Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) might seem robust – project-specific clearances, budgets allocated, compliance reports submitted. But is it enough? CER activities, often temporary and packaged, lack long-term vision and moral commitment. They’re driven by project clearance, not genuine environmental stewardship.
Contrast this with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Mandated by law, CSR demands 2% of profits be directed towards social upliftment. It has teeth – penalty clauses and annual reporting hold companies accountable. Plus, CSR embraces direct and indirect interventions, suggesting a more systematic and responsible approach.
So, with seemingly strong frameworks in place, why is the socio-economic aspect of development the neglected stepchild? Why the persistent prioritization of commercial gains over social well-being? This lopsided focus breeds disparity, widening the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”
This raises crucial questions:
Exploring these questions and advocating for a more balanced approach is critical. We need to move beyond mere compliance and towards genuine commitment to improving the lives of those affected by development projects. Only then can we truly bridge the gap between environmental duties and social responsibility, building a future where economic progress benefits all.