Gandhian Trusteeship & CSR: Interrogating the Relationship.

AuthorSharma, Seema
PositionCorporate social responsibility

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is considered an essentially contested concept (Gallie, 1956). CSR has been understood, explained and practised differently across the world. The activities covered under CSR are many a time still justified and contextualized within the philanthropic culture of the society. This is in-spite of the emerging discourse which suggests and pushes CSR towards an ethical commitment. So is also the case in India. CSR as it exists today is often seen to be an offshoot of the philanthropic and charitable activities of the business in the past (Sundar, 2013). The present-day CSR in India, however, is different from the charitable and philanthropic activities of the business in the past. For one, it is mandatory and no more a voluntary and charity-based initiative. Secondly, the boundaries of what may constitute the social responsibility of business have also been broadly delineated by the state. The present-day CSR in India is also often compared with the Gandhian trusteeship; an idea which has its roots in religion just as charity and philanthropy. This paper takes a critical look at trusteeship and its relationship with the present-day CSR in India. The paper is divided into four parts. The first part elaborates on the idea of trusteeship as proposed by Gandhi. The second part contextualizes CSR. Part three aims to delineate the points of commonality and divergence between trusteeship and corporate social responsibility. Part four concludes the discussion.

Gandhian Trusteeship: The Context

To understand the idea of Gandhian trusteeship, one needs to comprehend the socio- political and economic context of the time during which it was proposed. The idea of trusteeship was popularized by Gandhi during India's Independence struggle and it drew its strength from the socio religious traditions of India (Rolnick, 1962). India has had a long tradition of charity which was part of one's dharma and was sanctioned through the religious texts. Thus, it was the duty of the wealthy to be charitable towards the needy and give alms. The rich also facilitated the construction of rest houses, schools, orphanages, wells and other such facilities for public use. This tradition helped to maintain social cohesion in a hierarchical society based on caste principles and facilitated the coexistence of poverty amidst wealth. The religious ideology helped the poor to reconcile with their existing situation while making it the duty of the rich to take care of the poor and the vulnerable (Rolnick, 1962). During the independence struggle, new ideas based on equality and freedom seeped into the Indian society especially after the success of Russian revolution (1917) and the formation of Communist Party of India (1920). Trade union and agrarian movements also gave strength to the waves of social revolution and class struggle aimed at the bourgeoisie and land-owning classes (Rolnick, 1962). The political Independence struggle, however, did not want to alienate the propertied classes and split the movement along class lines. Consequently, there was a need to reconcile the traditional social structure and the new wave of ideas which sought equality and social change through revolution. Gandhi's trusteeship nestled comfortably within these two competing world views as a solution to existing socio-economic problems.

Gandhian trusteeship is rooted in religion. Gandhi said: "All land belongs to Gopal, (1) where then is the boundary line" (Gandhi in Harijan, 1940: 97). Trusteeship provides for the rich to be in possession of their wealth. However, since they are the trustees of the wealth on behalf of the society, the rich may use what they reasonably require for their personal needs and should spend the remaining for the welfare of the society (Gandhi, 1940). Taking a moral and paternalistic stand, trusteeship expects the rich and the privileged sections of the society to show their benevolence towards the underprivileged even though it was the structural conditions that led to their marginalized status (Chakrabarty, 2015). At the same time, by maintaining the difference between legal and moral ownership of the property wherein legally the wealth belonged to the owner but morally it belonged to the whole society; Gandhi was able to diffuse the tension that existed on class lines. This has often led to the conclusion that trusteeship was a class compromise formula (Pandya, 1978). Relying on the goodness and compassion of human beings; especially of the rich and the powerful, Gandhi focused on the conduct of business on ethical lines.

Trusteeship was thus not only an idea to redefine business-community interface based on the goodness of human beings but was also a political strategy to ensure that the freedom struggle got the support of all sections of the society. Gandhi was very religious and the support of religious texts to carry forward his arguments in favor of trusteeship, at least reduced, if not completely eliminated its criticism on the grounds of not being practical and not situated in the social and economic reality of the time (Chakrabarty, 2015).

Stakeholders in Trusteeship

The two major stakeholders in trusteeship were the owners and the workers. The third stakeholder was the state. The stakeholders, according to Gandhi, had rights and reciprocal obligations (Ghosh, 1989). For him, "Capital and labor will be mutual trustees and both will be trustees of consumers ... each believes his own interest is safe guarded by safe guarding the interest of the other" (Gandhi in Harijan, 25th June, 1938). The role and responsibilities of the stakeholders in trusteeship are elaborated below.

Owners in Trusteeship: Gandhi expected the land-owning classes and the businesses to be benevolent towards those who were not so privileged. He expected them to hold all the surplus wealth in trust for the society. He maintained "Let the rich man take 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, or 15 per cent.... But not even an exploiter must think of taking 85 per cent!" He did not believe in divesting them of their wealth. "We must not underrate the business talent and knowhow which the owning class have acquired through generations of experience and specialization. Free use of it would accrue to the people under my plan." (Trusteeship, n.d.,: 23). He wanted the rich to take up a number of causes and judging by his statement that Jamna Lal Bajaj came nearest to his trusteeship idea, one may say that the interventions on behalf of the workers and their families; be it health, education, natural or manmade disaster or financial crises were some of the responsibilities that Gandhi wanted the trustees to undertake (Tendulkar, 1953). He also specified that the employers were obligated to provide living wages to their workers and also ensure a "clean working environment, and provide facilities for cheap, nutritious food, sanitation and elementary...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT