IICA Roundtable Series 2014 - · PDF fileIICA Roundtable Series 2014 . ... Brief Overview &...

IICA Roundtable Series 2014 CSR As A Value Proposition for

Promoting Social Entrepreneurship

Report Presented By

Jasani Centre for Social Entrepreneurship

& Sustainability Management

School of Business Management, SVKM’s NMIMS, Mumbai.

Report: IICA Roundtable Series 2014- CSR as a Value Proposition for Social Entrepreneurship

2

IICA Roundtable Series 2014

CSR As A Value Proposition for Promoting Social Entrepreneurship

Organized by

National Foundation Jasani Center for Samhita Social For CSR-IICA Social Entrepreneurship Ventures, Mumbai Manesar Gurgaon & Sustainability Management Mumbai


3

IICA Roundtable Series 2014

CSR As A Value Proposition for Promoting Social Entrepreneurship

Organizing Committee

Rapporteuring Team

Ms. Rashida Atthar Ms. Pooja Lalwani

Ms. Alo Sanyal Mr. Aashish Nakra

Ms. Smriti Sahay Ms Gareema Saboo

IICA Mr. Nikhil Pant Ms. Shashikala Singh

NMIMS Dr. Meena Galliara Dr. Sujata Mukherjee

Samhita Social Ventures Ms. Priya Naik Mr. Santanu Bhattacharya


4

Content

Topic

Pg No.

Acknowledgments

5

Section I : Setting the Context& Snapshot of the

Round Table

7-11

Section II : Session Proceedings

13– 26

Section III: Analysis & Agenda for Action

28- 31

Annexure I – IV 33-56


5

Acknowledgments

The IICA Roundtable Series on ‘CSR as a value proposition to promote social entrepreneurship’ was a joint initiative co-organized by NMIMS, IICA and Samhita Social Ventures. The Roundtable brought together CSR experts from corporations, executives from development organisations and government executives, researchers, students and academicians to explore the possibilities of identifying how the mandated CSR provision in the New Companies Act 2013 can enable cross sector organisations to collaborate for design and developing social enterprises. I take this opportunity to thank Dr. Rajan Saxena, Vice Chancellor, NMIMS, Prof Debashis Sanyal, Dean, SBM for extending their support to conduct the Roundtable at NMIMS. The unstinting support provided by Mr. Nikhil Pant & Ms Shashikala Singh executives of IICA in accommodating our request to conduct the Roundtable at NMIMS, taking up the responsibility of funding the Roundtable and providing direction is sincerely appreciated. Ms Priya Naik, Mr. Santanu Bhattacharya & Ms Tejashree Thatte from Samhita Social Ventures, despite their other professional commitments spared their time to promote the Roundtable and solicit participation from both corporate as well as NGO sector. Their effort too is highly appreciated. I also sincerely acknowledge the support of all the delegates and speakers who participated in the Roundtable. The discussions and the deliberations at Roundtable will have a far reaching effect on each one of us. My co-cordinator Dr. Sujata Mukherjee left no stone unturned to see that all logistics and volunteer support were in place. She tirelessly worked to oversee that the delegates and speakers at Roundtable were not put to any inconvenience. Her wholehearted support is highly appreciated. My team member Ms Rashida Atthar was incharge of coordinating with all the participants for registrations and managing communications with them. She also rappotered for the event. I take this opportunity to sincerely thank her for her efforts. My special thanks are due to Ms Nimisha Dalal, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor, Ms. Varsha Parab, Registrar, NMIMS, Mr. Prahalad Poojary, Estate Manager, Mr. Rahul Deshpande, Admin, Coordinator, Mr. Anil Kumar, Executive Systems In-Charge for providing us with all the administrative support. Ms Sushma Louis, Secretary, SBM and 19 volunteers from Social Responsibility Forum of NMIMS (Annexure IV) worked with me to see that the Roundtable at NMIMS becomes a meaningful experience for all us. I sincerely express my gratitude and acknowledge each one of them. Mr. B.S. Swaminathan, our Sr. MBA student played a key role in mobilizing all the student volunteers through his able leadership. I sincerely express my appreciation to him too. Dr. Meena Galliara, Director, Jasani Center for Social Entrepreneurship & Sustainability Management, NMIMS


6

Section I

Brief Overview

& Snapshot of the

Roundtable


7

Section I

Brief Overview & Snapshot of the Roundtable

Introduction 1.1 Context India is a country of myriad contradictions. On one hand, it has grown to be one of the largest economies in the world, and on the other side it is also struggling with various social inequities. A vigorous and healthy social sector is vital to India’s quest for equitable, inclusive and sustainable growth. The country presently is under intense debate of developmental growth versus welfare based development. In this context the inclusion of the CSR mandate under the Section 135 of the New Companies Act, 2013 is an attempt to supplement the government’s efforts of equitably delivering the benefits of growth and to engage Corporations with the country’s development agenda. The CSR provisions within the Act is applicable to (a) companies having a turnover of 1000 crore or; (b) net worth of 500 crores, or (c) net profit of 5 crores. The Act mandates the companies to spend at least 2% of their average net profit in the previous three years on CSR activities. Further the Act requires companies to set-up a CSR committee consisting of their board members, including at least one independent director. Section 135 of the Act and Schedule VII provides a list of CSR engagement activities1

for corporations. To promote inclusive and sustainable growth companies are also encouraged to undertake social business projects.

Social businesses are social enterprises which are conceived and developed by social entrepreneurs for creating visible social impact through adoption of entrepreneurial approaches, like for instance SEWA, Shrujan, Grameen Bank, Amul Diary and so on. In the last few years India has seen growth of social enterprises in the form of cooperatives, fair trade, social businesses and the like. Corporations through their multiple competencies have potentials to leverage multiple resources to develop social businesses. In this context there appears to be a strategic fit between the corporate enterprise and social enterprise to creating a better world. To deliberate on how CSR can add value to social entrepreneurship NMIMS in partnership with the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs 1 Section 135 states CSR activities shall include: eradication of hunger and poverty, promotion of education, promoting gender equality and women empowerment, reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, combating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, employment enhancing vocational skills, social business projects, contribution to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund or such other matters as may be prescribed


8

(IICA) and Samhita Social Ventures organized the IICA Roundtable Series on ‘CSR As A Value Proposition for Promoting Social Entrepreneurship’

on Jan 22, 2014 at NMIMS

1.2 Objectives of the Roundtable The Roundtable Series 2014: CSR as a Value Proposition For Promoting Social Entrepreneurship aimed at

a) Understanding the concept of social businesses and exploring the opportunities and challenges to nurture them in the context of the New Companies Act 2013

b) Exploring the best practices adopted by social entrepreneurs to scale up their enterprises and handling market challenges

c) Exploring the scope for developing cross sector partnerships to develop social businesses and social enterprise models

d) Examining the scope of leveraging corporate resources to promote social innovation by supporting development of social incubators.

1.3 Design of the Roundtable To familiarize the delegates with the concept of social entrepreneurship and how CSR could be a value proposition to accelerate the growth of social enterprises efforts were made to draft a pre-read working paper on ‘Promoting Social Entrepreneurship through CSR.’ This paper laid the foundation for deliberations at the Round Table (See Annexure I) The Roundtable comprised of four sessions. (Refer to Programme Schedule in Annexure II) Efforts were made to invite panelists from corporate, NGOs, social enterprises as well as government organization. (See Table 1). Lead questions were given to panel members to organize their thoughts on the topic. To make the panel discussion interactive questions were invited from the floor after the panelist presented their thoughts on the subject.


9

Table 1

Programme Schedule

S.N Topic Names of the Panelists I Social Entrepreneurship

Promotion: Challenges and Opportunities in context of the New Companies Act

• Moderator: Dr Meena Galliara, Director, Jasani Center, SBM, NMIMS

• Mr, Vinay Somani, Founder, Karmayog, • Mr.P. Pradeep, Partner & Executive

Director Founder Aavishkar Investments • Mr. S.K. Shelgikar, Founder Chairman

Yunus Social Business School II Social Entrepreneurship :

Good Practices for Addressing Gaps & Scaling up Challenges

• Moderator: Dr. Sujata Mukerjee, Jasani Center, SBM, NMIMS

• Mr Dhruv Lakra - Founder & CEO , Mirakle Courier,

• Mr. Sundeep Kapila, Co-founder, Swasth Health Services

• Ms Ami Shroff, Project Director, Shrujan • Mr. Tushar Goghia, Social Impact Manager,

Dasra

III Role of Cross Sector Partnerships for Promotion of Social Entrepreneurship

• Moderator: Ms Priya Naik, Founder Samhita Ventures

• Ms Gaynor Pais, CEO, International Resources for Fairer Trade

• Ms Anagha Mahajani, Dy GM (CSR) Ambuja Cements,

• Mr Mangesh Gupte, Head, CSR, ACC Ltd • Mr. Ramdas Dhumale, State Coordinator

(HR) Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission.

IV Social Innovation for Social

Entrepreneurship • Moderator: Mr. Nikhil Pant –Chief

Programme Executive, National Foundation for CSR

• Ms Pooja Warier, Co-Founder & Director Un Ltd India

• Ms Nilima Achwal, Head, SEED programme, Villgro

• Mr. Shalabh Sahai, Co-Founder & Director, ivolunteer, Mitra Initiative.


10

1.4 Participants Profile In all 123 participants (49 women & 74 men) from cross sectors attended the Roundtable. Figure 1 depicts the sectoral participation of the attendees. For details of the participants refer to Annexure III.

Figure 1

Sectoral Participation

1.5 Major Issues & Solutions The formal and informal deliberations at the Roundtable were interesting. Several issues were raised and solutions were proposed. Table 2 makes an attempt to summarize the same. The proceedings in Section II and analysis of the Roundtable discussed in Section III provide a detailed discussion in this regard.


11

Table 2

Summary of Issues Identified and Proposed Solutions

Issues Identified

Solution Proposed Lack of definition of ‘Social Business’

In the draft rules there is a need to define the term so facilitate its uniform interpretation.

Need for investment in tribal and interior rural areas

IICA should develop a database on where CSR intervention is most needed

Credibility of NGOs

IICA should consider identifying a database of credible NGOs

Lack of support for social entrepreneurs who have registered their enterprises under the ‘For Profit’ model.

IICA can influence companies to support the for profit model by engaging them as suppliers to business

Lack of uniformily used social impact measurement tools

Disseminate information about impact measurement tools

Sourcing CSR funds & non financial resources

IICA may consider accumulating and disseminating database of companies who have identified their CSR funding areas, volunteer support and other resource support to NGOs

Need for mentoring and coaching at the very early stage enterpreneurs

IICA can lobby with corporate and request employee support to mentor early stage social enterpreneurs

Building CSR ethos in the company Need to monitor CSR Board Committee Trust issues and understanding of social context by corporates

Partnerships should be based on social agendas and not hidden aspirations

Lack of proposal writing skills

Corporates can design proposal writing templates

Sensitization of the corporate world towards social issues

Having internships with NGOs, social sector for management trainees.

1.6 Structure of the Report The Report is divided into three sections:

• Section I: Setting the context for the Roundtable, its objectives, participant profile and snapshot of the deliberations.

• Section II: Proceedings of the Sessions

• Section III: Analysis of the deliberations and future course of action.


12

Section II Session Proceedings


13

Section II

Proceedings of the Sessions

2.1 Inaugural session The inaugural session commenced with the welcome address delivered by Prof. Debashis

Sanyal, Dean, School of Business Management, SVKM’s NMIMS. Dr. Sanyal emphasized on the importance of inclusivity if India wants to contribute to creating global value. Reducing inequalities need to be addressed by business otherwise it will lead to greater inequalities and gap between the have and have-nots will continue to increase. He gave an overview of the University’s strong commitment to influence the quality of management teaching in the business and the non- profit sector. To further his commitment, the University instituted the ‘Rotary Club of Bombay West Chair in Management for Not for Profit’ in 1991. The Dean also shared that NMIMS is one of the pioneering institutions’ in the country to develop a professional course the social sector and over the years of contributing to the social sector lead to the establishment of the Jasani Center for Social Entrepreneurship & Sustainability Management in 2012 . The Centre blends social concerns with professional response through an integrated approach that combines research, consultancy, teaching and field action.

