Business Finance - Management Business & Finance Business Finance - Management ASSIGNMENT (APA, NO PLAGARISM, GREAT WORK, ON TIME)

EBSCO-FullText-03_30_2026.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Business Finance - Management Business & Finance Business Finance - Management ASSIGNMENT (APA, NO PLAGARISM, GREAT WORK, ON TIME)

Corporate Social Responsibility through

Cross-sector Partnerships: Implications for Civil Society, the State, and the Corporate

Sector in India

HELENA HEDE SKAGERLIND, MOA WESTMAN, AND

HENRIK BERGLUND

ABSTRACT

Corporations are increasingly forced to widen their agendas to include social and environmental concerns, or corporate social responsibility (CSR). This develop- ment has been recorded in the current academic debate, and the views regarding its implications for business, the state, and civil society diverge. However, there is agree- ment within the CSR and corporate governance litera- tures that there is a lack of thorough empirical studies of these effects. Based on a case study of the multinational wind energy company Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects in rural India, this article contends that CSR projects implemented through cross-sector partnerships can help to build the capacities of civil society organizations

Helena Hede Skagerlind is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Political Science at Stock- holm University, Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Moa Westman has an MA from the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Henrik Berglund is an Associate Professor of Department of Political Science at Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected].

bs_bs_banner

Business and Society Review 120:2 245–275

mailto:[email protected]

(CSOs). Although the risk of corporate steering of the civil society agenda is reduced when CSR prioritizes com- munity needs over business imperatives, CSOs tend to bear the highest costs in partnerships, through credibil- ity losses and insecurity concerning project terms and funding, reinforcing the importance of critical coopera- tion and complementary core competencies in cross- sector partnerships. The results have implications for the strategies of corporations, CSOs, and governments as well as for the planning of national and international development aid.

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, corporations have been increas- ingly prone to widen their agendas to include responsible practice in terms of labor conditions and environmental

concerns, commonly referred to as corporate social responsibility (CSR). Further, many have expanded their CSR agendas so that these no longer are limited to issues related to labor conditions and the immediate effects of their production, but also include broader concerns that incorporate civil society and the commu- nities within which they operate, and thus issues that lay beyond the corporations’ immediate interests (O’Brien 2001, p. 3). This has resulted in so-called proactive CSR (Torugsa et al. 2012) and cross-sector partnerships with civil society organizations (CSOs) and the state, which aim to address common concerns and devel- opment issues. These are bound to affect the relationship between and the respective responsibilities of these actors, particularly in countries where state institutions lack resources and capacity. In this context, CSR may result in the private sector turning into a development agent that bridges conventional business agendas, civil society concerns, and poverty alleviation while the state partly withdraws from the development sector (Blowfield 2010, p. 124; Manning and Roessler 2014). This raises questions con- cerning the prospects of business taking on the role of a devel- opment agent and of cross-sector partnerships for development in rural developing contexts.

The aim of this article is to explore the effects of these actors’ converging roles and collaborative development efforts, both in

246 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

terms of a potential strengthening of CSOs and of an alteration in the relationship, roles, and responsibilities of the three actors. The research question that will be addressed is hence: What are the implications of CSR projects implemented through cross- sector partnerships in terms of (1) CSO capacity building and (2) the changing relationships between the respective partners— corporations, CSOs, and the government?

Civil society capacity building is here defined as the process through which CSOs increase their abilities to perform core func- tions, solve problems, define and achieve objectives, and enhance their understanding and ability to deal with their development needs in a broad context and in a sustainable manner (UNDP 2010). We specifically explore some aspects of civil society capac- ity building and of the changing roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in cross-sector partnerships deemed important in previous research, which will be elaborated upon in the theoreti- cal discussion.

METHODS

The aim of the article is addressed through a case study of the wind energy corporation Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects in the two Indian states Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, a total of six projects implemented by six different nongovernment organizations (NGOs). The inclusion of these projects enables us to attain some level of breadth in the analysis, along with the depth typically associated with the case study method. The choice to study Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects in two states is not motivated by an ambition to compare these, but rather to increase the represen- tativeness and the potential for abstraction of the results, while limiting the study to one company ensures some level of unit homogeneity. The two states were selected because the projects in these two states together may be seen as representative of Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects in general, addressing issues related to women’s empowerment, livelihood diversification, and access to drinking water and natural resources. In addition to ensuring a representative sample of cases in terms of project focus areas, the inclusion of the two states enables us to eliminate contextual factors associated with a particular state—such as civil society

247HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

strength and composition and socioeconomic factors—as determi- nants of outcomes.

The study is primarily based on semi-structured interviews (see interview guide in Appendix 1) with Suzlon Energy and Suzlon Foundation (the CSR department) representatives, the six NGOs, and government partners. As a complement to the interviews, a questionnaire (see Appendix 2) and secondary data in the form of project documentation allowed for material triangulation, enhanc- ing the reliability of the results. The questionnaire was primarily used to collect additional detailed information from the NGOs concerning civil society capacity building. The questionnaire was distributed to the six respective NGO project managers and included questions had a 100 percent response rate. The ques- tionnaire was used for the purpose of mapping the extent to which the NGO partners implementing Suzlon Foundation’s CSR projects perceived that their partnership with Suzlon Foundation has contributed to the capacity building of their NGO. In order to ensure a high level of validity of the questionnaire, we formulated questionnaire questions based on the operationalization of capac- ity building and constructed answer categories in the form of a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 was set to represent “not at all,” 3 “to some extent,” and 5 “to a great extent.” In total, 16 interviews were conducted, including 1 interview with Suzlon Foundation’s head of CSR, 4 interviews with local Suzlon Energy business unit representatives, 1 interview with each of the six NGO project managers, 2 interviews with representatives from two different NGOs collaborating with one of Suzlon Foundation’s six partner NGOs (though not directly with Suzlon Foundation) in the implementation of a project, and 3 interviews with government partners.

The data were analyzed through the prism of our operationaliz- ation of civil society capacity building and the critical concepts in the analysis of changing stakeholder relationships.

CSR AND CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS

Definitions of CSR vary, not simply by virtue of its essentially contested status but also as a reflection of the different practical

248 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

orientations of corporations toward their responsibilities (Moon 2007, p. 298). Andriof and McIntosh define CSR as “. . . under- standing and managing a company’s wider influences on society for the benefit of the company and society as a whole” (2001, p. 14). It can be argued to relate to economic, environmental, and social concerns (Henderson 2001, p. 19), and to involve a com- mitment by corporations to contribute to economic development while improving the life of the workforce, the local community, and society at large (Holme and Watts 2000, p. 2). This can be seen both as a manifestation of and a response to globalization and has been part of a more general shift from state regulation of corporations toward an emphasis on corporate self-regulation (Jenkins et al. 2002, p. 1).

While business takes on new responsibilities through CSR and cross-sector partnerships, civil society can be seen as becoming increasingly accountable to the private sector and profit-driven interest and, thereby, less so to the communities they operate in and for. Thus, the increasing incidence of CSOs engaging in partnerships with the private sector and the state risks infringing on civil society’s autonomy and role as an advocate of the public interest, and hence on its development potential. Because these partnerships are characterized by power asymmetries in favor of business as the primary agenda-setter, as companies often initiate and fund collaborative projects, the result is development projects and agendas driven mainly by business concerns and motives. As argued by Seitanidi and Crane, the one-way reporting reflects a pre-CSR reality of interaction between the partners (2009, p. 419). In cases where this power asymmetry is taken to the extreme, CSOs risk being co-opted in business agendas and, if taken to the extreme, becoming legitimizers and extended arms of business.

Because of these factors, CSOs arguably face considerably higher risks, in terms of compromising their agenda, legitimacy, accountability, ideals, and reputation, in partnerships. In addi- tion, business and development concerns have varying time hori- zons and development project outcomes are seldom quick and quantifiable. Sustainable development impacts require a long- term commitment, which implies a demand for alternative funding when partnerships end. On the other hand, business can provide civil society with the resources that it needs to enhance its capacity and reach and to function more effectively

249HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

(Ashman 2001, pp. 1104–1106; Hamann and Acutt 2003, p. 261). Nonetheless, the risks associated with the proliferation of cross- sector partnerships underscore the importance of empirically exploring the implications of partnerships in terms of civil society capacity building and the changing relationships, roles, and responsibilities of the collaborating partners. Earlier studies have concluded that there is a lack of research on the implementation as well as the outcomes of partnerships.

CSR can be seen as expressing a new relationship between private capital and the public interest. This is manifested in an acceptance of corporations’ initiatives to regulate their own social and environmental performance and in multi-stakeholder initia- tives and the growth of cross-sector partnerships (also referred to as strategic [Eweje 2007], tri-sector [Hamann and Acutt 2003], or social [Googins and Rochlin 2000; Waddock 1988] partnerships) to implement standards, offset negative business impacts, and promote economic development (Prieto-Carrón et al. 2006, p. 985). Seen from the perspective of CSOs, corporations are through this development entering the stage as a major actor of concern and potential partnerships. The private sector’s collabo- rations with and support to civil society in developing countries can provide civil society with the resources—financial, network- ing, and representational—that it needs to enhance its capacity and function more effectively (Ashman 2001, pp. 1104–1106; Hamann and Acutt 2003, p. 261). However, a civil society funded by the private sector undermines the liberal ideal type of civil society, characterized by voluntary self-organized associations that operate autonomously (Keane 1998, pp. 6–8; White 1994, p. 379). Similarly, collaboration with the private sector becomes problematic from a more radical perspective of civil society as it risks leading to corporate control of civil society. According to this perspective, CSOs may be restricted from engaging in types of struggles that are not in line with the interests or values of the sponsoring corporation, which risks diminishing civil society’s development potential and even transforming it into a conserva- tive force (Gibbon 1996, p. 23).

An increasing number of companies working in India have now established separate corporate foundations or community rela- tions offices. That these CSR units are structurally isolated or disintegrated from the business section can be beneficial for CSOs

250 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

in cases where these departments are headed by former civil society and development sector professionals, who are likely to emphasize community and CSO influence and benefits. In these cases, the risks of corporate control of the CSO agenda are minimized. However, business–CSR misalignment also risks leading to diluted CSR impacts in cases where a limited budget is allocated to too many different CSOs and when business core competencies and other assets remain underutilized (O’Brien 2001). In line with this, Hamann and Acutt highlight the impor- tance of harnessing business resources and capabilities for devel- opment purposes in partnerships (Hamann and Acutt 2003, p. 261). “Complementary core competencies” should be realized through the input of financial, logistical, and human resources, complemented by the expertise, local knowledge, and social capital of NGOs and community-based organization (CBOs) (Torugsa et al. 2012) and the broader development knowledge and framework provided by the government (Hamann and Acutt 2003).

However, most joint civil society–business initiatives are marked by both converging and conflicting interests, highlighting the need for “critical cooperation” (Arenas et al. 2013; Covey and Brown 2001), which requires that attention is paid to power asymmetries, where power does not have to be equal, but where the parties have to recognize each other as capable of imposing significant costs or providing valuable benefits to the partnership. Second, critical rights need to be mutually accepted as this creates boundaries around negotiations, whose violation can create serious costs to the partners. A third precondition for critical cooperation is interest-based negotiations, as a focus on the interests of the parties allows for the creation of agree- ments that maximize mutual gains and minimize joint losses. Fourth, each party needs to manage the interests of its own key stakeholders.

CIVIL SOCIETY, CAPACITY BUILDING, AND CROSS-SECTOR PARTNER RELATIONS

In the current development discourse, civil society is seen as a major force for driving development and democratization pro- cesses in developing countries. Civil society can be defined as:

251HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

. . . the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philan- thropic considerations (World Bank 2013).

The advocates of this liberal ideal of civil society argue that it is the characteristics of autonomy, voluntarism, and pluralism that give civil society its developing force and potential for resistance (Kaviraj 2001; Keane 1998, p. 78). Nevertheless, we must also recognize that this ideal differs from reality, and that the bound- aries between the state and civil society are often blurred. Civil society is in this article viewed as a sphere basically separate from, but not always completely autonomous in relation to, fami- lies, firms, and the state, which is constituted by a plurality of diverse CSOs that may work as positive forces for development but that may fail to do so. In the Indian setting, popular mobili- zation within the Indian civil society was evident already in the colonial period but many observers point out that the history and formation of both state and civil society differed from the experi- ences in Western Europe (Chatterjee 1993). Also, the status of the current Indian civil society is contested. One could argue that an active associational life within a relatively independent sphere is what separates India from most other developing states and is a corner stone of Indian democracy (Jenkins 2008). On the other hand, civil society in India often appears to be weak as an autonomous sphere, because of the strong position of the state and the fact that power relations within other spheres permeate civil society (Chhibber 2001). In accordance with global trends of decentralization and privatization of development work, the Indian state has from the 1980s onward encouraged NGOs to take more responsibility for social development (Ghosh 2009, pp. 230–234). Civil society has become thicker and more active, but many of the CSOs are closely engaged with the state or international funding agencies and partly dependent on them for project contracts and/or funding (Baviskar 2001, p. 7). Furthermore, in line with the trends of the privatization of development, private companies are also entering the area of development work in India, mainly through CSR and cross-sector partnerships, and are hence also becoming collaborating partners and actors of concern for civil society.

252 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

As theoretically established, for cross-sector partnerships to benefit civil society and communities in the long term, it is impor- tant that “complementary core competencies” are realized and that the private sector uses its capacities to build those of the CSOs. Capacity building is defined as the process by which indi- viduals, groups, organizations, institutions, and societies increase their abilities to perform core functions, solve problems, define and achieve objectives, and enhance their understanding and ability to deal with their development needs in a broad context and in a sustainable manner (UNDP 2010). Drawing on capacity- building theory, there are five main areas in which firms can contribute to the capacity building of CSOs (Ashman 2001; Brown and Kalegaonkar 1999; Loza 2004). These include the promotion of:

• Inter- and intra-sector associations, alliances, and networks • Human resources and organization development • Material/financial resources • Research, information, and advocacy skills • Organization and project sustainability

Based on previous research concerning cross-sector partnerships (Ashman 2001; Covey and Brown 2001; Hamann and Acutt 2003), there are some critical aspects that affect the outcomes and stakeholder perceptions of such partnerships. These consti- tute the framework for the analysis of the perceptions of partner- ships and include:

• Partner relations, roles, and responsibilities • Trust and motivation • Agenda setting, autonomy, ownership, and participation • Cost/benefit allocation • Complementary core competencies and critical cooperation

CSR AT SUZLON ENERGY: COMMUNITY PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH

CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS

Suzlon Energy is Asia’s market-leading wind power company with a presence in 33 countries, covering 6 continents (Suzlon Energy 2013). Despite the vision of Suzlon Energy to only impact

253HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

positively on society, the communities surrounding the compa- ny’s wind farms and manufacturing sites have partly been nega- tively affected by the business, mainly through land alienation and damage to the local infrastructure and environment, which has resulted in mistrust against the company and in clashes between local communities and Suzlon Energy staff (interview 1). To make its business operations run more effectively and to practice what it preaches in terms of building relationships with all stakeholders, Suzlon Energy established Suzlon Foundation in 2007. The foundation heads CSR initiatives on behalf of the Suzlon Group in India. CSR at Suzlon Energy is hence run by a separate organization, which is structurally isolated from the business units of the company, reflecting the recent trend among multi-national corporations (MNCs) of setting up separate foundations to deal with corporate responsibility and set up charitable projects. The CSR projects are implemented in com- munities surrounding the company’s wind farms, all in collabo- ration with local NGOs and some also with government partners. In 2010, Suzlon Foundation had 125 different proj- ects, implemented in collaboration with 32 different NGOs and 13 government partners (Suzlon Energy 2010, p. 25). The find- ings presented in this article are based on a study of all six CSR projects implemented in the two states Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, listed below (Table 1).

TABLE 1 CSR Projects

Location Collaborating

Partner Focus

1. Gujarat/Abdasa Taluka Sahjeevan Water access 2. Gujarat/Bhuj Khamir Entrepreneurship 3. Gujarat/Dwarka GVT Women’s empowerment 4. Madhya Pradesh/Dewas Concept Society Women’s empowerment 5. Madhya Pradesh/Jaora Bypass/local

government departments

Poverty reduction/ women’s empowerment

6. Madhya Pradesh/Ratlam Samarpan/local government departments

Women’s empowerment

254 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

Sahjeevan

Sahjeevan was founded in the early 1990s as a response to the needs articulated by the rural women’s movement in Kutch, a district in the western Indian state of Gujarat. The district, where Suzlon Energy operates a wind park in Abdasa Taluka, is located in a desert and because of the geographical conditions, the region faces low groundwater levels and water scarcity, problems that are reinforced by the lack of awareness concerning the mainte- nance of nontraditional water-harvesting methods and of collec- tive management of common water resources. Moreover, gender inequality and discrimination of scheduled castes characterize the region (interview 12).

The development approach of Sahjeevan is to empower local communities to access and manage natural resources by bringing together trained professionals, rural experts, and communities to create knowledge to harness natural resources in order to improve the communities’ livelihood security (interview 12). Central to Sahjeevan’s approach is that all projects must be carried out in a decentralized manner, with a high level of community involvement, ensuring community ownership and the sustainability of projects (ibid.). Suzlon Foundation’s collaboration with Sahjeevan involves the funding of a community-managed decentralized water program in 13 villages in Abdasa Taluka. The overall goal of the project is to make these villages self-sustaining in terms of access to drinking water in the long run so that villagers gain improved access to safe, adequate, and equitably distributed drinking water. In addition to this, the project aims to carry out a study of water resource planning in another 41 villages in Bhachau and Mandvi Talukas. Prior to the partnership with Suzlon Foundation, Sahjeevan had never collaborated with a corporation. Already from the outset, the NGO saw the partnership as more than just a funding relationship —as a long-term partnership, where the exchange of knowledge and ideas would be a central component. Further, Suzlon Founda- tion provided input beyond the scope of the project, such as advice on animal husbandry practices and assistance in establishing linkages with dairy and livestock institutions. In terms of capacity building, the NGO wished for more in terms of input on organiza- tional development and efficiency. Moreover, the NGO would have liked to enhance organization and project sustainability through

255HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

the implementation of a conjunctive land use project at the Suzlon Energy wind park in the area (interview 12).

In the partnership, Sahjeevan perceived its primarily role to be an advocate of the community and its needs vis-à-vis the busi- ness, rather than being part of enhancing the company’s image in the area (interview 12). Because of having similar perceptions of local development needs and partnership objectives, the NGO felt that it could retain its core values and work areas throughout the partnership. Cross-sector partnerships work to reduce the donor dependency of NGOs and development projects, and the decision to enter into partnership with Suzlon Energy was a strategy used by the NGO to put pressure on the government to invest in decentralized drinking water programs. The strategy was successful and the government started to support the project once Suzlon Energy had invested.

