to the movie and tends to become sermon-like as Derek's change of heart takes place.

While serving his sentences, Derek becomes a minority in the black-dominated prison. He joins hands with a white-group, but his notions of supremacy are crushed when he is sodomized by the gang-leader.

Disillusioned by the betrayal and vulnerable, he befriends a black inmate (Guy Torry), who plays a pivotal role in his transformation. The volte-face of the protagonist is not sufficiently explored, it is redeemed by the intelligent interplay of close-up shots with slowed down scenes in monochrome creates the aura of the macabre.

Once out on parole, Derek's transformation is complete, and he is ready to put his intolerant ways behind him. However, he soon realizes that finding such reprieve is much more difficult that first thought. The skinheads had organized similar groups along the West Coast, and expect Derek to lead them onto greater glory. On the other hand, the peers of the black youths that Derek executed three years prior were waiting to exact revenge.

But it is his younger brother Daniel, who is the greatest cause of concern. Seduced by the inflammatory rhetoric of the same neo-Nazi guru and Derek's former peers, he had made staunch enemies of a gang of black youths in his school.

Caught between white supremacists who want to glorify him, black gang members who want to vilify him, his family, and a brother who is blindly following in the same tragic footsteps, Derek finds his predicament precarious at best.

The film emphasizes that actions have consequences, and that attaining redemption isn't as easy as saying "I'm sorry." The price for a change of heart can be, and often is, brutal. The final sequence in the film is shocking not because it's unexpected, but because it illustrates this truth.