corporate social responsibility through cross-sector partnerships: implications for civil society,...

Corporate SocialResponsibility 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 theiragendas 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, thestate, 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 ofthese effects. Based on a case study of the multinationalwind energy company Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects inrural India, this article contends that CSR projectsimplemented through cross-sector partnerships can helpto 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 Westmanhas an MA from the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University, Stockholm,Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Henrik Berglund is an Associate Professor ofDepartment of Political Science at Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail:[email protected].

bs_bs_banner

Business and Society Review 120:2 245–275

© 2015 Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.

mailto:[email protected]



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

INTRODUCTION

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

concerns, commonly referred to as corporate social responsibility(CSR). Further, many have expanded their CSR agendas so thatthese no longer are limited to issues related to labor conditionsand the immediate effects of their production, but also includebroader concerns that incorporate civil society and the commu-nities within which they operate, and thus issues that lay beyondthe corporations’ immediate interests (O’Brien 2001, p. 3). Thishas resulted in so-called proactive CSR (Torugsa et al. 2012) andcross-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 betweenand the respective responsibilities of these actors, particularly incountries where state institutions lack resources and capacity. Inthis context, CSR may result in the private sector turning into adevelopment agent that bridges conventional business agendas,civil society concerns, and poverty alleviation while the statepartly 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 inrural 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 inthe relationship, roles, and responsibilities of the three actors.The research question that will be addressed is hence: What arethe 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 processthrough which CSOs increase their abilities to perform core func-tions, solve problems, define and achieve objectives, and enhancetheir understanding and ability to deal with their developmentneeds in a broad context and in a sustainable manner (UNDP2010). We specifically explore some aspects of civil society capac-ity building and of the changing roles and responsibilities of theactors involved in cross-sector partnerships deemed important inprevious research, which will be elaborated upon in the theoreti-cal discussion.

METHODS

The aim of the article is addressed through a case study of thewind energy corporation Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects in the twoIndian states Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, a total of six projectsimplemented by six different nongovernment organizations(NGOs). The inclusion of these projects enables us to attain somelevel of breadth in the analysis, along with the depth typicallyassociated with the case study method. The choice to studySuzlon Energy’s CSR projects in two states is not motivated by anambition to compare these, but rather to increase the represen-tativeness and the potential for abstraction of the results, whilelimiting the study to one company ensures some level of unithomogeneity. The two states were selected because the projects inthese two states together may be seen as representative of SuzlonEnergy’s CSR projects in general, addressing issues related towomen’s empowerment, livelihood diversification, and access todrinking water and natural resources. In addition to ensuring arepresentative sample of cases in terms of project focus areas, theinclusion of the two states enables us to eliminate contextualfactors 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 (seeinterview guide in Appendix 1) with Suzlon Energy and SuzlonFoundation (the CSR department) representatives, the six NGOs,and government partners. As a complement to the interviews, aquestionnaire (see Appendix 2) and secondary data in the form ofproject documentation allowed for material triangulation, enhanc-ing the reliability of the results. The questionnaire was primarilyused to collect additional detailed information from the NGOsconcerning civil society capacity building. The questionnaire wasdistributed to the six respective NGO project managers andincluded questions had a 100 percent response rate. The ques-tionnaire was used for the purpose of mapping the extent towhich the NGO partners implementing Suzlon Foundation’s CSRprojects perceived that their partnership with Suzlon Foundationhas contributed to the capacity building of their NGO. In order toensure a high level of validity of the questionnaire, we formulatedquestionnaire questions based on the operationalization of capac-ity building and constructed answer categories in the form of anumerical 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 SuzlonFoundation’s head of CSR, 4 interviews with local Suzlon Energybusiness unit representatives, 1 interview with each of the sixNGO project managers, 2 interviews with representatives from twodifferent NGOs collaborating with one of Suzlon Foundation’s sixpartner NGOs (though not directly with Suzlon Foundation) in theimplementation of a project, and 3 interviews with governmentpartners.