The NGO experienced the partnership with Suzlon Foundation as very flexible and characterized by knowledge exchange and learning. In contrast, collaboration with the government, accord- ing to the NGO’s experience, entails a long bureaucratic process, which requires the NGO to lobby extensively to influence policy. A negative aspect of the partnership with Suzlon, however, was the fluctuation of funds (interview 12). Further reservations toward partnering with corporations, expressed by the NGO, were that corporations tend to have a “neighborhood” approach, or a focus on communities within close proximity to their operation sites, which does not fit with the NGO’s ambition to work with inclusive and integrated regional development.

Khamir

Khamir, short for Kachchh Heritage, Arts, Music and Integrated Resources, was formed in 2005 as a result of a joint initiative between the Kachchh Nav Nirman Abhiyan and the Nehru Founda- tion for Development in the aftermath of the 2001 earthquake in the Kutch district (described above). The NGO’s ambition was to establish a long-term strategy for the revitalization of the tradi- tional craft sector and the empowerment of the local craft artisans through design, technical and enterprise development, and the formation of partnerships with various organizations, institutions, and corporations (Khamir, unpublished data). The focus areas of

256 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

the organization were determined based on the observed ground realities of a decreasing artisan base in the Kutch area since the 1960s due to the unavailability of raw materials locally, increas- ing family sizes, rising costs of living, lack of product diversific- ation and market awareness, difficulties in adhering to industry standards, and crowding out due to increased availability of cheaper mass-produced products (Khamir, unpublished data; interview 15).

Suzlon Foundation’s collaboration with Khamir involved the funding of three projects: the “Revitalization of Leather Craft Sector in Kachchh” project, the “Textile Tailoring Unit for the Craft Sector of Kachchh” project, and the “Building the Kachchh Brand” project. The tailoring project was finalized in March 2010 and a plastic weaving project was initialized in 2009. In inter- views, Khamir expressed a positive attitude toward the collabora- tion with Suzlon Foundation and emphasized that Suzlon was viewed as an institutional stakeholder and a permanent partner beyond the scope of the projects, rather than only as a project funding partner. Further capacity-building efforts on the part of Suzlon Foundation included the support in the setup of the Khamir web site, project input through review meetings, and the formation of linkages with organizations working within similar fields. The collaboration with Suzlon further enabled the NGO to take artisans to exhibitions and expose them to product markets, which contributed to the capacity building of the artisans in terms of knowledge of market demand and product ranges. Although the insecurity of future funding from Suzlon Foundation was a concern expressed by the NGO, Suzlon was perceived as a sensitive partner as the focus was not only on quantitative out- comes, but there was an understanding of the cultural aspect of the project and of its slow, qualitative, and long-term nature. In line with this, Khamir viewed Suzlon as a flexible partner, espe- cially in comparison with government partners, as the company allowed for modifications and adjustments when requested by the NGO and had an understanding and respect for the local culture.

Gramya Vikas Trust

Gramya Vikas Trust (GVT) was founded in 1986 and initially focused on water-harvesting projects aimed to prevent salinity

257HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

ingress in the water and soil in the Jamnagar district (GVT, unpublished data). From 1996 onward, the NGO has also worked with women’s empowerment through the formation of women’s self-help groups (SHGs). GVT is currently working with approxi- mately 1,500 women, who are members of 117 SHGs, and pro- motes women’s empowerment through encouraging SHG members to engage in entrepreneurial activities, such as poultry and dairy farming, fish trading, and handicrafts.

The geographical coverage of the Suzlon Foundation–GVT part- nership project stretches across the Kalyanpur block in the Jam- nagar district, south of the Gulf of Kutch, in Gujarat. The area of Okha Mandal is surrounded by saline water on all sides, resulting in a saline breeze during 3 months of the year and salinity ingress in soil and water (GVT, unpublished data). There are no rivers or streams in the area and rainfall is scarce and irregular, which has resulted in a shallow soil cover and low soil fertility. Because of poor economic conditions, the share of children attending school is low and illiteracy and child labor are prevalent in the region. Further difficulties faced by the communities include lack of access to health facilities, land for agriculture, awareness of basic rights, and government development schemes (GVT, unpublished data).

The GVT representative expressed the view that ethical busi- ness operations are crucial for the NGO to consider before enter- ing into a partnership with a corporation (interview 16). GVT felt that Suzlon Energy’s operations did not harm surrounding com- munities as the company is dedicated to ecologically sustainable practices and products. GVT further felt that the development approaches of Suzlon Foundation and the NGO are similar and that Suzlon Foundation has contributed greatly to the capacity building of GVT, particularly in terms of promoting linkages with government stakeholders and of learning within the area of animal husbandry. The NGO generally expressed to be more hesitant toward partnerships with government agencies than with corporations (interview 16).

Concept Society

Concept Society, based in the two cities Indore and Dewas in the state of Madhya Pradesh, was founded in 2005 with the ambition to provide social, economic, and psychological support to the poor

258 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

and marginalized in society. Concept’s vision is to promote sus- tainable development by working with women’s empowerment, livelihood, health, education, and institution building and to facilitate the access to resources, government policies, and pro- grams for its target groups by linking with different organizations and networks.

Suzlon Energy was Concept Society’s first corporate partner and the NGO viewed the partnership as very open and transpar- ent and, in contrast to government and other funding agency collaborations, as flexible. This was attributed to the company’s understanding of the practical realities of the field and to the lack of ambition to micro-manage projects. The NGO also collaborates with various government agencies, but perceived these as difficult because of the hierarchical and corrupt systems inherent in gov- ernment institutions (interview 2). The development approaches of the NGO and Suzlon Foundation were perceived as similar on a system level in the sense that both organizations focus on bottom-up sustainable development. However, the NGO revealed that there had been discussions regarding diverging perceptions of processes and approaches. In general, Concept Society felt that the NGO has received valuable support from Suzlon Foundation in terms of dealing with unanticipated problems and linking with different partners. A difficulty faced by the NGO was that the staff had to work hard to change the negative attitude among the Suzlon Energy employees toward CSR. In due course, the aware- ness concerning the importance of CSR and of local development issues rose dramatically among the local Suzlon Energy staff because of the work and advocacy of the NGO (interview 2).