Dr. Sanyal shared about the ‘We Care: Civic Engagement’ internship programme for MBA

students which focuses on connecting the students to the existing social issues/problems in India. The programme has been widely appreciated by the NGO and the corporate sector. He shared some of the projects2

carried out by students and how it has become a value proposition for NMIMS. Dr Sanyal briefly spoke about the other programmes of the Jasani Center like PT-MBA in Social Entrepreneurship Programme, Enterprise Training programme for Women and various research collaborations undertaken by the Centre. He emphasized that social entrepreneurship has emerged as a practical and a viable answer to the current situation. In this context, he mentioned that the collaboration with IICA and Samhiti for a Roundtable Series would go a long way to create value.

Followed by the welcome addresses, Dr Parasuraman , Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences delivered the key note address. Dr. Parasuraman stressed on the role of the private and public sectors and their duty towards the deprived in society. He stated that in 2011-12, Government of India came out with the guidelines for public sector companies to set aside Rs 2400 crores per annum for CSR and the new Companies Bill has mandated CSR funds by private companies as well. Emphasizing the need for private sector interventions, he gave a brief about the progress made by India in the last 20 years. Highlighting on the dominant paradigms of development, capitalism, and wealth generation in the 21st century he also shared about, the growth of poverty and inequality in India. Stating that 77 percent of Indian population is poor and vulnerable, he shared that though we have around 45 percent of people

2 Digitization of village panchayat, safety audit of schools, stakeholder assessment of housing science, business plan for animal husbandry, calculating social return on investment and many others.


14

in India who are moved above the poverty line, they are vulnerable due to lack to access to health facilities, insurance and employment opportunities in the organized sector. He shared “Only one illness of a family member is enough to bring them below poverty line level”.

Dr. Parshuraman also laid emphasis on prevailing social issues like child malnutrition and on

the growth of consumerism in India. He drew the attention of the participants on the inverse relationship between economic growth and calorie consumption. Indians are buying goods but food is not available to a large chunk of our population. He reiterated that though a large number of social programmes are being implemented by the government, they do not reach the people and hence the need for social entrepreneurship. He stressed on CSR as an instrument to address the problems of poverty and inequality. He focused on the needs to create a context whereby strengthening the system. To stress his point further, he shared the example of the mental health care facility at Thane and Panvel and emphasized the need to do careful assessment of what the companies do and stay committed to the same. He reiterated that Corporates should not create conditions for people to move to the vicious circle of poverty and then try to undo the damage they have done or undermine what has been done earlier.

According to Dr. Parasuraman, globalization of this century is like colonization of the earlier

centuries to create free markets. Globalization has opened up the markets for multinational companies so that they can have access to labour at cheaper wages. He stressed that companies that build their wealth on the miseries of a large number of people, will eventually land up paying for it. He stated “CSR is a new flavor; let it not be a disease, whereby you say I destroy 4000 villages and then create 4 model villages”. Citing the example of a mining company he reiterated, it would be better if they had rehabilitated the people instead of building model villages. Wealth creation is important, but not at the cost of people. He emphasized that CSR is a salvage process and even whilst doing that it needs to be carried out in a more meaningful and less harmful manner.

Mr Ketan Shah, Advisory Committee Member, NFCSR shared the pioneering efforts of

NMIMS in the social sector. He mentioned that India will attract a lot of attention from the entire world to see the impact of CSR being implemented by the companies. According to him India was the first country in the world to legislate companies to contribute towards social development. He briefly touched upon the salient features of the Act in terms of it’s a) applicability, b) percentage of contribution, c) formulation of Board committee and d) areas of inclusion for social development. He congratulated Dr. Bhaskar Chatterjee and his team from IICA who has worked untiringly to institutionalize the legal framework and educating all stakeholders for its implementation.

Dr. Sujata Mukherjee proposed the vote of thanks for the Inaugural Session. She began by

thanking the Dr. Parauraman, the keynote speaker, the Dean, IICA, and Samhita . She also extended her gratitude to all the people associated with the Roundtable series, the student volunteers, the support staff of NMIMS and all the participants.


15

2.2 Session wise Proceedings Session I : Social Entrepreneurship Promotion: Challenges and Opportunities in context

of the New Companies Act Moderator: Dr Meena Galliara, Director, Jasani Center, School of Business Management

(SBM), NMIMS Panel Members:

• Mr, Vinay Somani, Founder, Karmayog • Mr.P. Pradeep, Partner & Executive Director Founder Aavishkar Investments • Mr. S.K. Shelgikar, Founder Chairman Yunus Social Business School.

The session commenced with Dr. Galliara, welcoming the guests and delegates. She briefly oriented the panel members about Section 135 of the Companies Act and highlighted the fact that as per the Act companies can support ‘Social Businesses’. However in the context of the Act not conceptualizing what is ‘Social Business’ she requested the panel members to consider discussing the following questions: a) What is social business? b) Can the New Companies Act of 2013 be a game changer for the Social Enterprises sector? c) How can NGOs connect with social investing firms like Aavishkar, Intellecap and others to become sustainable, especially when CSR grant is phased out d) What role can the IICA play to promote this sector in light of the new Act?

Discussing about ‘Social Business’, Mr. Shelgikar stated that etymology of what amounts to social business to a large extent is contextual. For instance Lenin and Stalin differed in their conceptualization of free markets in comparison to the capitalists. By not defining the term ‘social business’, in the context of law, it is now open to interpretation. Elaborating further he stated that Prof. Mohammad Yunus defined social business from its motive. For him it was addressing a social problem of the masses and not creating profits. Sustainable business solution for a problem can be social business. He stressed that CSR can never be without context and in the context of India even if the term CSR is not defined it implies from the description offered in Section 135 it aims at creating inclusive approaches to social development. As his concluding remarks he vehemently stated it would be difficult to define social business and in the absence of any definition we will have to learn to live with it.

While discussing the term of ‘Social Business’ further Mr. Pradeep,from Aavishkar endorsed

the views of Mr. Shelgikar. However, being part of a social investment firm, he stated that firms like his would like to invest in companies which address a social need as against want based enterprises. He cited a few examples to differentiate and clarify the typology of need based v/s want based enterprises. He elaborated on various social enterprises which are supported by Aavishkar like Grammeen Koota (MFI) and Vatsalya Health Care in Andra Pradesh and Karnataka which addresses the issue of rural health. He highlighted that businesses with a social purpose which are funded by social investors rely on balancing the social impact and financial sustainability. In this context measurement of impact becomes very subjective. He informed the


16

floor that the Impact Investors Council is getting formed in India. The purpose of this council is to bring in coherence in the confusion regarding the meaning of social businesses. He made it clear that if social entrepreneurs wish to get funded by social investment firms, they need to have their B-plans made for social impact as well as financial sustainability.

Mr. Vinay Somani from Karmayog briefly shared the CSR rating methodology used by

Karmayog to rank companies in the areas of their social performance. According to his research in the last 5 years he has seen a lot of change in companies contributing to CSR to address issues of education, health and so on in their immediate geographies. He highlighted that corporates are now setting up NGO’s and are partnering with NGOs which also create livelihood support projects because these NGOs have a great propensity to become financially sustainable at a faster pace. With regard to if companies were ready to invest in social businesses he felt that social issues in India cannot be addressed by a single stakeholder. So CSR will certainly be a game changer. Apart from financial contribution corporates have resources, talent, reach, and management skills to change the social milieu.

To make the session more interactive questions from the floor were invited from the floor. One

of the delegates highlighted the case of two ministers in the central government being summoned by PAC because all the mandatory CSR spending was being directed to their constituencies and therefore argued that it’s important to define a context for social business rather than leaving it to interpreter. To this Mr.Shelgikar clarified that terms like social responsibility and social business do not lie in the domain of law. It is in the domain of ethics and morality and hence, cannot be compressed in legal positivism and therefore cannot be defined. He further stated that since now these terms are used in the Act and not defined; there is no need to worry as in case of legal disputes one needs to know Supreme Courts in India have considered the importance of understanding context as well as intentions in delivering their verdicts. To support his stance he cited Gokalnath and Keshavnanda’s case where the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the Indian Constitution. Both these cases highlight that the basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic" feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it.

On being asked about the challenges companies are going to face if terminology is left to the

context, Mr Vinay Somani said that the corporates can be classified into three types. The first type are the ones who will be really sincere in moral responsibility and spend on inclusion. The second type will milk the opportunity by floating dummy enterprises to show compliance. While the third kind, will take this as an additional charge to tax and spend on CSR. Mr. Pradeep added that the corporates need to be helped in the process and they should be engaged with, for better clarification and understanding of the process.

Ms Mayuri Mishra representative from IICA further elaborated that social business is an

enterprise managed by an NGO which does business with the intent to plug in a social gap and not with the motive to make profit. But it can make profit for its welfare and growth. As per the law the activities have to be rupee measurable and projectivised.


17

The discussions also highlighted that many companies would hier PR agencies or business consultants to write glossy CSR reports and misuse and abuse the Law by adopting unethical strategies.

It was recommended that IICA must look at for glaring unacceptable practices of corporate and

try to raise the bar of corporate consciousness. Dr. Galliara, in her concluding remarks as a moderator summarized the discussion by

highlighting the key points: a. Though it is difficult to define social business conceptually, one needs to understand that it

is need based business which aims at transforming the lives of the poor at large and creates positive externality

b. CSR funds can serve as a start up capital for social business, however to scale it up one

would need support from social investing firms. Hence there will be greater need to balance social impact and financial sustainability.

c. Companies can leverage lot of non financial support to sustain social business d. IICA will have to invest its capacities to raise the bar of corporate consciousness to see that

CSR funds are not misused The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to panel members and the delegates. Session II: Social Entrepreneurship: Good Practices for Addressing Gaps Moderator: Dr. Sujata Mukherjee, Jasani Center, School of Business Management (SBM), NMIMS. Panel Members: • Mr. Dhruv Lakra, Founder & CEO, Mirakle Courier • Mr. Sundeep Kapila, Co-Founder, Swasth Health Services • Ms Ami Shroff, Project Director, Shrujan • Mr. Tushar Goghia, Social Impact Manager, Dasra

The moderator introduced the panel members to the participants of the Roundtable. She began the session by drawing the attention of the audience to the definition of a social business /social enterprise. She highlighted that social innovations are important in addressing the gaps and shared how the distinguished panel members through their social ventures had addressed the gaps. The panel members were given a set of questions like the following which during the course of the discussion were highlighted be each panelist:

• Brief about your organization and the business model • The challenges faced in nurturing and scaling up the organization • Support provided to social organization by companies • Good practices adopted to balance social impact and financial sustainability


18

Mr. Dhruv Lakra, Founder & CEO, Mirakle Couriers, shared that Mirakle is “a business with a

heart”. Mirakle Couriers employs low-income deaf adults. Over the last four years Mirakle Couriers has grown to operate in the national and international market, employing 70 deaf employees and delivering over 65,000 shipments per month. The team at Mirakle has 55 adults, 52 of whom are deaf and the back office is run by deaf women who are entrusted with doing data entry, accounting, tallying and so on.

Mr. Lakra pointed out that in spite of the business running strong, people are still skeptical

about using Mirakle’s services as they doubt whether the employees are capable enough for the work. He empahsised that it is the social mind-set that is behind the perception. Having understood this reality, he prefers to call his business more commercial and less social.

Mr. Sundeep Kapila, Co-Founder and Board Member, Swasth India, stated that every year

almost 32 million people move from above the poverty line to below it, because of a health shock. Today, a large number of people in the country are vulnerable to diseases that are not diagnosed or treated on time. Even though there is a shift of people from below the poverty line to above it due to economic growth and social welfare, a lot more people are moving in the reverse direction due to health concerns.

He shared that Swasth was founded almost 6 years ago with this vision in mind, to make

affordable healthcare accessible to the low income and vulnerable population of India. Their services are a direct result of understanding the reality at the grass-root level, where the state of primary and preventive care is abysmal. Swasth, which now follows a ‘Business-to-Customer’ model, has opened up primary and preventive health clinics, to cater to the poor, marginalized people and slums at nearly half of the current market rates. The key focus areas are doctors, drugs, diagnostics, day-care and dental services.

Ms. Ami Shroff, Project Director at Shrujan. Began by sharing the organization’s philosophy to

empower rural women artisan and ensure that these women were respected as gifted and highly skilled artisans. Shrujan today operates in 120 villages with 3500 women from 10 communities in the Kutch District of Gujarat. Ms. Shroff mentioned that even though Shrujan has been registered as a charitable trust three years ago, the basic principle of Shrujan is to be self-sufficient. She emphasised that their business doesn’t want customers to buy the products for charity but because they like and enjoy their products, which range from inexpensive mobile covers to sarees worth lakhs of rupees. Any charity that is accepted by the organisation is utilised in capital expenditures only. Profit from the business goes back in to the business, mainly for payments to suppliers and sourcing raw material. In order to deal with human resources challenges she shared that employees are sourced from within the families of existing artisans. This ensures that the new recruits already have an understanding of the work, the concerns of the artisan community.