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

CSR AND CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS

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


orientations of corporations toward their responsibilities (Moon2007, p. 298). Andriof and McIntosh define CSR as “. . . under-standing and managing a company’s wider influences on societyfor the benefit of the company and society as a whole” (2001,p. 14). It can be argued to relate to economic, environmental, andsocial concerns (Henderson 2001, p. 19), and to involve a com-mitment by corporations to contribute to economic developmentwhile improving the life of the workforce, the local community,and society at large (Holme and Watts 2000, p. 2). This can beseen both as a manifestation of and a response to globalizationand has been part of a more general shift from state regulation ofcorporations toward an emphasis on corporate self-regulation(Jenkins et al. 2002, p. 1).

While business takes on new responsibilities through CSR andcross-sector partnerships, civil society can be seen as becomingincreasingly accountable to the private sector and profit-driveninterest and, thereby, less so to the communities they operate inand for. Thus, the increasing incidence of CSOs engaging inpartnerships with the private sector and the state risks infringingon civil society’s autonomy and role as an advocate of the publicinterest, and hence on its development potential. Because thesepartnerships are characterized by power asymmetries in favor ofbusiness as the primary agenda-setter, as companies often initiateand fund collaborative projects, the result is development projectsand agendas driven mainly by business concerns and motives. Asargued by Seitanidi and Crane, the one-way reporting reflects apre-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 theextreme, becoming legitimizers and extended arms of business.

Because of these factors, CSOs arguably face considerablyhigher 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 andquantifiable. Sustainable development impacts require a long-term commitment, which implies a demand for alternativefunding when partnerships end. On the other hand, businesscan provide civil society with the resources that it needs toenhance its capacity and reach and to function more effectively


(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 empiricallyexploring the implications of partnerships in terms of civil societycapacity building and the changing relationships, roles, andresponsibilities of the collaborating partners. Earlier studies haveconcluded that there is a lack of research on the implementationas well as the outcomes of partnerships.

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

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


in cases where these departments are headed by former civilsociety and development sector professionals, who are likely toemphasize community and CSO influence and benefits. In thesecases, the risks of corporate control of the CSO agenda areminimized. However, business–CSR misalignment also risksleading to diluted CSR impacts in cases where a limited budget isallocated to too many different CSOs and when business corecompetencies and other assets remain underutilized (O’Brien2001). 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 realizedthrough the input of financial, logistical, and human resources,complemented by the expertise, local knowledge, and socialcapital of NGOs and community-based organization (CBOs)(Torugsa et al. 2012) and the broader development knowledge andframework provided by the government (Hamann and Acutt2003).

However, most joint civil society–business initiatives aremarked by both converging and conflicting interests, highlightingthe need for “critical cooperation” (Arenas et al. 2013; Covey andBrown 2001), which requires that attention is paid to powerasymmetries, where power does not have to be equal, but wherethe parties have to recognize each other as capable of imposingsignificant costs or providing valuable benefits to the partnership.Second, critical rights need to be mutually accepted as thiscreates boundaries around negotiations, whose violation cancreate serious costs to the partners. A third precondition forcritical cooperation is interest-based negotiations, as a focus onthe 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 keystakeholders.

CIVIL SOCIETY, CAPACITY BUILDING, ANDCROSS-SECTOR PARTNER RELATIONS

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


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

The advocates of this liberal ideal of civil society argue that it isthe characteristics of autonomy, voluntarism, and pluralism thatgive civil society its developing force and potential for resistance(Kaviraj 2001; Keane 1998, p. 78). Nevertheless, we must alsorecognize that this ideal differs from reality, and that the bound-aries between the state and civil society are often blurred. Civilsociety is in this article viewed as a sphere basically separatefrom, but not always completely autonomous in relation to, fami-lies, firms, and the state, which is constituted by a plurality ofdiverse CSOs that may work as positive forces for developmentbut that may fail to do so. In the Indian setting, popular mobili-zation within the Indian civil society was evident already in thecolonial period but many observers point out that the history andformation of both state and civil society differed from the experi-ences in Western Europe (Chatterjee 1993). Also, the status of thecurrent Indian civil society is contested. One could argue that anactive associational life within a relatively independent sphere iswhat separates India from most other developing states and is acorner stone of Indian democracy (Jenkins 2008). On the otherhand, civil society in India often appears to be weak as anautonomous sphere, because of the strong position of the stateand the fact that power relations within other spheres permeatecivil society (Chhibber 2001). In accordance with global trends ofdecentralization and privatization of development work, the Indianstate has from the 1980s onward encouraged NGOs to take moreresponsibility for social development (Ghosh 2009, pp. 230–234).Civil society has become thicker and more active, but many of theCSOs are closely engaged with the state or international fundingagencies and partly dependent on them for project contractsand/or funding (Baviskar 2001, p. 7). Furthermore, in line withthe trends of the privatization of development, private companiesare also entering the area of development work in India, mainlythrough CSR and cross-sector partnerships, and are hence alsobecoming collaborating partners and actors of concern for civilsociety.


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

• 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 Acutt2003), there are some critical aspects that affect the outcomesand 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: COMMUNITYPROJECTS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH

CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS

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


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 alienationand damage to the local infrastructure and environment, whichhas resulted in mistrust against the company and in clashesbetween local communities and Suzlon Energy staff (interview1). To make its business operations run more effectively and topractice what it preaches in terms of building relationships withall stakeholders, Suzlon Energy established Suzlon Foundationin 2007. The foundation heads CSR initiatives on behalf of theSuzlon Group in India. CSR at Suzlon Energy is hence run bya separate organization, which is structurally isolated from thebusiness units of the company, reflecting the recent trendamong multi-national corporations (MNCs) of setting up separatefoundations to deal with corporate responsibility and set upcharitable 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 governmentpartners. In 2010, Suzlon Foundation had 125 different proj-ects, implemented in collaboration with 32 different NGOs and13 government partners (Suzlon Energy 2010, p. 25). The find-ings presented in this article are based on a study of all sixCSR projects implemented in the two states Madhya Pradeshand Gujarat, listed below (Table 1).

TABLE 1 CSR Projects

LocationCollaborating

Partner Focus

1. Gujarat/Abdasa Taluka Sahjeevan Water access2. Gujarat/Bhuj Khamir Entrepreneurship3. Gujarat/Dwarka GVT Women’s empowerment4. Madhya Pradesh/Dewas Concept Society Women’s empowerment5. Madhya Pradesh/Jaora Bypass/local

governmentdepartments

Poverty reduction/women’s empowerment

6. Madhya Pradesh/Ratlam Samarpan/localgovernmentdepartments

Women’s empowerment


Sahjeevan

Sahjeevan was founded in the early 1990s as a response to theneeds articulated by the rural women’s movement in Kutch, adistrict in the western Indian state of Gujarat. The district, whereSuzlon Energy operates a wind park in Abdasa Taluka, is locatedin a desert and because of the geographical conditions, the regionfaces low groundwater levels and water scarcity, problems thatare 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, genderinequality and discrimination of scheduled castes characterize theregion (interview 12).

