Businesses can build stronger reputational capital and have happier employees by allowing them to engage with and help communities, writes the co-founder of Mindtree
The word ‘philanthropy’ has its origin in the Greek words ‘philos’ and ‘anthropos’. Philos means love. Anthropos means man. Thus, an act of philanthropy is about loving fellow humans. Philosophers, scholars and scientists admit that most individuals are wired with some degree of care, concern and love for fellow beings. It is in our basic nature. That is how we have survived many natural and man-made upheavals to be here today. As business leaders and entrepreneurs, we need to appreciate the integrity between being human and doing good. That is where we must start.
But today, I want to talk about why and how philanthropy makes institutional and business sense. For this, I want to take you back to 1990, when I came to the US for the first time. Coming from India of the time, I realised that large scale Indian philanthropy was different from how it was in the US. In India of the time, individuals seldom gave away “personal†wealth for public good. “Industrialists†gave company money for charity, building temples and dharmashalas. Exceptions were, of course, there like the Tatas, Birlas and Shrirams who built abiding institutions in education, and in the cultural arena. In the US, even in small towns, there were individuals who were not “industrialists†but they owed big to their community and left behind their money in substantial amounts. That built America in no small measure.
Â
The second interesting aspect was a difference in engagement at the organisational level. In India, all philanthropy was done by the owner of the business. Lalaji or Sethji chose the cause, the money, the effort, even the statue and the garland. People in the company had no role to play. In the US, business leaders enabled their organisations to be platforms for their employees to pursue community engagement. This model harnessed individual volunteerism, aggregated its power at an organisation level and directed the effort to make external impact. The organisation (owners) did not dictate for what good the efforts would be used. Employees worked in a self-directed manner. They were allowed to involve families and other stakeholders. Â
The question that came to my mind was why the American model was so different? Two things struck me as distinctive. First, there is always a personal story behind an owner or CEO that shaped their mindset to give. The second was how they saw volunteerism as a great organisational strength. I want to fleetingly dwell on the first part, but spend more time on the second.
(This story appears in the 09 February, 2024 issue of Forbes India. To visit our Archives, click here.)