Bypass

Bypass, or Bhopal Yuwa Paryavaran Shikshan and Samajik Sansthan, has since the year 2000 worked within the areas of natural resource management, community mobilization for rural poverty reduction, the promotion of quality improvements in primary education, and women’s empowerment. The development approach of the NGO is to work through CBOs and empower these to promote rural development and address their own needs (Bypass, unpublished data). Bypass’ Suzlon Foundation-financed project is implemented in the village panchayats of Luhari and

259HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

Barakheda, close to Suzlon Energy’s Jaora wind park in the Ratlam district in Madhya Pradesh. The majority, about 85 percent, of the population, in the Ratlam district is dependent on agriculture as a source of livelihood. The lack of irrigation systems implies a dependence on rain-fed farming and Kharif (fall) crops, resulting in low agricultural productivity and poor economic and social conditions. A consequence of this is that some groups, predominantly the tribal populations of the Sailana and Bajna blocks, face severe difficulties when it comes to income generation during the winter and summer months, causing 65–70 percent of them to migrate in search of employment within agriculture or construction work during these periods. The below poverty line/ above poverty line ratio in these blocks is consequently far higher than in the rest of the district.

When it comes to the partnership with Suzlon Energy, Bypass felt that the process through which the project objectives were set was appropriate. Their previous experience and knowledge of the area were taken into consideration as the NGO, in collaboration with the community, was allowed to set the objectives (interview 7). In the eyes of the organization, working with Suzlon Energy, and corporations in general, was a positive experience as opposed to working with the government, which the organization expressed has a tendency toward corrupt practices.

Samarpan

Like the Bypass project discussed above, the Suzlon Energy CSR projects implemented by Samarpan are located in the Ratlam district in Madhya Pradesh. Samarpan Care Awareness and Reha- bilitation Center was established by a group of young professional social workers in Indore, in June 1999. The vision of Samarpan is to channel natural human and nonhuman resources and to break the intergenerational consequences of poverty, poor health, illit- eracy, and racism. The NGO works within the areas of livelihood, health and education, care and rehabilitation of mentally ill and disabled, women and child welfare, environmental education and protection, and research and evaluation on social and develop- mental issues (Samarpan, unpublished data).

The overarching objective of the Suzlon Foundation–Samarpan partnership was to improve the livelihoods and well-being of the

260 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

people on a sustainable basis through the establishment of dairy units. This was to be achieved through the formation of 250 women’s SHGs and the capacity building of these in terms of training in record keeping, lending, entrepreneurship, contacts with financial institutions, skill development, and the formation of an SHG forum. At an early stage, the project was integrated with the Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) scheme estab- lished by the Indian government for the purpose of providing sustainable income to poor people living in rural areas. The project was thus a tri-sector partnership between the company, the NGO, and the Rural Development Department.

Suzlon Energy was Samarpan’s first corporate partner and the NGO perceived the partnership as very different from collabora- tions with other agencies in terms of the mode of collaboration, the working area, and the people involved. However, the develop- ment approaches of the NGO and Suzlon Foundation were per- ceived to be very similar in the sense that the creation of sustainable livelihood opportunities within agriculture and live- stock was premiered over short-term gains and the public pro- motion of the development work and the organizations in the form of banners, posters, and media attention (interview 9), which was appreciated. In general, Samarpan was satisfied with the collabo- ration and felt that it had a positive impact on the NGO as the staff learned a lot from it. In spite of this, and of the general perception that cross-sector partnerships are good means to work with development, Samarpan expressed some concerns linked to working with a corporation. Here, the lack of clarity, sudden changes affecting project progress or outcomes, the insecurity of funding due to the dependency on business performance, the relatively short time span for projects, a focus on quantitative as opposed to qualitative outcomes, and divergence in visions and goals of the respective partners were emphasized as risk factors or costs for the NGO.

CAPACITY BUILDING

The questionnaires and interview responses indicate that Suzlon Foundation mainly has contributed to the capacity building of the NGOs by taking measures to ensure the sustainability of project

261HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

outcomes. This has more specifically involved the promotion of CSO ownership of projects, openness to NGO partners’ input, ideas, and suggestions, the enforcement of long-term strategies and, to some extent, efforts to decrease NGO donor dependency. The NGOs experienced a high level of project ownership as well as mutual influence and shared control, which implies that the risks of excessive organizational adaptation and business influence were minimized in the partnerships. That the partners have shared responsibility and control over project processes, based on their respective areas of expertise, is likely to have created oppor- tunities for joint learning, enabling partners to correct problems and achieve mutually desired impacts. That Suzlon Foundation enabled the NGOs to control and take responsibility for the aspects of the partnerships that they were seen as experts on implies that the CSOs’ resources, such as their close ties to the communities, were harnessed and valued, which is pointed out as important by Ashman (2001, p. 1110). Opportunities for joint learning, technical support, and advice on how to solve problems were explicitly mentioned by a majority of the NGOs as positive aspects of the collaboration. However, the NGOs overall expressed to have received less support within the areas of human resources and organization development than when it comes to ensuring project outcome sustainability. In spite of this, the NGOs accounted for having increased the scope of their development work as a result of the partnership.

While several NGOs emphasized that their partnership with Suzlon Foundation has resulted in increased collaboration with other NGOs and, to some extent, government departments, they did not perceive their abilities to establish inter- and intra-sector associations, alliances, and networks as significantly enhanced. This implies that the NGOs would have liked to receive more support in terms of establishing linkages with potential partners, particularly with state actors. As empirical evidence has shown that the relevance and sustainability of projects are enhanced when the government is involved and plays an active facilitating role in business–civil society partnerships (Hamann and Acutt 2003, pp. 266–268), this is an important aspect of NGO capacity building. A category of capacity building within which Suzlon Foundation had contributed little is that of research, inform- ation, and advocacy (the average scores for these questions in the

262 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

questionnaire were between 2 and 3), which most probably can be explained by the fact that both parties think of these aspects as beyond the scope of the partnership, as the NGOs in question are working with specific development projects rather than with advocacy and information dissemination. When it comes to the aspect of Suzlon Foundation’s support in terms of financial and material resources, the project funds were the major aspect of this, although Suzlon Foundation in many cases went beyond project funding and supported the NGOs materially through the provision of office material, computers, etc. Despite the docu- mented capacity-building support that Suzlon Foundation has provided, the NGOs expressed a desire for further capacity build- ing of their organizations, especially when it comes to establishing linkages with potential donors, project management, planning and documentation, training of NGO staff, and technical support for agriculture, water, and marketing components of the projects. Ultimately, the value of Suzlon Foundation’s capacity-building efforts has to be evaluated in relation to the potential losses or costs borne by the NGOs as a consequence of entering into corporate partnerships, such as decreased credibility and corpo- rate steering of the agenda (Ashman 2001, p. 1106; Covey and Brown 2001, p. 7).