Mr. Tushar Goghia, Social Impact Manager at Dasra is primarily responsible for programme development and partnership for developing social entrepreneurs. His role involves identifying and creating partnerships with stakeholders – including corporates, investors and other social sector organizations. Mr. Goghia spoke about the training programmes organised by Dasra for social entrepreneurs, to help them build a social enterprise by providing the necessary training, guidance and managerial support.


19

Dasra was founded 15 years ago, and aims to help budding social entrepreneurs think about

scale and how to multiply their impact. The motive is to help social enterprises/NGOs address more and more communities which involve more resources and risk-taking. Mr. Goghia added that Dasra also helps investors make more informed choices of how and where they should invest. Options for mentoring these entrepreneurs range from volunteers from small organisations to full-time hands-on engagement programmes by large corporates. Says Mr. Goghia, “It all depends on the corporate’s intent and the resources they can put in.”

The moderator prompted the panel members to share some of the challenges faced by them to

run their enterprises. The panel members agreed that any business has its challenges but the challenges faced by social businesses are of a different nature than the ones faced by pure commercial ones. The speakers agreed that the most common challenge is raising capital. According to Mr. Lakra, a model that is socially driven is very different by nature and carries with it a set of preconceived notions, which is harboured by most investors. Mr. Kapila elaborated on this point further by sharing that saying that social businesses require funding of a different nature altogether, in the timeframe of paying back investors as well as the quantum of return. At Swasth, the idea is to make patients come early to them and hence they have such low and competitive pricing. Shrujan, on the other hand, has been comparatively luckier in the context of financing because of corporate backing from the family. Sourcing funds, from banks, industry as well as the government, has never been a problem for Srujan. Mr. Goghia emphasized that the challenge for social businesses lie not only in raising capital but also in deciding what to do with the funds once they are obtained.

However, funding is not the only problem that social businesses face today. Perception of

customers/people, whether in businesses or in the society, is an obstacle too. Mr. Lakra feels that the social conditioning of people is a challenge for a courier service that employs deaf people to gain the trust and loyalty enjoyed by the likes of Blue Dart. The battle to change mind-sets of customers and overcome perception has been fought at Shrujan too. This necessitated to develop an understanding of the market and to convince customers. Another challenge that was pointed out by Mr. Kapila, is hiring middle level managers, where the managers employed would be passionate and committed to the idea as well as stable in the job.

The good practice according to Mr. Lakra, which was adopted by Mirakle Courier, was the

customer has to be happy, the main practice followed by his company was to keep the client happy. Ms. Shroff agreed to the same.

Since it was a Roundtable, the moderator encouraged the participants to pose questions to the

panelists. One of the participants asked the panel members “Does being a social organization give a negative impression to customers / corporates?” Ms. Shroff responded that it is not a negative impression but the perception. It is more important for Shrujan to be perceived as a business and not a charity as it brings a sense of dignity to their artisans. Mr. Lakra emphasised that the social mind-set still needs to change. In reality, there are negative impressions associated with social businesses. Many a time, customers have questioned the quality of service given by the deaf people employed by Mirakle. Mr. Kapila reiterated that it all depends on the context again.


20

On being asked about how to measure impact and who decides what is good enough, Mr. Goghia said that it is not an easy task to measure impact of any business, be it a profit or a non-profit organisation and that it takes a long time, even years, to come up with a suitable financial model to measure impact. He said that it is important to identify the inputs and outputs that the organisation wants to measure, what it wants to achieve and how it wants to measure it?

Another participant posed a question about how to equip an NGO with a business model and

overcome the difficult task of sourcing funds to magnify scale. Mr. Goghia replied that doing philanthropy and charity has been an integral part of the Indian society, so that road is always open to social businesses. However, even NGOs can source a lot of finance if they are strategic in their vision. According to him there are multiple models that can be used to source money. He recounted the example of an African businessman who has a 5-year business cycle, in which he would spent the first year entirely on raising money and after one year is over, he would not raise any money and devote the rest of the 4 years to utilizing the funds raised. Mr. Goghia emphasised that sourcing funds is not the problem; it is trickier to decide how a social business manages its funds. Mr. Kapila also added that leveraging the skills of the beneficiaries of an NGO is another way of raising funds.

Dr. Mukherjee, in her concluding remarks as a moderator summarized the discussion by

highlighting the key points:

a. The definition and implications of a social business is contextual and business models are based on the context / issue that the social entrepreneurs wants to address. b. In the context of the New Companies Act, social businesses can play an important role in helping communities they work with. c. Social entrepreneurs play an important role in dealing with social issues/problems by helping communities / people they target thereby developing some good practices to close the gaps in the existing circumstances.

Session III: Role of Cross Sector Partnerships for Promotion of Social Entrepreneurship Moderator: Ms Priya Naik, Founder Samhita Ventures Panel Members: • Ms Gaynor Pais, CEO, International Resources for Fairer Trade • Ms Anagha Mahajani, Dy Gm (CSR) Ambuja Cements • Mr Mangesh Gupte, Head, CSR, ACC Ltd. • Mr. Ramdas Dhumale, State coordinator (HR) Mahrashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission Ms. Priya Naik began the session by explaining how social entrepreneurship can be promoted through cross sector partnerships. The moderator requested the panelists to throw some light on what it takes to work with partners from different sectors. She also asked them to list out three key lessons that are important to make an NGO and corporate partnership successful.

Ms Gaynor Pais, CEO, International Resources for Fairer Trade (IRFT) started her experience

about cross sector partnership. She spoke about IRFT briefly and the nature of work that the


21

organization focuses on. IRFT works with businesses to provide ethical business solutions. She stressed that IRFT not only conducts social audits for companies but also help them develop a code of conduct. She shared that the organization also promotes the ‘Fair Trade’ movement in India. The organization launched the fair trade movement, and they represent the Indian standards of fair trade, which keeps into account the country’s culture and practices. She also reiterated that IRFT not only encourage funds from corporates, but also solicit their involvement in the process. While sharing her experience on cross sector partnership, Ms. Pais focused on three key points:

• NGOs must be able to make business sense to their partners. Corporate should be able to

understand what the NGO stands for and how it will help companies achieve their objectives and create a win-win.

• Engage the companies in such a way that they not just take the value of their partners (NGOs) forward, but also see what is there in it for them. This helps in creating stronger relations and both parties benefit from it.

• Engage with the government as well. The discussion was carried forward by Ms Anagha Mahajani, Deputy GM, CSR, Ambuja

Cement Foundation (ACF). Being a part of a company foundation she had fostered partnership and was requested by the moderator to share the three important lessons learned from them. Ms. Mahajani spoke briefly about ACF and shared the ethos for CSR of Gujarat Ambuja. She focused on ACF’s community development work and their belief in communities and their role as a catalyst to bring change in the society. ACF undertakes projects for promoting social and economic development of communities in and around the manufacturing plant locations of Ambuja Cement Ltd. These development initiatives are implemented in partnership with like-minded NGOs and the state government in the area of health, skill development, natural resource management and so on. The three important lessons that Ms Mahajani shared from the partnerships were:

• Transparency: The partners have to be transparent about their work to each other as well as to

the government and other stakeholders. This creates trust in the partnership and both partners work more efficiently

• Strong belief in collective gains: When two entities come for a partnership, there has to be mutual values that are shared. In the process, the entities might feel they are losing their identity. The partners have to face this challenge of identity crisis

• Share a common goal: A partnership is successful only if both parties involved share the same views, or are ready to align their views to each other

Mr. Ramadas Dhumale, State Coordinator, MSRLM, Government of Maharashtra, also shared

his views regarding cross sector partnership. Mr. Dhumale spoke about Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission (MSRLM), stating that MSRLM was constituted with an objective to enhance social and economic empowerment of the rural poor in Maharashtra through development of a self-sustained and community managed institution. It is currently present in 10 districts in the State and has a reach to 5 lac families in those districts. The focus of MSRML is on (a) Social Inclusion, (b) Financial Inclusion and (c) Social Mobilization. According to Mr. Dhumale, the Government is just the facilitator in the model of MSRLM. In order to ensure sustainability of the model, the state has partnered with national level organizations like the


22

Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) for strategic advisory and technical support and other institutes for rural employment generation, banks, companies , grassroots institutions and Mahila Shashaktikaran Program.

Talking about partnerships with corporate and social enterprises, Mr. Mangesh Gupte, Head

CSR, ACC, spoke about ACC cement and its delivery models for such initiatives. Mr. Gupte pointed a major limitation of partnerships. He said the 2% of CSR is on every year’s profit, and a company’s profit might not be constant every year. The schemes cannot be withdrawn suddenly. He stressed that in such a situation, it is not possible to have a long term commitments with all their partners. He propounded the theory that corporate world can act as the catalytic agent for change in the Indian context. The government of India had created a space for partnership among different entities (corporate, NGO, government, social businesses) with the CSR Act. The problem he felt was that most organizations do not understand the potential of this space. He stated, “We may label an organization for identification, but identity for all organizations is rapidly changing. When two entities come for a partnership, there is a presumption of direct delivery, i.e., the role of one partner is to manage funds and the other to execute it. However, the essence of such partnerships is to make sure that both parties participate for the proper and efficient execution of the idea”.

According to Mr. Gupte, corporates work with social enterprises because they both understand

the same language. When it comes to NGOs and social enterprises, there is no question about what one should prefer. NGOs and social entrepreneurs both are necessary. Under different circumstances the same society has to think differently. Same goes with choosing between NGOs and social entrepreneurship. Mr. Gupte concluded by saying NGOs will continue to build the society and corporate will continue to make sure the society moves “from being a beneficiary to self-sufficiency”.

The moderator invited questions from the participants with regards to cross sector partnership.

One of the participants wanted to know about know how long does it take companies to understand a social issues. Ms Pais felt that generally it takes a lot of time for corporates to understand initiatives in complete social context and depends on the level of trust developed among both the pratners. NGOs have to commit to the cause and work towards the corporate intent. Instead of the corporate and NGO having separate values, the partnership should give rise to a shared “co-value”. The case has to be embedded into the fabric of the organization. This can be done if the NGO ensures that they are work towards betterment in all spheres, explain the case more effectively to the corporate and do what the corporates expect of them rather than going on with what they want to do.

Another highlight of the deliberation was on how important it is for NGOs to thoroughly

understand important aspects of their proposition before approaching a company. The panel members shared that a major weakness of most NGOs is their ability to write sound proposals. Another very important point in the deliberation was on the question of sustainability partnership. The moderator shared that as the partnership grows, both parties should ensure commitment to the contract. Mr. Gupte added that the idea of having a partnership conclaves organized by IICA, where NGOs and corporates come together to discuss their partnership parameters can be helpful to look at sustainability parameters.


23

The session ended with Ms. Naik giving an overview about the strengths, weaknesses and models of cross sector partnerships. Partnerships are viable only when both parties show commitment to the project. There has to be innovation in the way the parties create partnerships. The CSR policy is meant to develop collaborations faster. Landmark regulations, knowledge and data, are all meant to develop bigger and stronger collaborations. A coordinated change still needs to be achieved where everyone comes together for the “collective collaborative change”.

Session IV: Social Innovation for Social Entrepreneurship Moderator: Mr. Nikhil Pant –Chief Programme Executive, National Foundation for CSR Panel Members: • Ms Pooja Warier, Co-Founder & Director Un Ltd India • Ms Nilima Achwal, Head, SEED programme, Villgro • Mr. Shalabh Sahai, Co-Founder & Director, ivolunteer, Mitra Initiative.

Mr Nikhil Pant commenced the session by explaining to the delegates important components of

Section 135 of the New Companies Act 2013. He stressed that companies having a turnover of 1000 crore or a net worth of 500 crores, or a net profit of 5 crores are required to mandatorily spend 2 percent of its average net profit towards specified CSR activities. They are also mandated to have a board level CSR committee, which must consist of two directors and one independent director, to draft CSR policy and monitor its execution.

He further highlighted that while spending is not mandatory, reporting is. He prescribed that

Sections 135 of the Act must be read in conjunction with section 134 and 198. Section 134 deals with stating reasons for not spending CSR funds, where as Section 198 deals with penal provisions for non compliance.

According to the Act it is also mandated that a company should: List out the activities of the company over the next 12 months (Schedule 7 to the Act) Mention the budget along with the activities; 2% of average net profit of the previous three years Develop a robust monitoring mechanism

He further mentioned that IICA has been working closely with the NGOs, corporate, B-Schools

to disseminate information about the implementation of CSR through organizing appropriate Round Table Series on various topics related to CSR.