CHANGING PARTNER RELATIONSHIPS, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The study of the CSR projects in the two states indicates that the partnerships have benefited all project partners, as well as the communities that constitute the project beneficiaries, but to varying extents and in different ways. When it comes to the issues of trust and motivation, the NGOs generally perceived the business partner as more reliable than the government, although the insecurity and irregularity of corporate funds were expressed to be a problem. When it comes to partner roles and responsibilities, those of the NGOs can be concluded to have changed the least as a consequence of the partnerships. Evi- dence of this includes that the NGOs largely have been allowed to set the project objectives, based on the community needs, and to continue to work within their areas of expertise,

263HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

although their agendas to some extent also have been influ- enced by the corporate CSR objective to establish better rela- tions between the local business units and the communities. While the role and responsibility of the company have been extended to consider business impacts and community needs, the government has through the partnerships been able to with- draw from some of the areas where Suzlon Energy’s CSR proj- ects are run. In spite of the civil society gains in terms of capacity building and funding, associated with the partnerships, the NGOs can be argued to have borne the highest costs out of the three partners. This can be attributed to the credibility losses within the communities and the wider civil society as a consequence of corporate collaboration, and to the insecurity of project terms and funding.

“Complementary core competencies” were realized to some extent as the respective actors’ knowledge and strengths largely were put to use in the different stages of project implementation. Typically, the business side can contribute with financial, logisti- cal, and human resources, which are complemented by the local knowledge and social capital of NGOs and CBOs, and the broader development knowledge and framework provided by the govern- ment (Hamann and Acutt 2003, p. 261). In the initial stages of the projects, Suzlon Foundation identified NGOs with knowledge and experience of local conditions, which were employed to conduct local needs assessments, on which the project objectives then were based. However, an important aspect for the realization of “complementary core competencies” and for sustainable “critical cooperation” is that the government assumes an administrative role (Covey and Brown 2001, p. 7), which was not the case in Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects. Instead, the civil society partners largely took responsibility for partner and stakeholder relations, as the government partners rarely were in direct contact with Suzlon Energy, and several of the NGOs expressed difficulties associated with collaborating with the government because of its lack of flexibility and its ineffective and corrupt practices. It is noteworthy that basically all NGOs expressed a preference of working with corporate partners, or at least Suzlon Found- ation, over working with government partners as they generally perceived government agencies as less flexible and more bureau- cratic, hierarchical, and inefficient. Two NGO heads explicitly

264 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

referred to government agencies as corrupt. This is an important finding as it emphasizes the need to weight the risks and draw- backs associated with collaborating with corporations against those associated with partnering with and being dependent on the government, especially in contexts where state capacity is limited and corruption is pervasive.

However, the NGOs also emphasized the importance of multiple funding sources and the fact that project outcome sustainability tends to be enhanced when the government is a partner, as pointed out by Ashman (2001, p. 1104). When it comes to other aspects of “critical cooperation,” a majority of the NGOs have maintained a critical vigilance of Suzlon Energy and have played active roles in shaping the CSR discourse and agenda, factors pointed out as crucial by Hamann and Acutt (2003, pp. 267–268). Further, critical rights have largely been acknowledged by the partners and they have been aware of each other’s respective interests and the power relations inherent in the partnerships, and have to a large extent managed and promoted the interests of their respective stakeholders (Covey and Brown 2001, p. 7).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the cross-sector partnerships have led to the capacity building of the CSOs in terms of the enhancement of project sustainability, the promotion of NGO ownership of proj- ects, a decreased NGO donor dependency, and the enforcement of long-term strategies. This implies that some important aspects of capacity building, such as furthering research, information dis- semination and advocacy, and establishing linkages with state actors, have not been furthered to the same extent. However, the capacity building of the implementing NGOs was not an explicit objective of the partnerships on the part of Suzlon Energy, disre- garding the funding aspect, and the NGOs generally expressed satisfaction with the efforts that have been made by Suzlon Energy in this regard. Nevertheless, the NGOs expressed a need and desire for further capacity building, especially in terms of establishing linkages with potential donors, project management, planning and documentation, training of NGO staff, and technical support.

265HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

It is crucial that Suzlon Foundation’s NGO capacity-building efforts are evaluated in relation to the costs borne by the NGOs as a consequence of entering into partnerships with the corporation. Our findings indicate that the NGOs, regardless of the type of CSR project, have borne the highest costs, in terms of a credibility loss, extensive coordination efforts, and insecurity concerning project terms and funding, out of the partners. Aside from the capacity-building aspects, the civil society partners viewed Suzlon Energy and the cross-sector collaboration in a positive light, as the corporation was perceived as a flexible and sensitive partner. The corporation was not seen as having infringed on the NGOs’ project agenda setting or work areas, implying that the civil society actors did not see themselves as co-opted in the corporate agenda. The perceptions of the partnerships expressed during interviews have further led us to conclude that “complementary core competencies” largely have been realized, as the respective actors’ knowledge and strengths in most instances have been put to use in the different stages of project implementation. Further, “critical cooperation” has been practiced as a majority of the NGOs have maintained a critical vigilance of Suzlon Energy, managed the interests of their key stakeholders, and played active roles in shaping the CSR discourse and agenda. However, the government cannot be said to have assumed an administrative role in the partnerships in which it has been involved, as this role mainly has been taken on by the NGOs. But as some scholars have failed to recognize, this may be a positive factor in cross- sector partnerships in contexts where the government is perceived as corrupt and ineffective. Seen in this light, it may be positive that the government has partly withdrawn from its traditional role in development work, at least in cases where the private sector takes on some responsibility for this by providing civil society with funding without significantly affecting the agenda-setting role of CSOs.