To facilitate the execution of CSR, IICA is in the process of finalizing the draft rules by the

month end which need to followed with due diligence. He also mentioned IICA’s initiative in developing the CSR Index to brand companies in lists as per their CSR Performance. The index would be a dynamic entity, the parameters of which are also likely to evolve.

Under the Act, Companies can also fund setting up incubators in Universities to support young

students and social entrepreneurs to incubate their innovative ideas. It is in this context, he


24

requested the panel members Ms Pooja and Ms Nilima to share information about their respective organizations.

Ms. Pooja explaining the model of intervention at UnLtd India said the prime emphasis of her

organization is to focus on entrepreneurial individuals, and on their idea and passion to pick up a pressing problem. UnLtd India supports these individuals through:

Incubation: where UnLtd. provides seed funding of 1 lakhs to 20 lakhs by way of grants or

debts to ventures. She mentioned that each level is backed by a customized package: training, coaching and workshops for the ideas to go to the next level.

Affiliate Led: In this case UnLtd. focuses on replication of incubation model across cities. Under this programme they look for entrepreneurs who are as passionate as they are about this cause. These entrepreneurs are then given UnLtd. India’s model to play with and adequate funding to start a local UnLtd incubator in their cities.

She mentioned that UnLtd. works with models across the spectrum; whether it is profit, not-for-

profit or hybrid is of secondary importance as long as they have a social mission and that they work from the very early stages of the development. UnLtd India hence supports the entrepreneurs’ right from idea stage to stage when the venture is ready for scale. Launched in 2007, UnLtd India has supported over 100 start-ups so far, in states of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

The discussion was then taken forward by Ms. Nilima, Head- SEED Programme, Villgro who

explained the model followed at Villgro. She clarified that Villgro is a social enterprise incubator and focuses on for-profit social ventures focused on innovation. It supports a spectrum of initiatives right from the stage of idea formulation to actual investment, with a capital of about 25-50 lacs to early stage social entrepreneurs. Villgro lays emphasis on early stage innovators because channels for funding at later stages are plenty and available. She added that there is a real need for mentoring and coaching at the very early stage for that is when people start to give up. She mentioned that a lot of entrepreneurs approach them with the idea but have yet to figure out a lot of pieces of the business model for which Villgro renders support through the ‘SEED Programme’; an intensive 8 months accelerated program to make entrepreneurs seed-investible. Villgro also has the ‘Entrepreneur-in-Residence’ Programme targeted at idea stage entrepreneurs who are taken in for a year by Villgro to be able to change their idea into a social venture. Villgro also carries out Ecosystem-Building activities where it conducts small localized events in tier 2 and tier 3 cities to find local social innovators and pair them with local mentoring and local resources. She clarified that these local innovators are unlikely to come to Mumbai or Delhi or Bangalore and hence mobilizing local resources to support their ideas is crucial.

Ms. Achwal then also talked about Villgro’s experience with Mahindra Spark: The Rise. She

cited this experience as an incident of how “we have engaged with the corporate”. “Mahindra Spark: The rise, takes innovative ideas for different categories and one category among them is social entrepreneurship. Marketing and outreach are Mahindra’s core competencies and they receive about a 1000 applications. They needed someone to provide support to the ideas in terms of money and capacity building. The winners were to get channelized and fast-tracked


25

into our programme depending on what stage they are at and help their ideas grow and make an impact in the future,” which is where Villgro played a part.

Social business or social enterprises can be nurtured and scaled up by enabling companies to

provide them with lot of managerial and technical support to NGOs. This support can primarily come from employee volunteers. In this context Mr. Shalabh Sahai, mentioned that iVolunteer began with the thought that the country’s recent progress is because of skills of the human capital. But at the same time, the very skills were not very accessible to the agencies in the development sector. He mentioned that skills were inaccessible because skills relevant to innovative solutions for the development sector are rare and difficult to pay at the market level. He sought the solution to be to connect people with expertise to the development sector. To facilitate the same, he talked about the Volunteer Matching Platform and also mentioned that if the matching is not practiced by the people, the corporate or the recipient organizations, it cannot be replicated online. He then went on to talk about different programmes like ‘whiteboard strategic advisory level’; programme that involves 15-20 years of work experience who advise NGOs on scaling up and other issue that NGOs face. He mentioned that apart from the skill-gap at the strategic level, the other skill-gap is at a medium managerial level for which he highlighted iVolunteer’s approach- ‘skills that you can’t hire, get them through volunteering’.

The limitation of the entire idea of volunteering, according to Mr. Sahai, is the idea of

recognition. He mentions that there is ‘hardly any recognition of volunteering’. He also specified that “whether it is national government or political bodies, unless volunteering is recognized , people will not come out, no policies will be framed, companies will not send and organizations will not be happy to receive volunteers; we will not see new ways of volunteering”. According to him, last three years have seen a substantial portion of investment in mainstream volunteering. As a step towards the same, he cited the ‘iVolunteer Awards’ recognizing volunteering heroes. He also introduced a new category termed ‘Leader in Employee Volunteering’, an initiative of iVolunteer to identify corporate volunteering activities.

The moderator then opened the floor for further discussion. A few delegates requested Mr. Pant

to provide for clarity in CSR guidelines in terms of adherence to the national issues so that the companies and corporates can work towards it. Mr. Pant responded that Section 135 and Schedule VII of the Act have identified some areas of priority social intervention as per national needs, however based on consultations with various stakeholders; the intervention areas are getting added. The final rules will soon be notified. There is no need for companies to worry because the list provided as of now is only indicative and companies have the liberty to operate their social projects as per their geographical needs.

Another question raised by the floor was how the law addresses the issue of volunteering and

assigning cost to it. To this Mr. Pant responded by stating that “Law does not talk about volunteering, it lists certain activities that are mapped to the national needs. To meet those needs you may do volunteering as a tool. In the final CSR rules IICA is adding employee volunteering as a mechanism to develop social projects. The CSR committee of the company can decide where it can place employee volunteers. According to IICA employee volunteers can be part of a particular project undertaken by the company. The issue of assigning cost to it is a


26

tricky one and this will need to be worked out. For instance how do you put a cost to what the volunteer has done? What is the value of teaching per hour?”

Mr. Sahai from the panel then added; “You cannot force volunteers just because you are

funding an organization. The NGOs and NPOs can build projects and identify gaps within an organization and then approach partner corporates for particular projects, which is one way of organizing employee volunteers. Companies need to understand that employee volunteers are both givers and receivers. But there is a lack of understanding on what the companies can get from volunteering.”

One of the delegates wanted to know how companies can work with Villgro. To this Ms.

Achwal also responded that, “Our core competency lies is picking the best social entrepreneurs and helping them to convert their ideas into a reality? If corporations leverage can use Villgro’s expertise and diligence in capacity building we would help them make most out of their funds.”

One of the delegates also wanted to know if the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is only interested

in CSR reporting then the issue of addressing social agenda is likely to get sidelined. To this, Mr. Pant clarified that IICA is developing a framework to develop the policy and it will not be possible for them to get into micro management. IICA wants the Board Committees to rise to the cause and see that if it is in the ethos of the company, it should go beyond reporting.

Mr.Nikhil Pant in his concluding remarks mentioned that it is important for companies that

qualify as per the Companies Act to have a CSR policy in place. To attract foreign investment it would be prudent to consider how Bombay Stock Exchange could help companies to link performance of the companies on the CSR front to mutual fund valuation. He also stated that to do good CSR, the audience needs to know that IICA is working to source/develop the following:

NGOs or implementation agencies to map the social needs Projects that can capture the needs; from baseline to end-line Develop a cadre of CSR professionals

He also briefly shared about developing the National CSR NGO Hub, which would require

listing credible NGOs and coming up with parameters to judge as to how many are worth putting money into. He also mentioned the launch of the first ‘CSR professional course’ which would be a 9 month programme starting from June, 2014. Of the participating Universities, NMIMS would also be a host to the programme. The course, he specified, would involve, a visit to IICA, the entire gamut of CSR, philanthropy, policy writing, monitoring and evaluation, which would be followed and supplemented by contact classes allowing students to study at home and would also involve a three-month and a three-week attachment with an NGO and the corporate respectively. The initiative would have 300 seats of which 50% would be corporate sponsored.


27

Section III

Analysis & Agenda for Action


28

Section III

Analysis of the Roundtable and Agenda for Action

3.1 Context In the context of growing social inequities in India the Companies Act 2013 marshals a new regulatory stance regarding towards responsibilities of corporations towards its communities. Through this regulation CSR does not lie in the voluntary domain of corporations but is now part of their legal responsibility. According to IICA an estimated 8,000 companies in India will be covered under the CSR legislation and the total annual spend based on this norm could be equivalent to approximately Rs 16,300 crores. The preceding paragraphs make an attempt to analyse and discuss the deliberations held at the Roundtable and propose an Agenda for Action for IICA. 3.2 Tokenism to Inclusion To see that corporations move from tokenism to inclusion to fuel social development through CSR, Section 135 mandates companies to form a Corporate Social Responsibility Committee (“CSR committee”) within the board of directors that will devise, recommend, and monitor CSR activities, and the amount spent on such activities, to the rest of the board. The CSR committee must consist of three or more directors, at least one of whom must be an “independent director. The composition of the CSR committee must be disclosed in the annual board report. In the above context, the effectives of a corporation to deliver social goals will depend upon the rigour, commitment and integrity of the CSR committee to see that the execution of the CSR plans in real sense move from tokenism to inclusion. It emerged both from the formal and informal deliberations that IICA has a greater role to play in developing the capacities of the Board members and providing them with appropriate orientation with regard to their role and scope. They need to be given inputs in the areas of CSR policy development, mechanisms for monitoring and measurement and CSR reporting. 3.3 Areas of Social Intervention Many NGO participants opined that most of the activities mentioned in the Schedule VII seem to come from the Millennium Development Goals, our national commitment for 2015. Post this, will the priorities change and if they do, then there needs to be some clarity. Secondly, as of now companies are not mandated to spend money in developing resources beyond their geographies. For instance how will tribal areas and remote villages develop without government or corporate involvement? This concern surely is not a misplaced one.


29

In the above context it was proposed that it is time that IICA disseminates the information about finalization of the draft rules and notifies the corporations as well as the NGOs with regard to the final draft rules as well as its validity period. The discussion on promoting social entrepreneurship highlighted that terminologies being contextual, there is a possibility of various stakeholders to interpret the term ‘social business’ in a different manner. Hence it was suggested that IICA should define the term ‘ social business’ to facilitate its uniform interpretations and application. 3.3 Developing Partnerships NGOs and social enterprises play an important role in implementing corporates’ CSR activities on the ground. The success of the new regulation, to a large extent, is contingent on the social sector’s willingness and ability to absorb the funds and deliver. The deliberations at the Round Table highlighted that most NGOs in India will not be equipped to absorb the significantly higher support (and thus the scale-up in operations) that could arise from the step-up in CSR spend by corporate (it was estimated that current spending of corporations is significantly below the 2% norm). It was further highlighted that while the ecosystem will undoubtedly build-up to meet this demand, companies will need to understand the landscape across different development sectors, evolve those strategies that are impactful and yet most appropriate to their needs and find the right implementation partners to help them deliver. In this context it was felt by the delegates that corporations should regularly send their employees to intern with social organizations for few weeks. This will facilitate changing their mind sets and sensitizing them to social realities. One of the delegates highlighted that currently CSR teams in most companies are headed by people with corporate communications or HR background. These teams are usually small and get little time to update themselves with the social, environmental & economic canvas of India. Most of the time they have an elitist attitude and are interested in working with those NGOs which produce glossy reports or promise to give them an impressionable number of outputs. There is a lobby and a cartel which prevents grass root NGOs to get corporate funding. To see if the CSR investment made by the company has brought any change, only a few carry out external audits to figure out the real impact. And in many cases, the donation amounts are so small, that it is difficult even to measure them. Add to this, the policy of many companies to support NGOs for not more than three years becomes an impediment. In this context, it was proposed that IICA need to make a note of grassroot NGOs, consult them in understanding their problems and not restrict themselves to take inputs from rich corporate foundations. If corporations wish NGOs to carry out impact assessment and social audit of their contributions, then they need to fund it. As of now it is not clear if Section 135 can fund this activity. Further, measurement of social impact requires good research skills. In this regard there is a need to