Although the CSOs collaborating with Suzlon Energy may have downplayed the negative aspects of the partnerships, such as becoming increasingly accountable to and implicated with the private sector, our findings indicate that the CSOs have achieved net benefits of entering into partnerships with business. The roles and responsibilities of the NGOs are perceived to have changed only marginally as a consequence of the partnerships,

266 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

while the corporation’s role and responsibilities have been altered significantly, as they have been extended to include con- siderations of business impacts and community needs. The gov- ernment’s role and responsibilities have diminished to some extent as state authorities have been able to withdraw from some of the areas where the CSR projects are implemented. Civil society involvement in CSR can further constitute a valuable opportunity for CSOs to put pressure on, and influence the poli- cies and practices of, both large corporations and the govern- ment. Civil society engagement with corporations may hence be needed to change the conditions of the poor and to develop society when the state increasingly withdraws from this role (Ashman 2001, pp. 1104–1106; Hamann and Acutt 2003, p. 261; Hoogvelt 2001, p. 248; Rai 2008, pp. 71–74, 128). However, this form of cross-sector interaction is not risk-free but may entail significant “costs” for CSOs, which must be carefully considered before entering into partnerships. For civil society theory, the implication of these findings is that the risk high- lighted by many that CSO collaborations with the private sector necessarily will lead to civil society cooptation in the business agenda and a reduced ability to constitute a positive force for development is exaggerated.

It is evident that Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects go well beyond the immediate interests of the corporation and the “business case” for CSR. However, a consequence of the foundation’s deci- sion to focus on community development is that the conven- tional objective of CSR—to offset the negative impacts of the business operations—largely has been left unaddressed by Suzlon Energy (with the exception of the Conjunctive Land Use project). Evidence of this includes that the corporation has made no real efforts to spread conjunctive land use initiatives to other areas or to actively strive to employ women. This discrep- ancy between the CSR agenda and the business operations and impacts may be explained by the sharp distinction between the CSR department—Suzlon Foundation—and the core business departments and operations. This indicates that while CSR proj- ects may succeed in addressing issues related to rural develop- ment, responsible practices can remain poorly integrated into the business cycle, which implies that there is a risk of trans- forming the CSR agenda into the setup of charitable projects

267HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

that do little in terms of offsetting negative business impacts. This development is likely to leave global and national power structures, which may work in disempowering ways for the rural poor, unchallenged.

LIST OF INTERVIEWS

Madhya Pradesh

Interview 1, January 2011, Suzlon Foundation Interview 2, September 2010, Concept Society (NGO) Interview 3, September 2010, KVK (government) Interview 4, September 2010, SGSY (government) Interview 5, September 2010, Suzlon Energy Staff Dewas Interview 6, September 2010, Suzlon Energy Regional Manager Interview 7, September 2010, Bypass (NGO) Interview 8, September 2010, Suzlon Energy Staff Jaora Interview 9, September 2010, Samarpan (NGO) Interview 10, September 2010, Suzlon Energy staff Palsodi Interview 11, September 2010, Rural Development Department (government)

Gujarat

Interview 12, December 2010, Sahjeevann (NGO) Interview 13, December 2010, VRTI (NGO, indirect partner) Interview 14, December 2010, KFFF (NGO, indirect partner) Interview 15, December 2010, Khamir (NGO) Interview 16, December 2010, GVT (NGO)

REFERENCES

Andriof, J., and McIntosh, M., eds. 2001. Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

Arenas, D., Sanchez, P., and Myrphy, M. 2013. “Different paths to col- laboration between businesses and civil society and the role of third parties,” Journal of Business Ethics 115: 723–739.

Ashman, D. 2001. “Civil society collaboration with business: Bringing empowerment back in,” World Development 29(7): 1097–1113.

268 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

Baviskar, B. S. 2001. NGOs and Civil Society in India. Enstone: The Arkleton Trust.

Blowfield, M. 2010. “Business, corporate responsibility and poverty reduction,” in P. Utting and J. C. Marques, eds., Corporate Social Responsibility and Regulatory Governance. Towards Inclusive Develop- ment? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brown, L. D., and Kalegaonkar, A. 1999. “Addressing Civil Society’s Challenges: Support Organizations as Emerging Institutions,” Research Report 15 (2). Harvard University: Institute for Development Research Reports. (2).

Chatterjee, P. 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments. Princeton, NJ: Princ- eton University Press.

Chhibber, P. K. 2001. Democracy without Associations. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Covey, J., and Brown, L. D. 2001. “Critical cooperation: An alternative form of civil society-business engagement,” IDR Reports 17(1): 1–18.

Eweje, G. 2007. “Strategic partnerships between MNEs and civil society: The Post-WSSD Perspective,” Sustainable Development 15(1): 15–27.

Ghosh, B. 2009. “NGOs, civil society and social reconstruction in con- temporary India,” Journal of Developing Societies 25(2): 229–252.

Gibbon, P. 1996. “Some reflections on civil society and political change,” in L. Rudbeck and O. Törnquist, eds., Democratization in the Third World. Uppsala: Seminar for Development Studies.

Googins, B. K., and Rochlin, S. A. 2000. “Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross sector partner- ships,” Business and Society Review 105(1): 127–144.

Hamann, R., and Acutt, N. 2003. “How should civil society (and the government) respond to ‘corporate social responsibility’? A critique of business motivations and the potential for partnerships,” Development Southern Africa 20(2): 255–270.

Henderson, D. 2001. Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility. Wellington: New Zealand Business Roundtable.

Holme, R., and Watts, P. 2000. Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense. Geneva: The World Business Council for Sus- tainable Development. Bortglomd I uppsatsen.

Hoogvelt, A. 2001. Globalization and the Postcolonial World—The New Political Economy of Development, 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave.

Jenkins, R. 2008. “India: Associational life and its discontents,” in P. Burnell and V. Randall, eds., Politics in the Developing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, R., Pearson, R., and Seyfang, G., eds. 2002. Corporate Respon- sibility and Labor Rights: Codes of Conduct in the Global Economy. London: Earthscan Publications.

Kaviraj, S. 2001. “In search of civil society,” in S. Kaviraj and S. Khilnani, eds., Civil Society—History and Possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

269HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

Keane, J. 1998. Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Loza, J. 2004. “Business-community partnerships: The case for commu- nity organization capacity building,” Journal of Business Ethics 53(3): 297–311.

Manning, S., and Roessler, D. (2014) “The formation of cross- sector development partnerships: How bridging agents shape project agendas and longer-term alliances,” Journal of Business Ethics 123(3): 527–547.

Moon, J. 2007. “The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development,” Sustainable Development 15: 296–306.

O’Brien, D. 2001. “Integrating corporate social responsibility with com- petitive strategy,” The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Boston.

Prieto-Carrón, M., Lund Thomsen, P., Chan, A., Muro, A., and Bushan, C. 2006. “Critical perspectives on CSR and development: What we know, what we don’t and what we need to know,” International Affairs 82(5): 977–987.

Rai, M. S. 2008. The Gender Politics of Development. London: Zed Books. Seitanidi, M. M., and Crane, A. 2009. “Implementing CSR through part-

nerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships,” Journal of Business Ethics 85(2): 251–477.

Suzlon Energy 2010. “Annual report 2009–10,” Sustaining development across 5 continents. 25 countries, http://www.suzlon.com/images/ investor_annual_result/10_Suzlon_AR_2009-10.pdf, accessed Septem- ber 13, 2013.

Suzlon Energy 2013. “Annual report 2012–13,” More than 22GW of wind energy installations worldwide mean more than just business to us, http://www.suzlon.com/images/investor_annual_result/21_20_20 _Suzlon-Annual-Report-2012-2013.pdf, accessed 9 April 2015.

Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., and Hecker, R. 2012. “Proactive CSR: An empirical analysis of the role of its economic, social and environmental dimensions on the association between capabilities and performance,” Journal of Business Ethics 115: 383–402.

UNDP 2010. “‘Capacity is development’ A global event on smart strategies and capable institutions for 2015 and beyond,” A report, http://www .undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity -development/2010-capacity-is-development-global-event-final-report/ 2010%20’Capacity%20is%20Development’%20Global%20Event%20 -%20A%20Report.pdf, accessed 9 April 2015.

Waddock, S. A. 1988. “Building successful partnerships,” Sloan Manage- ment Review 29(4): 17–23.

White, G. 1994. “Civil Society, Democratization and Development: Clear- ing the Analytical Ground,” Democratization 1(3): 375–390.

World Bank 2013. “Defining civil society,” http://web.worldbank.org/ WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20101499~menu

270 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

http://www.suzlon.com/images/investor_annual_result/10_Suzlon_AR_2009-10.pdf

http://www.suzlon.com/images/investor_annual_result/21_20_20_Suzlon-Annual-Report-2012-2013.pdf

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/2010-capacity-is-development-global-event-final-report/2010%20'Capacity%20is%20Development'%20Global%20Event%20-%20A%20Report.pdf

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20101499~menuPK:244752~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html

PK:244752~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html, accessed 9 April 2015.

APPENDIX 1

Thematic Areas for Interviews

1. Baseline

• How was the situation before the start of the project/ Suzlon involvement in the area?

- What were/are the development issues/problems and business-linked issues in the project areas?

- What was/is the attitude toward Suzlon in the communi- ties?

2. Development approach and strategies

• What are the development approaches of Suzlon, NGOs, and CBOs?

• What are the key project objectives and how do they relate to the general development issues in the area and to civil society capacity building?

• How and by whom were the objectives set? (To what extent can the NGOs and CBOs influence the agenda?)

3. Outcomes in relation to objectives

• To what extent have the objectives been fulfilled? • Which issues remain unaddressed? Why?

4. Outcomes in relation to all impacts

• How have projects impacted on all stakeholders? • Have the projects had any impacts (positive or negative)

that go beyond the scope of the project objectives? • Have the projects enhanced CSOs’ . . .

- Inter- and intra-sector associations, alliances, and net- works?

- Human resources and organization development skills? - Material/financial resources? - Access to and use of research, information, and advocacy? - Sustainability?

271HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20101499~menuPK:244752~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html

5. Views on cross-sector partnerships

• What are the perceptions regarding the projects of NGOs, CBOs, government officials, Suzlon Foundation, and Suzlon?

• How do the different stakeholders perceive the role of busi- ness in rural development?

• Do the actors perceive that they can/do affect each other’s roles and agendas?

• How is the stakeholder collaboration perceived by the different actors?

6. Civil society capacity building and sustainability

• Are the CBOs/villagers likely to be able to continue the projects after Suzlon and the NGO in question have with- drawn? Are the outcomes/impacts sustainable?

APPENDIX 2

Questionnaire to NGOs Implementing Suzlon Foundation’s CSR Projects

Please answer the following questions by encircling the number that corresponds to your perception, according to the following scale.

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all To some extent To a great extent

1. Inter and intra-sector associations, alliances, and networks

To what extent has Suzlon Foundation . . .

a) Promoted collaboration between your NGO and other NGOs?

1 2 3 4 5

b) Promoted collaboration between your NGO and government departments/state actors?

1 2 3 4 5

c) Provided opportunities for your NGO to meet other develop- ment actors for the sharing of experiences, knowledge, and ideas?

272 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

1 2 3 4 5

Comments: _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ ________________________________

2. Human resources and organization development

To what extent has Suzlon Foundation . . .

a) Strengthened your NGO’s technical capabilities?

1 2 3 4 5

b) Strengthened your NGO’s organizational and management capabilities?

1 2 3 4 5

c) Contributed to the incorporation of new areas of development work for your NGO?

1 2 3 4 5

d) Contributed to an improvement in project planning, data collection, project monitoring, and evaluation techniques/ systems?

1 2 3 4 5

Has Suzlon Foundation provided your staff with training in any specific areas?

Yes, namely____________________________________________________

No___

273HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

3. Material Resources

a) In addition to the funds, has Suzlon Foundation provided your NGO with any material resources?

Yes, namely____________________________________________________

No___

4. Research, information, and advocacy

To what extent has Suzlon Foundation . . .

a) Increased your NGO’s access to information

1 2 3 4 5

b) Improved/facilitated the communication/advocacy skills/ information dissemination of your NGO?

1 2 3 4 5

5. Sustainability

To what extent has Suzlon Foundation . . .

a) In your view ensured your NGO’s ownership of the Suzlon projects?

1 2 3 4 5

b) Been open to inputs, ideas, and suggestions regarding the projects from your NGO?

1 2 3 4 5

c) Established long-term strategies for the fulfillment of Suzlon project objectives?

1 2 3 4 5

d) In your view contributed to decreasing the donor dependency of your NGO?

274 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

1 2 3 4 5

Apart from financially, in what ways has the partnership with Suzlon Foundation been most valuable for your NGO?

______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ ________________________________

Within what areas, if any, would you like Suzlon Founda- tion to contribute to the capacity building of your NGO?

Thank you!

275HEDE SKAGERLIND, WESTMAN, AND BERGLUND

Copyright of Business & Society Review (00453609) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.