30

disseminate social impact measurement tools and develop capacities of both NGOs as well as corporate executives. It was proposed that IICA should conduct some training programme where there is adequate participation of both corporate and NGOs to clarify their expectations from each other. This will facilitate meaningful partnerships. NGOs as well as social enterprises need lot of support in the areas of incorporating sound management systems. Hence there is a need to promote employee volunteerism besides funding support. It was suggested that IICA should use its good office to see that employee volunteerism is promoted effectively. Company representatives expressed the need to identify credible NGOs for partnering. A concern over here was should companies select NGOs purely on legal credibility or performance credibility or any other parameters. In this context, IICA may consider providing a database of credible NGOs or give clarity with regard to what amounts to credible NGOs. 3.4 Support to Social Enterprises & Social Entrepreneurs In the context of the paradigm shift of NGOs operational models shifting towards developing entrepreneurial responses to address social issues, it was felt that corporations have a lot more to offer to the NGO sector besides funding support. The sector is witnessing growth of both for profit and not for profit social enterprises which address issues of the BoP market. In this context it is important now for the CSR committee to see how their corporations can extend support to NGOs who are developing entrepreneurial responses to meet the unmet need in the area of health, education, energy and so on either by helping them to develop robust business models, or providing market support or by through other means. The discussions at the Roundtable also indicated that in the context of India moving towards market based economy it is important to promote social innovations. While there is lot of social innovation happening for the elite market, there is a need to promote social innovations which address the problems of the poor. In view of this companies should promote setting up incubators in Universities, provide angel investment support to young students and help them to set up social business. It was proposed that IICA should work with Unltd India and Villgro and enable companies to support those NGOs which are promoting social enterprises through their incubation support. 3.5 Manpower The IICA representative highlighted that compulsory corporate social responsibility is likely to increase the demand for professionals in this field by as much as 50 percent in the coming years and the industry is likely to see at least 50,000 more job opportunities in the CSR sector. Around 8,000 companies would fall under the Companies Act's ambit and this in turn would open a host of new job opportunities for individuals looking to work in the social development field. To develop a class


31

of CSR professionals, IICA is in the near future offering a Certificate Course in CSR through its 15 partners including NMIMS. In the above context, the delegates proposed to IICA to make the details available at the earliest. Conclusion: The Roundtable served to unfold various issues related to CSR and Social Entrepreneurship. The real challenge lies ahead with regard to how to ensure that we make this law work for our nation’s growth and development. As the implementation begins, IICA will have to diligently monitoring the dynamics at the execution level. The deliberations and the discussions at the Roundtable can help IICA, NMIMS and all other organizations to take steps to see that the social inclusion agenda incorporated in the law with good intentions should give substantial results. Finally to aptly conclude social inclusion is only a small part of CSR. Corporations in India should look at CSR from a 360 degree perspective- including their business processes, people & planet policies, regulations and compliance.


32

ANNEXURES

I. Pre-read: Promoting Social Entrepreneurship

through CSR

II. Programme Schedule

III. List of Participants, Speakers & Others

IV. List of Social Responsibility Forum

Volunteers(SRF)


33

Annexure I

Promoting Social Entrepreneurship through CSR

22nd January, 2014 Mumbai


34

Promoting Social Entrepreneurship through CSR3

1. Context India today has emerged as the second largest and the fastest-growing economy in the world. If one looks at contemporary India from an alternate lens, a more critical and more censorious—story appears. Dreze J & Sen A (2011) in their essay on ‘Putting Growth In Its Place’ highlight, “The progress of living standards for common people, as opposed to a favoured minority, has been dreadfully slow—so slow that India’s social indicators are still abysmal. According to World Bank data, only five countries outside Africa (Afghanistan, Bhutan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and Yemen) have a lower “youth female literacy rate” than India. To take some other examples, only four countries (Afghanistan, Cambodia, Haiti, Myanmar and Pakistan) do worse than India in child mortality rate; only three have lower levels of “access to improved sanitation” (Bolivia, Cambodia and Haiti); and none (anywhere—not even in Africa) have a higher proportion of underweight children. Almost any composite index of these and related indicators of health, education and nutrition would place India very close to the bottom in a ranking of all countries outside Africa.” India’s poor social performance is resultant of its lack of political will, poor governance and misplaced priorities and policies. For India to stay fit to fight for global economic dominion, it will have to first address its social concerns. India’s deep-seated and multi-faceted problems need more than the intervention of government, non-profits and international agencies. The proliferation of economic and social crises in the current era is an indication of the limits of an irrational economic system. It is in this context social entrepreneurship emerges as a viable and practical option for addressing the issues of marginalised communities and developing pro poor solutions in an innovative manner (Nelson, 2013). Social enterprises like Grameen Bank, SEWA, Annapurna Mahila Mandal, Creative Handicrafts, Sarvajaal, SELCO, provide innovative products and services at affordable price points, create livelihoods, and also engage the economically disadvantaged as producers and clients. 1.1. Conceptual Clarity In 1998, when Gregory Dees wrote his seminal article on “The Meaning of 'Social Entrepreneurship’", the term was still novel. He stated that Social entrepreneurship is "a phrase well suited to our times”, combining the "passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination” (cited in Schumpeter, 2013). What differentiates social entrepreneurship from the conventional entrepreneurship is the purpose. While conventional entrepreneurship is economically driven, social entrepreneurship creates social value. In the context of increasing social challenges and rising social innovations to deal with them, Dees (2001, p4) observed, " Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:

• Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value),

• Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,

3 Working paper developed by Meena Galliara, Jasani Center for Social Entrepreneurship & Sustainability Management, School of Business Management, NMIMS, Mumbai.


35

• Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning,

• Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and

• Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.

This implies that social entrepreneurship is the process of applying business-like, innovative approaches to social problems to make a difference. A social enterprise is oriented towards solving social problems, through a mechanism that works on economic principles, and requires reinvesting the surplus achieved in order to ensure sustainability. Traditionally, a not-for-profit entity or non-government organization (NGO) got grants for various socially relevant projects and implemented them. But, with grants drying up and an increasing number of social impact venture capitalists reinforcing their demands on NGOs to create financial sustainability gave rise to create hybrid models. A “hybrid” model combines the social welfare logic of a nonprofit and the commercial logic of a for-profit business. When hybrids work, they can be a fantastically creative means of solving real-world problems in totally self-sustaining ways, harnessing the strengths of both for-profit and nonprofit models (Blanding, 2013). Transitions towards hybrid models are more visible when poor families are willing to pay a small fee for services - say health care, education, agri inputs, vocational skill training; or when there is a market for goods produced by people at the bottom of the pyramid like low cost housing, alternate energy products, potable water and so on. Social enterprise is the blanket term for businesses with primarily social objectives. These include NGOs having trading arms/divisions, fair trade organizations, social firms, cooperatives and so on. When cooperatives undertake entrepreneurial activities to resolve social issues for the vulnerable communities they are termed as social businesses for instance Grammen Bank, Amul Dairy, SEWA promoted Cooperatives and so on. 1.1aSocial Business The Yunus Social Business School defines, “Social Business as a non-dividend company created to solve a social problem. Like an NGO, it has a social mission, but like a business, it generates its own revenues to cover its costs. While investors may recoup their investment, all further profits are reinvested into the same or other social businesses” (yunussb.com,n.d). This implies that a social business is a cause-driven business to resolve social/environmental issues. The venture must have a business model which helps in achieving social impact and financial sustainability over a period of time. Investors can gradually recoup the money invested, but cannot take any dividend beyond that point. The second kind of social business is a profit-making company owned by poor people, either directly or through a Trust, that is dedicated to a predefined social cause and profits that flow to poor people to


36

help in alleviating poverty. Such a form of business, by its very definition, helps in solving social problems and should be considered as an integral component of social business (Nishith Desai Associates, 2013). 1.2. Legal Status & Components Social entrepreneurs are commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, but this need not preclude making profit. Social entrepreneurship is more individually driven either modelled on for-profit or not-for-profit initiatives. As far as the legal status of social enterprise is concerned they can be registered as not for- profits or for-profits. Social enterprises registered as for profit entity aim to build a profitable business in addition to creating a social impact. All social enterprises/ social businesses irrespective of their legal status have following three components:

1. It caters to excluded, marginalized and vulnerable population that lacks financial means or political clout to achieve any transformative benefit on its own;

2. Identifies an opportunity in the unjust equilibrium by developing a social value proposition; and

3. It forges a new, stable equilibrium that releases trapped potential or alleviates the suffering of the targeted group, and through imitation and the creation of a stable ecosystem around the new equilibrium ensuring a better future for the targeted group and even society at large.

1.3. Types of Social Entrepreneurs Hari (2013) highlights that, “Social entrepreneurs, those who start social enterprises, can be broadly classified into three categories based on their background. The first type would comprise an entrepreneur or people who are actually from the BoP. An entrepreneur of this type wishes to create a change in the society and his conviction comes from having been a part of the problems that the social enterprise seeks to address. Founders of Bangalore-based Snehadeep Trust for the Disabled are three visually impaired individuals who wish to address problems which are similar to what they faced in life through their social enterprise”(p2). Similarly SEWA-promoted cooperative businesses in India are based on cooperation, collaboration, teambuilding and collective leadership of women at the bottom of the pyramid (BoP). The author further states that, “The second type is one who has had a successful career in the past, and is financially well off. The objective of starting a social enterprise for such an entrepreneur is to contribute something back to the society Bangalore-based Janaagraha is an example of this. The third type is the one who is in the early stage of the professional career or is a first generation entrepreneur who identifies a business opportunity in the social sector and enters this space as social entrepreneur on the expectation of good commercial returns (p2). For instance Sehat, low cost medical pharmacy falls in this category. A little over a decade various social enterprises, in India have sprawled up to address the issues of food security, housing shortages, livelihood support, energy, health care, low cost education, water & sanitation and so on. (Refer to Exhibit 1 in the Annexure for sector specific examples)


37

1.4. Funding Recognizing the positive impact of social enterprises, governments have begun to contribute towards fostering the sector. In India, for instance, there are at least three large federal sources for financial assistance: (a) Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART); (b) Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI); and(c) National Innovation Fund (NFI). There are some organizations like Michael & Susan Dell Foundation which was earlier working only on the grants model, but has now started making equity investments in the organizations that they support. Such organizations, which have been supporting the social sector for long by means of grants, have started adopting the venture style of investing to make their investments more effective. With growing social capitalism, impact investing is picking up pace in India. As the idea of social businesses has gained traction in recent years, more funding has become available to invest in market based solutions to some of the most pressing social issues. The most popular venture capital (VC) funds are Aavishkaar, Lok Capital, Acumen Fund, Bellwether, Grassroots, Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, Omidyar Networks, Oasis Fund, Gray Matters Capital and Unitus among others. VC funds specializing in social sector investments have their own preferences in balancing social returns and financial returns. The Rockefeller Foundation reports that, impact investing is set to grow at an annual pace of 30 percent. India is the second-largest market for impact investing after the US, with USD 500 million worth of investments made in 2012 alone (Moneycontrol.com, 2013). Omidyar Network, is looking to invest $200 million in for-profit and non-profit organizations across India in the next three to five years. On the other hand, Gray Ghost Ventures plans to invest $60 million in the country over the next five years. The Rockefeller Foundation recently provided a $480,000 grant to Dasra as part of its commitment to develop the Indian impact investing industry and unlock more impact capital originating from within the country. Besides, it has given a grant of $200,000 to Villgro Innovations Foundation towards the costs of its social entrepreneur and enterprise development programme, which trains early-stage social entrepreneurs to refine their business model and scale their social impact to create positive benefits for poor or vulnerable people in India (Singh, 2013). 1.5. Nurturing & Scaling up Issues a) Access to capital A social enterprise that registers as a non-profit cannot access equity capital markets because it cannot legally sell ownership stakes to investors. But if a hybrid incorporates as a for-profit, it cannot offer the same tax benefits to donors as registered nonprofits can, even if these approaches lead to the most effective social solution. Further complicating the choice is the reality that entrepreneurs cannot fully anticipate their future resource needs at the time legal registration choices are made, and thus risk being prematurely locked in to one sector or the other. `Investing in Readiness: Growing Early Stage Social Businesses’, a report published by Dasra highlights that, “In the last few years, social venture capital firms have been instrumental in providing risk capital and support to early - stage small social ventures. However, there is a growing need for more risk -taking, longer -term capital, grants to fund proof-of-concept and cheaper uncollateralized loans for working capital.”(Dasra, n.d,p 7). According to Beyond Profit Social Enterprise, fifty per


38

cent of the social ventures did not find funding due to lack of firmly established business models, lack of fund raising knowledge, inability to find likeminded investors, and a lack of investors who were willing to fund start-ups (cited in Dasra, n.d, p2). Availability of the appropriate type of funding is a key challenge to scale up social enterprises (Walji, 2011). b) Dilemma An entrepreneur seeking to create a social enterprise faces a difficult and often confusing dilemma. If the organization becomes a non-profit, selling products or services, it may have to pay tax on revenues associated with those activities and it could also lose its tax-exempt status if the activities are sufficiently disconnected from its primary charitable purpose. Yet, if the organization becomes a for-profit, it may be discouraged from pursuing social impact by the pressures of competitive markets as well as fiduciary responsibilities that generally prioritize profit maximization over other concerns. In other words, social entrepreneurs can claim the organizational benefits of only one of the multiple forms of value they create.

c) Market Linkages A social entrepreneur needs the right market linkages and connections in addition to getting the capital. Basic infrastructure and access to relevant information is also another area of concern for social entrepreneurs. These require to be strengthened in the ecosystem to increase the effectiveness of social enterprises (Agarwal, 2013).

d) Manpower As social enterprises/ social business begins to do well there is a need to expand the team. Therefore it is critical to get the best possible manpower at a reasonable cost. This becomes an area of concern. Getting the right talent to work, with appropriate ideologies to work at reasonable cost is challenging. II CSR as a Value Proposition Despite the recent surge in the number of social enterprises, the section of BoP being served by these enterprises is still very small. This in itself suggests the need for scaling-up existing social enterprises as well as nurturing more social innovations. Neither of this will be possible without the right type of mentoring and capital support. In this context there appears to be a strategic fit between the mandated corporate agenda of promoting inclusive growth through promotion of social business. Schedule VII, associated with Clause 1354

4 Section 135 states CSR activities shall include: eradication of hunger and poverty, promotion of education, promoting gender equality and women empowerment, reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, combating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, employment enhancing vocational skills, social business projects, contribution to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The Act mandates companies to spend at least 2% of their three-year average annual net profit towards CSR activities. Companies having net worth of at least Rs500 crore or having minimum turnover of Rs1,000 crore or those with at least net profit of Rs5 crore, have to make CSR spend.In case the firms are unable to spend the money, they have to provide reasons and disclose the same. The regulation makes it mandatory for the

of Companies Act, 2013 has directed corporations to undertake social business projects.


39

The new legal framework facilitates corporations to nurture and sustain the process of promoting social innovation and social business. In order to address social issues through market oriented approaches there is a need for providing a full spectrum of financial support (from grants to returns-based capital) to social entrepreneurs. In this context corporations have a significant role to play by not only providing financial support but also technical, managerial and resource based support to all types of social enterprises. The preceding paragraphs make an attempt to discuss this aspect. 2.1. Incubation Support Social businesses/ enterprises rely heavily on innovations. Social entrepreneurs and corporate executives can jointly develop innovations in identifying and developing new products, services, processes, inputs or markets. In this context corporations can consider nurturing the entrepreneurial idea through provision of incubation support to social entrepreneurs. In fact, the Finance Minister, Mr. Chidambaram, reaffirmed this idea in his 2013-14 budget speech by stating that, “now funds provided to technology incubators located within academic institutions and approved by the Ministry of Science and Technology or Ministry of Medium and Small Enterprises will qualify as CSR expenditure” (Union Budget 2013-14: Full text of P Chidambaram's budget speech, 2013).This is great news for budding social entrepreneurs.

2.2. Financial Support India is seeing many social enterprises emerge, looking to tackle some of the issues that were traditionally concerns of the non-profit sector. CSR funds5

could be used to provide the seed-stage grant capital to social entrepreneurs. This funding could help spur social enterprises in innovating and proving their business model.

Large corporations can channel their CSR funds into energy and water projects managed by social enterprises. For example, Shell Foundation provided early-stage grants to Husk Power Systems which allowed the enterprise to fund R&D and proto-typing of the rice-husk-powered generators. The Foundation has also set up Project Dharma6

Directors of the company to supervise these spends and to set up a CSR committee to plan, strategize, implement, document and disclose the activities. Failure to comply could lead to consequences

, a last mile distribution network and Intellegrow to provide debt financing to social enterprises (NvIndia.biz, 2014).

5 Registered companies in India are likely to spend Rs.18,000 crore on CSR activities ( Malik 2013). 6 Project Dharma was started in 2009 to serve the needs of rural households at the BoP by creating a rural distribution network providing customized products and services sold at a socially affordable price point. The company provides income generation opportunities for rural entrepreneurs and consumers in order to generate sustainable livelihoods at the rural level. Currently, Project Dharma has about 400 Village-Level Entrepreneurs (VLEs) in Maharashtra, some parts of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh.


40

The Vodafone Foundation Mobile for Good Awards has announced a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs to support the development of mobile applications in the area of health, education, governance and business inclusion, to foster opportunities in communities. In addition to financial support, award winners will be provided guidance for project scale-up and expansion in core and related areas of their work (Lightreading.in,2013). Corporations can advise social entrepreneurs in procuring funds from other sources such as banks and social investors. 2.3. Mentoring Support Corporations have competence and the capacity to see market potential, make viable business plans, understand different functional aspects like marketing, human resource management and supply chain issues. When corporations fund social enterprises, it is important for them to know these entrepreneurs may lack in business expertise required to create social impact and financial sustainability. To mitigate this challenge, corporations when investing in social enterprises must take on a significant advisory role. In some cases, the ventures run NGOs or are first-generation social entrepreneur who may not be market or operations-savvy. In this context corporate executives can develop capacities of the social entrepreneurs and their teams to develop a well defined business model. For instance, Deutsche Bank, through their employee volunteers have developed a software to evaluate the social and financial implications of individual business ideas, in addition to visiting and supporting social entrepreneurs. (Deutsche Bank Responsibility, 2013). Corporations also need to act as advisors because the markets for many socially focused ventures are still evolving. There is a need to continuously innovate to satisfy consumer demands. Strategic inputs and guidance in the areas of conducting market research and business intelligence to understand the market needs, size and behaviour can go a long way in sustaining and scaling up social enterprises. For instance Sarvajal, a social enterprise founded by the Piramal Foundation is working on viable mass-market solutions to India’s water crisis (Avantageventures.com, n.d). It has successfully turned innovative ideas into products and services on a larger scale benefiting thousands with potable water. Similarly Husk Power System (HPS) is an innovative social enterprise that promotes decentralised power generation and distribution to remote villages of India. The platform is a biomass gasification technology that converts rice husks into combustible gases that can drive generators to produce electricity. Running on an environmentally friendly model, HPS ensures sustainable electricity to even the most remote parts of the country (Huskpowersystems.com, 2014). Both these organisations are constantly updating themselves on the BoP customer behaviour and adapting their business models to suit new markets.


41

2.4. Market Support Large corporations with household products, agricultural commodities and farm equipment have created vast marketing and distribution networks extending across several states in India. On the other hand, smaller social enterprises with operations focusing on a few districts or states have created last mile networks. Large corporations and social enterprises can leverage their respective networks to support each other. For instance HUL & Bajaj Electricals partner with SEWA Rudi7

to extend their reach to the markets. Similarly large corporates can purchase products and services manufactured by social enterprises and provide them with market support. For instance, Envirofit, an improved cook stove company works with cement companies such as ACC and UltraTech Cement, where the cement companies purchase energy products for the families of workers and local communities and support the social enterprise. (NvIndia.biz, 2014).

2.5. Corporate Gain Corporations also stand to benefit by partnering with social enterprises. For instance technology leaders with renewable energy and clean water solutions have now started developing appropriate technology for the mass market. They are partnering with social enterprises to take these technologies and products to the market. Fullerton India for example is partnering with E-Hands Energy to power up its rural branches with solar wind systems. Using E-Hands Energy’s products/solutions, Fullerton India has powered 12 branches, as of July 2013 (NvIndia.biz, 2014). Companies can well leverage social enterprises to plan their community and environmental improvement programmes, as part of complying Clause 135 of Companies Act, 2013. Businesses can shape their CSR policy to collaborate with social entrepreneurs and engage them in designing innovative solutions to address their social/environmental concerns in their immediate geographies. III Agenda Ahead Both social enterprise movement as well as the CSR movement, seek to build a “better” world. Social entrepreneurship aims at reformulation of the current economic order, by combining inclusive humanitarian ideals with the principles, practices, and logic of modern capitalism. In this context it is important to note that the concept of social entrepreneurship is focussed both on mission and entrepreneurship. From this perspective through CSR route corporates can leverage multiple resources to develop social businesses. The new legal mandate for promoting inclusive growth through CSR has potentials to develop cross sector partnerships to facilitate social innovations and sustain social enterprises. However it is important to note that for any type of partnership to be effective, its participants must undergo a kind of cultural shift toward mutuality. Without such mutuality, our so called partnerships amongst diverse interest will remain mere expressions of our good intentions, declarations of partnerships and not partnerships in fact (Galliara, 2000).

7 SEWA Rudi Multi Trading Company Limited was established in 2004 with the twin objectives of facilitating a linkage between poor rural farmers and rural consumers, and promoting internal generation of funds in villages. The organisation unites two parties, marginalised small and medium farmers and rural consumers, who were deprived of better quality products owing to the intermediaries who charged hefty margins, making products costlier for them.


42

The need to scale up social businesses or enterprises is very real, but much work lies ahead. We will require innovations in legal status of social businesses, professional training, and capital financing. At the field level, a critical step will be the development of measurement and reporting systems that recognize both social and financial value. The development of this ecosystem cannot be left to any individual organization; rather, it will require the creation of new systems by elected officials, policymakers, social impact investors, educators, and consumers who have the potentials to lift up a generation of social entrepreneurs.

References Agarwal A. (2013). Strengthening the impact investing ecosystem. In Rajan T (Ed), India venture capital and private equity report (pp 30). Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai Avantageventures.com. (n.d.). Sarvajal. Retrieved from: http://www.avantageventures.com/avcatalogue/sv-sarvajal Blanding, M. (2013, 12 August). Hybrid’ organizations a difficult bet for entrepreneurs. Harvard Business School, Newsletter.Retrieved from: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7284.html Dasra.(n.d). Investing in readiness: Growing early stage social businesses: Final report for the Villgro research project. Retrieved from http://www.dasra.org/sites/default/files/Investing%20in%20Readiness_Growing%20Early%20Stage%20Social%20Businesses.pdf Dees, J. 2001. The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. Retrieved from http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_SE.pdf Deutsche Bank Responsibility.(2013). Be! Fund: Promoting social entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://www.db.com/cr/en/concrete-be-fund-supports-social-enterprises.htm Dnaindia.com. (2014). Union Budget 2013-14: Full text of P Chidambaram's budget speech. DNA. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-union-budget-2013-14-full-text-of-p-chidambaram-s-budget-speech-1805698 [ Dreze,J & Sen, A. (2011). In putting growth in its place.Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278843 Galliara, M. 2000. Sahaveeryam: Manual for Managing & Sustaining Partnerships for Sustainable Development. New Delhi: Business & Community Foundation Hari S. (2013). Social enterprises and impact investments: Overview. In Rajan T (Ed), India venture capital and private equity report (pp1-15). Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai http://blogs.worldbank.org/dmblog/the-missing-middle-and-the-growth-of-social-enterprises


43

Huskpowersystems.com.(2014). Husk power systems. Retrieved from: http://www.huskpowersystems.com/ Lightreading.in. (2013). Vodafone announces 'mobile for good' awards - light reading – India telecom news, telecommunication news. Retrieved from: http://www.lightreading.in/lightreadingindia/news-wire-feed/156314/vodafone-announces-mobile-awards [Accessed: 15 Jan 2014]. Malik, A. (2013, August 21). Tax rules on csr remain a grey area, say analysts. Live Mint. Retrieved from: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/N5wHVTldTzwF3TA5upVoHM/Tax-rules-on-CSR-remain-a-grey-area-say-analysts.html Moneycontrol.com. (2013). How impact investing could affect biz in India. Retrieved from: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/how-impact-investing-could-affect-bizindia_844508.html Nelson J.(2013, July 1). India needs ‘business as unusual’ to solve its massive development problems.(Web log) Retrived from http://billionbulbs.com/ Nishith Desai & Associates. (2013). Corporate social responsibility & social business models in India: Aa legal & tax perspective. Retrieved from http://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Research Papers/Corporate_Social_Responsibility___Social_Business_Models_in_India.pdf NvIndia.biz. (2014). New ventures India - partnerships for clean energy and water. Retrieved from: http://www.nvindia.biz/resources-corporatepartnerships.html Schumpeter. (2013,December 24, 2013). Social capitalist. Schumpeter Business and Management, Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/12/gregory-dees Singh N. (2013, June 10). India takes centre stage in impact investing. The Times of India Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-10/india-business/39871955_1_social-impact-impact-investing-philanthropic-investment-firm

Union Budget 2013-14: Full text of P Chidambaram's budget speech. (2013, Feb 28). DNA.Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-union-budget-2013-14-full-text-of-p-chidambaram-s-budget-speech-1805698 Walji A. (2011, July 11). The “Missing Middle” and the Growth of Social Enterprises. Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/dmblog/the-missing-middle-and-the-growth-of-social-enterprises Yunussb.com.(n.d).What is social business. Retrieved from http://www.yunussb.com/social-business/


44

Annexure

Exhibit 1

Social Enterprise Landscape: Few Examples

Social Enterprise Activities Impact

Health Narayan Hospital, India

Delivering affordable healthcare to the masses worldwide.

5000 bed facility completed in Phase I

Vatsalya Health Care & Hospital Network

Building primary and secondary care hospitals in semi-urban and rural areas. Provision of a pharmacy & diagnostic centre in each hospital.

Vaatsalya is now the largest hospital network serving so-called tier-II and tier-III cities and towns in India, providing primary healthcare to 400,000 patients who previously had scant access to affordable medical treatment.

Arvind Eye Hospital Eliminating needless blindness by taking its services to rural India

In last year alone 2.5 million patients were treated and over 3 lakh surgeries were performed.

Swasth India Swasth clinics are located in low income housing areas (e.g. slums) in Mumbai. They act as the first point of call for all health related matters in the community. Swasth offers primary, secondary, preventive and promotive healthcare.

The Swasth Health Centers directly impact around 20,000 people visiting as patients. The Community Outreach Programme indirectly impacts another 30,000 people in the vicinity.

FORUS 3netra Innovation driven health care company. 3nethra low cost pre-screening ophthalmic solution that can identify common eye problems.

The system provides an automated “Normal" or "Need to See a Doctor" diagnosis report, which is useful especially during early onset of an eye disease when patients do not experience any perceptible symptoms. The system also connects primary care centers to secondary or tertiary care centers over telemedicine for remote diagnosis. Moreover the device is low-cost and hence greatly reduces direct and indirect cost of screening, making it available to rural populations.


45

Micro Finance Social Enterprise Activities Impact

A Little World- Zero Mass Foundation

Empowering micro business through micro banking.

ZERO is a popular end-to-end technology driven platform for branchless banking, with plug and play access for banks to rollout their services and, hence increase their outreach. This would make banking, insurance and other such services reach the un-banked population, which is otherwise unfeasible for the institutions to provide directly. Customer base crosses 3 million.

Bhartiya Samruddhi Fnance Limited ( BSFL)

BSFL has adopted the "Livelihood Triad" strategy through which the company also provides Agricultural & Business Development Services to about one third of its customers through Livelihood Service Providers (LSPs) and Institutional Development Services for producers like Multi aided cooperative society for cotton producers, dairy cooperatives.

As of May 2012 the NBFC had a presence in 33,226 villages in 155 districts spread over eighteen States. It cumulatively disbursed over 3,369,914 loans worth Rs.42,834 million

Manndeshi Mahila Sahakari Bank

Micro credit & savings Mann Deshi bank has over 165,000 clients, mainly milk and vegetable vendors, goat and sheep rearers’ leather traders, and farm workers. The bank has managed to spawn 100,000 successful women entrepreneurs.

SKS Microfinance Small loans without collaterals 5.3 Million customers

Livelihood Shrujan.. Threads of Life

Gives employment and training to village women in embroidery in Kutch, Gujarat It does this by making high quality fashion and interior design products using the various exquisite styles of embroidery for which Kutch is famous.

Provides employment to 2500 women from 85 villages in Kutch

Asha Handicrafts- Fair Trade Organisation

Asha helps eliminate producer debt through direct purchases and advance payments. Producer benefits include educational assistance for children,

Reaches out to 6500 artisans in 10 States


46

medical checkups and treatment,

Creative Handicrafts Has income generating program for slum women through its 12 cooperatives which produces garments and lunch packets. Also provides primary education, primary health, sponsorship program for education of children, saving and credit groups for women, adult education etc in the slum communities of Mumbai

Provides economic empowerment to over 15000 women in the slum community

Social Enterprise Activities Impact Rangsutra Crafts India Pvt. Ltd.

Sustainable livelihoods for artisans and farmers, by creating top quality hand-made products based on the principles of fair trade

Approximate 2500 artisans

Sewa Rudi Ltd Multi trading company for agri products, market linkage support

RUDI currently buys produce at market prices from 7 000 farmers and employs as many as 5 000 women in its supply chain. RUDI enables rural women to access markets, produce quality goods, generate employment, enhance food security, and become economically empowered.

Bangalore Green Kraft Producer Company Pvt Ltd

Green Kraft is wholly owned and managed by artisans. Increase the production capacity of apparels, furnishings and enable the groups to collectively compete with mass production required for businesses across all channels

Out of its 151 members, 70% are women

Lijjat Papad The cooperative has established new models for community development and poverty reduction by engaging women in income generation activities

4600 women employed

Agriculture

Agrocel Working with farmers for producing organic products

Has farming networks of over 45,000 farmers, growing cotton and associated system crops across India. Land under cotton, and other crops, is now around 45,500 acres


47

Suminter India Organics

Works with farmers for developing non perishable organic products & organic cotton and market support

Premium crop price to more than 7000 farmers

Akruti Agricultural Associates (AAI)

AAI’s Agricultural Knowledge Centres’ transfer new agricultural techniques, success stories, market news, demonstrations, and new inventions to farmers

Each knowledge centre covers approximately 15 villages and provides information services to farmers at their doorstep

Janani Agriserve IT enabled Agri Service venture. Provides end to end support for supply chain for farmers

Janani farmers earn an extra USD 200 per acre in the form of reduction in cost, improved quality and therefore better yield and price.

Staragri End-to-end solution provider in warehousing, procurement, collateral management of agri-commodities.

Reaches out to more than 50,000 farmers in India

Vocational Training

Social Enterprise Activities Impact Barefoot College Solar energy, water, education, health

care, rural handicrafts, people’s action, communication, women’s empowerment and wasteland development

1,000 Barefoot experts in 1,000 villages, reaches 500,000 people with basic services such as drinking water, health care, and education.

Energy

D light High quality solutions for families living without reliable electricity ( Solar & Led Technology based solutions)

Caters to 10 million people

Husk Power System Uses a biomass gasification based proprietary electricity generation process that generates electricity using 100% producer gas based system (“single fuel mode”). It distributes electricity directly to households and small businesses while keeping costs low by running insulated wires along bamboo poles to subscribing households, businesses and farms

HPS currently has 75 operational plants in Bihar serving more than 150,000 people. HPS extends villagers’ activities beyond daylight hours, promoting economic development and microenterprise; reduces indoor air pollution, improving health; increases the time children can study, improving education; reduces the amount of time women spend collecting firewood, increasing gender equality; and reduces emissions, protecting global


48

and local environments. Husk Power System Uses a biomass gasification based

proprietary electricity generation process that generates electricity using 100% producer gas based system (“single fuel mode”). It distributes electricity directly to households and small businesses while keeping costs low by running insulated wires along bamboo poles to subscribing households, businesses and farms

HPS currently has 75 operational plants in Bihar serving more than 150,000 people. HPS extends villagers’ activities beyond daylight hours, promoting economic development and microenterprise; reduces indoor air pollution, improving health; increases the time children can study, improving education; reduces the amount of time women spend collecting firewood, increasing gender equality; and reduces emissions, protecting global and local environments

Selco Solar India Sustainable energy solutions and services to under-served households and businesses.

95,000 villages covered

Vortex Engineering Rural Solar Powered ATMs 750 ATM

Children in Need of Protection & Education Childline Country’s first toll-free tele helpline

for street children in distress 9.6 million calls, 3 million children, 73 cities, 10 years

Rumi Educational Services

Low cost education solutions to schools: curriculum, teacher training, pedagogy

Worked with 50,000 students in last 2 years, across 26 cities spread across 8 States

Butterfly Edu Fields Pvt Ltd

Innovative Teaching Aids to Schools The company also provides E-Learning, an online tool that offers content, online quizzes, and assessment tests; and Mini Science Center, a place where children experiment, solve problems, and make and test things. In addition, it offers student workshops, which include year long programs, hobby and module based workshops, and vacation camps; and learning aids for mathematics, sciences, and social subjects.

Social Enterprise Activities Impact Hole in the Wall Subsidiary of NIIT

Computer Access in Open Fields Minimally Invasive Education

Students in communities with Hole-in-the-Wall Learning Stations acquired computer literacy of 43.07% over a period of nine-months. Students’ test scores improved in all academic categories, especially math. Children with access to Hole-in-the-Wall out-performed students formally


49

enrolled in computer classes on computer-related skills

Water & Sanitation Shramik Sanitation Systems (3S India)

Designs, manufactures, and deploys portable toilets and waste disposal system across urban agglomerations that have no water supply or sewage system

Today, 3s reaches almost all of India and many parts of the globe. They annually manage 155 million litres of liquid waste and help save over 104 million litres of fresh water.

Waterlife Installing and maintaining water purification plants that purify water from various sources such as surface water (lakes and ponds), ground water, and pressurized flows (municipal supplies) in each village

Waterlife built its first water purification plant in West Bengal, which has one of the highest rates of waterborne diseases in India. The company then expanded to Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu and today has 1,700 water purification plants in seven states.

Sarvajal Develop market based models for providing clean drinking water at the base of the pyramid using ATM

More than 8.8 Billion litres of clean drinking water served, 100,000 served daily in over 6 states, 400+ jobs that encourage safe water practices in local communities.

Citizen Service COMAT Empowering rural citizens by creating

local economics and enabling access to information and services

Deliver Citizen records and Government benefits to over 50,000 rural citizens every day.


50

ANNEXURE II Programme Schedule

IICA Round Table Series 2014 : CSR As A Value Proposition for Promoting Social Entrepreneurship

Jan 22, 2014 Venue : Juhu Jagruti Hall, First Floor, Mithibai College Building, V.L. Mehta Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400

056 Inaugural Session: 9.30 -10. 30 am Dr. S Parsuraman, Director, TISS, Mr. Ketan Shah, NFCSR- Advisory Committee Member Dr. Debashis Sanyal, Dean, School of Business Management, NMIMS

Tea Break : 10.30-11.00a.m Session I : 11.00am-12.00 noon Social Entrepreneurship Promotion: Challenges and Opportunities in context of the New Companies Act 2013 Moderator: Dr. Meena Galliara, Jasani Center, SBM, NMIMS Mr. Vinay Somani, Founder, Karmayog Mr. P. Pradeep, Partner & Executive Director Founder Aavishkar Investments Mr. S K. Shelgikar, Founder Chairman Yunus Social Business School Session II: 12.00-1.15 p.m Social Entrepreneurship: Good Practices for Addressing Gaps

Moderator: Dr. Sujata Mukherjee, Jasani Center, SBM, NMIMS

Mr. Dhruv Lakra, Founder & CEO, Mirakle Courier Mr. Sundeep Kapila, Co-Founder, Swasth Health Services Ms Ami Shroff, Project Director, Shrujan Mr. Tushar Goghia, Social Impact Manager, Dasra

Lunch & Networking ( 1.15 PM – 2.15 PM) Session III : 2.15 to 3.30 p.m Role of Cross Sector Partnerships for Promotion of Social Entrepreneurship

Moderator : Ms Priya Naik, Founder Samhita Ventures Ms. Gaynor Pais, CEO, International Resources for Fairer Trade Ms Anagha Mahajani, Dy GM (CSR) Ambuja Cements Mr. Mangesh Gupte, Head, CSR, ACC Ltd Mr. Ramdas Dhumale, State Coordinator ( HR) Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission Mr. Suresh Rao, Lead, Corporate Community Relations (CSR), Tata Power Session IV: 3.30 PM – 4.30 pm Promoting Social Innovations for Social Entrepreneurship Moderator : Mr. Nikhil Pant – Chief Programme Executive, National Foundation for CSR Ms. Pooja Warier, Co-Founder & Director, Un Ltd India Ms. Nilima Achwal, Head, SEED Programme ,Villgro Mr. Shalabh Sahai, Co-Founder & Director, iVolunteer, Mitra Initiative Vote of Thanks: 4.30 p.m to 4.45 p.m Dr. Meena Galliara, Jasani Center, SBM, NMIMS 4.45- 5.15pm- Tea & Networking


51

ANNEXURE III

List of Participants

Name Designation & Organization Email 1 Aakash Lonkar Director, Animal Angels Foundation [email protected] 2 Abhirama Motiani –

Kanekar Trustee, Samajik Vikas Kendra – Social Development Centre (SVK-SDC)

[email protected]

3 Abinesh E Student [email protected]

4 Agastya Chopra Head of Marketing, Krishi Star [email protected] 5 Ajinkya Pandey President, Society for Rural Prosperity [email protected] 6 Alexander Kerketta Deputy Director,CII [email protected]

7 Alok Chandrakant Kadam Consultant, Tri Ratana Prerana Mandal [email protected]

8 Amar Damle Samavedana 9 Amit Dhalunde Logistics manager, NITIE

10 Amit Mehta Drishti Outline HRC 11 Ananya Prabhavalkar Visiting faculty, NMIMS [email protected]

12 Anita Chouhan Ex trustee MYKF 13 Anurag Dixit Program Manager, TechnoServe [email protected] 14 Archana Phadke Partner, Career Routes [email protected]

15 Archana Rao Student PtMBA [email protected]

16 Archana Relan Business Executive, BAIF [email protected]

17 Arun Devrukhkhar Secretary, Maulana Abul kalam azad Educational Trust [email protected]

18 Asha G Anchan Director, GAJANI FOUNDATION [email protected] 19 Asha Vaidya President Mitaan sewa samiti [email protected] 20 Ashish Malani Director,MediAceso healthcare Pvt Ltd. [email protected]

21 Ashwini Yadav Student [email protected]

22 Asmita Kulkarni ACC 23 Atul Inamdar Project Officer, Green Energy Foundation [email protected] 24 Bhagwan Kesbhat Campaigner, Greenpeace [email protected]

25 Brajehshkumar Chaudhary Dy. G.M. - CSR Brajeshkumar.Choudhary@sunpharma

.com 26 Bryan Lee Co-founder, Krishi Star [email protected]

27

C. Ramu Director,People's Organisation For Women Education and Rehabilitation Trust

[email protected]

28 Chandrakant Samudre

Sr. Executive, CSR, Tech Mahindra Foundation [email protected]

29 Chandrakant Tambe Jr. Overseer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

[email protected]

30 Charvi Parikh Founder President me2green NGO [email protected]

31 Damayanti Swamikant Manager Shri Sadguru Seva Sangh Trust [email protected]

32 Devika Nadig Co-Founder- Shikshangan [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�













52

33 Dinabandhu Maharana Secretary, Dinabandhu Maharanan [email protected]

34 Freddy Pereira Founder, Trustee Director, Excel Gurukul of Human values Educational Trust [email protected]

35 Gaurav Arora Senior Manager, Centre for Civil Society (CCS) [email protected]

36 Jayshree Parab CEO KARM [email protected]

37 Jegan Tharmaraj Manager(Mumbai), Tech Mahindra Foundation [email protected]

38 Joel Gorge Gren Earth Culture

39

John Sircar

Founding Trustee & Chief Functionary, HELPING HAND FOUNDATION [email protected]

40 Jyoti Subedar Founder Trustee, Drishti Human Resources Centre [email protected]

41 Jyotika Bhatia Director impact,Srujna Charitable Trust [email protected]

42 Kailash Lalchandani Officer-Operations, I Initiate [email protected]

43 Kiran Swaroop Dalani Development Consultant [email protected]

44 Kumar Vivek Student [email protected]

45 Latha Sankarnarayan COO, Green Evangelist [email protected]

46 Mahesh Nimbalkar President,Ajit Foundation [email protected] 47 Malaika K. Student, BMS, NMIMS 48 Mangesh Tayde Manager, Listing Operations,BSE Ltd [email protected]

49 Manish Handa Principle, Conexus Social Responsibility Services Pvt.Ltd. [email protected]

50 Manoj Kumar SOCH Founder [email protected]

51 Mohan Surve

CEO, Vikas Sahayog Pratishthan

[email protected]

52

Mohandas Krishnan Managing Trustee, FUTURE POWER TRUST

[email protected]

53 Naresh Sukhlani Asst Professor, Mithibai College. 54 Neha kapoor Bharadwaj Vice President, YES Bank Ltd [email protected] 55

Neha Zade

Business Executive , Thomson Reuters [email protected]

56 Nikita Nadkarni Independent Development Consultant,self employed [email protected]

57

Nikita R. Narvekar

Teacher Associate, kotak Education Foundation

[email protected]

58 P. SHOBHANA ANAND PROJECT HEAD, Child Help Foundation [email protected]

59 Paresh Padia Senior Manager, Indian Foot and Mouth Painting Artists [email protected]

60 Parin Vitlani AGM Training, Swadhaar [email protected] 61 Pearl Edmund Associate , Karmayog 62 Poonam Bhosle Associate, Human Resources, Door Step [email protected]
















53

School

63 Praful Sali

Administrative Officer, Samajik Vikas Kendra – Social Development Centre (SVK-SDC)

[email protected]

64 Prakash Shah Rotary Club of Bombay West

65 Prasad Modak Executive resident,Environmental Management Center, LLP [email protected]

66 Prasanna Salvi Executive,Conexus Social Responsibility Services, Pvt. Ltd. [email protected]

67 Prathmesh Raorane Assistant Manager-Research, Kotak Education Foundation [email protected]

68 Pravin Patil Co-ordinator, KAI Govindrao Patil Pratishthan [email protected]

69 Pravin Patil Co-ordinator, KAI Govindrao Patil Pratishthan [email protected]

70 Preethi Bhadrannavar Executive, Mastek Foundation [email protected]

71 Preeti Dhalunde Samavedana

72 Prof.Mahesh Thakur Project Director,Ngo resource Centre of kinss (Tech Mahindra) [email protected]

73 Radha Kulkarni Chief Manager-Strategy,Piramal Foundation [email protected]

74 Rahul Chavan Business Manager – Biodiversity and CSR, Terracon Ecotech Pvt. Ltd. [email protected]

75 Rahul Juware Business Executive , Schneider Electric [email protected]

76 Rahul Mallapur Student Volunteer - Humanities Care Foundation [email protected]

77 Rajendra Joshi Green Earth Culture 78 Rajendra S Vidaya Founder & Head, Sita Devi Foundation [email protected] 79 Rajesh kumar Director-business development, Chiva 80 Rajesh Pattani Green Earth culture [email protected] 81 Rohan Chavan Project Coordinator [email protected]

82

Rohit Chaturvedi

Student Volunteer - Humanities Care Foundation

[email protected]

83

Sagar Shinde

Asst Manager-CSR & Sustainability,Green Energy Foundation

84 Samapti Guha Associate Professor, TISS [email protected]

85 Samiullah Khan President, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Education Trust [email protected]

86 Santosh Kasle Chairman, VIJAY KRIDA MANDAL

87 Santosh Phad Co-Founder- ThinkSharp Foundation [email protected] 88 Satyendra Mishra Consultant [email protected]

89 Shabdagandha kulkarni Program Manager, India Beehive [email protected]

90 Shailesh Shinde Business Executive , TCS [email protected]

91 Sharma Shruti Associate Manager, Junior Achievement India [email protected]

92 Shruti Parmar Student [email protected]

93 Shyam Patra Founder & CEO, Naturetech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [email protected]
















54

94 Simi Vij Development Consultant [email protected]

95 Smita Navre Founder Trustee, Drishti Human Resources Centre [email protected]

96 Sneha Shinde Assistant manager Corporate funding, Sightsavers [email protected]

97 Somi Khanna Asssociate, Dasra

98 Sonal Pareek Kaushik Associate Vice-President, Environmental Management Centre LLP [email protected]

99 Sujaya Rai Head -ELP, Sujaya Foundation [email protected]

100 Sukanya Honkote Associate, Swadhaar [email protected] 101 Sundeep Bedi Chief Editorial Architect, Intellectual Post

102 Sunny Pawar Senior Manager, Mini Charitable Foundation [email protected]

103 Suresh Jasani 104 Suresh S Chairman, GAJANI FOUNDATION [email protected] 105 Susaana Cherian Team, Goonj [email protected] 106 Tania Pal Associate Director, Corporate Affairs- CSR [email protected] 107 Tanya Mahajan Karmayog

108 Tapash Chatterjee Secretary, Mitaan Sewa Samiti [email protected]

109 Tina Gandhi Social organization, Mgmt professional, Kadee India [email protected]

110 Umesh Tandel Assist. Project Director, Mukti Sadan Foundation [email protected]

111 Usha Maheshwari Jt. Direcor,Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Indistry [email protected]

112 Vaishali Shah Director , Sustainability,Srujna Charitable Trust [email protected]

113 Vandana Soni SE [email protected]

114 Varsha Parchure Consultant, Parivartan Mahila Sanstha [email protected]

115 Venkat Rolla Group Head - Corporate Social Responsibility RPG Foundation [email protected]

116 Vidya Jayakrishnan Manager (Pune), Tech Mahindra Foundation [email protected] 117 Vijay Gupta Co-Founder- Shikshangan

118 Vijay Krida Mandal Arts, Sports, Educational & Health Centre [email protected]

119 Vijay Sharma Director, Jaipur Zila Vikas Parishad [email protected] 120 Vilas Parave Consultant, KARM [email protected]

121 Vishal Bhanushali Associate Manager, Lodha Group [email protected] 122 Vishnu Patankar Research Fellow [email protected]

123 Yogesh Kumar Student,TISS [email protected]

Speakers

1 Dr S. Parsuraman Director, TISS [email protected]

2. Mr. Ketan Shah NFCSR- Advisory Committee

Member [email protected]

3 Mr. Vinay Somani Founder, Karmayog [email protected] 4 Mr.P. Pradeep Partner & Executive Director

Founder Aavishkar Investments [email protected]

5 Mr. S. K. Shelgikar Founder Chairman Yunus Social

Business School [email protected]





















55

6 Mr. Dhruv Lakra Founder & CEO, Mirakle Courier [email protected]

7 Mr. Sundeep Kapila Co-Founder, Swasth Health

Services [email protected]

8 Ms Ami Shroff Project Director, Shrujan

[email protected]

9 Mr.Tushar Goghia Social Impact Manager, Dasra [email protected] 10

Ms Gaynor Pias CEO, International Resources for Fairer Trade

[email protected]

11 Ms Anagha Mahajani Dy GM (CSR) Ambuja Cements [email protected]

12 Mr. Mangesh Gupte Head, CSR, ACC Ltd [email protected] 13 Mr. Ramdas Dhumale State Coordinator ( HR)

Maharashtra State Rural Livelihood Mission

[email protected]

14 Ms Pooja Warrier Co-Founder & Director, Un Ltd India

[email protected]

15 Ms Nilima Achwal Head, SEED Programme ,Villgro [email protected]

16 Mr. Shalabh Sahai Co-Founder & Director,

iVolunteer, Mitra Initiative [email protected]

Moderators

1 Dr. Meena Galliara NMIMS [email protected]

2 Dr. Sujata Mukherjee NMIMS [email protected]

3 Ms. Priya Naik Samhita Social Ventures [email protected]

4 Mr. Nikhil Pant IICA [email protected]

IICA Representatives

1. Ms Shashikala Singh, Executive, IICA, [email protected]

2. Ms Mayuri Misra, Executive, IICA, [email protected]













56

ANNEXURE IV

LIST OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FORUM VOLUNTEERS

SNo Name Role MBA Year

1 Neha Anna John Host & Registration

MBA(I)

2 Pallavi Agarwal 3 Pooja Lalwani Host & Rapporteur 4 Alo Sanyal 5 Aashish Nakra

Rapporteur 6 Smriti Sahay 7 Gareema Saboo 8 Akshay Kumar

Registration 9 Shruti Mehrotra 10 Anantaya Gupta 11 Abhishek Gulavani

Logistics

12 Parth Bhatt 13 Kush Sharma 14 Devang Mangal 15 Aniket Pallav 16 Abhinay Panati 17 B.S.Swaminathan

Senior Committee Representatives MBA(II) 18 Akanksha Khare 19 Sankalpa Suara

IICA Roundtable Series 2014 - · PDF fileIICA Roundtable Series 2014 . ... Brief Overview &...

Documents

Transcript of IICA Roundtable Series 2014 - · PDF fileIICA Roundtable Series 2014 . ... Brief Overview &...