The development approach of Sahjeevan is to empower localcommunities to access and manage natural resources by bringingtogether trained professionals, rural experts, and communities tocreate knowledge to harness natural resources in order to improvethe communities’ livelihood security (interview 12). Central toSahjeevan’s approach is that all projects must be carried out in adecentralized manner, with a high level of community involvement,ensuring community ownership and the sustainability of projects(ibid.). Suzlon Foundation’s collaboration with Sahjeevan involvesthe funding of a community-managed decentralized water programin 13 villages in Abdasa Taluka. The overall goal of the project is tomake these villages self-sustaining in terms of access to drinkingwater in the long run so that villagers gain improved access to safe,adequate, and equitably distributed drinking water. In addition tothis, the project aims to carry out a study of water resourceplanning in another 41 villages in Bhachau and Mandvi Talukas.Prior to the partnership with Suzlon Foundation, Sahjeevan hadnever collaborated with a corporation. Already from the outset, theNGO saw the partnership as more than just a funding relationship—as a long-term partnership, where the exchange of knowledgeand ideas would be a central component. Further, Suzlon Founda-tion provided input beyond the scope of the project, such as adviceon animal husbandry practices and assistance in establishinglinkages with dairy and livestock institutions. In terms of capacitybuilding, the NGO wished for more in terms of input on organiza-tional development and efficiency. Moreover, the NGO would haveliked to enhance organization and project sustainability through


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

In the partnership, Sahjeevan perceived its primarily role to bean advocate of the community and its needs vis-à-vis the busi-ness, rather than being part of enhancing the company’s image inthe area (interview 12). Because of having similar perceptions oflocal development needs and partnership objectives, the NGO feltthat it could retain its core values and work areas throughoutthe partnership. Cross-sector partnerships work to reduce thedonor dependency of NGOs and development projects, and thedecision to enter into partnership with Suzlon Energy was astrategy used by the NGO to put pressure on the government toinvest in decentralized drinking water programs. The strategy wassuccessful and the government started to support the project onceSuzlon Energy had invested.

The NGO experienced the partnership with Suzlon Foundationas very flexible and characterized by knowledge exchange andlearning. 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. Anegative aspect of the partnership with Suzlon, however, was thefluctuation of funds (interview 12). Further reservations towardpartnering with corporations, expressed by the NGO, were thatcorporations tend to have a “neighborhood” approach, or a focuson communities within close proximity to their operation sites,which does not fit with the NGO’s ambition to work with inclusiveand integrated regional development.

Khamir

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


the organization were determined based on the observed groundrealities of a decreasing artisan base in the Kutch area since the1960s 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 industrystandards, and crowding out due to increased availability ofcheaper mass-produced products (Khamir, unpublished data;interview 15).

Suzlon Foundation’s collaboration with Khamir involved thefunding of three projects: the “Revitalization of Leather CraftSector in Kachchh” project, the “Textile Tailoring Unit for theCraft Sector of Kachchh” project, and the “Building the KachchhBrand” project. The tailoring project was finalized in March 2010and 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 wasviewed as an institutional stakeholder and a permanent partnerbeyond the scope of the projects, rather than only as a projectfunding partner. Further capacity-building efforts on the part ofSuzlon Foundation included the support in the setup of theKhamir web site, project input through review meetings, and theformation of linkages with organizations working within similarfields. The collaboration with Suzlon further enabled the NGO totake artisans to exhibitions and expose them to product markets,which contributed to the capacity building of the artisans interms of knowledge of market demand and product ranges.Although the insecurity of future funding from Suzlon Foundationwas a concern expressed by the NGO, Suzlon was perceived as asensitive partner as the focus was not only on quantitative out-comes, but there was an understanding of the cultural aspect ofthe project and of its slow, qualitative, and long-term nature. Inline with this, Khamir viewed Suzlon as a flexible partner, espe-cially in comparison with government partners, as the companyallowed for modifications and adjustments when requested by theNGO and had an understanding and respect for the local culture.

Gramya Vikas Trust

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


ingress in the water and soil in the Jamnagar district (GVT,unpublished data). From 1996 onward, the NGO has also workedwith women’s empowerment through the formation of women’sself-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 SHGmembers to engage in entrepreneurial activities, such as poultryand 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 ofOkha Mandal is surrounded by saline water on all sides, resultingin a saline breeze during 3 months of the year and salinity ingressin soil and water (GVT, unpublished data). There are no rivers orstreams in the area and rainfall is scarce and irregular, which hasresulted in a shallow soil cover and low soil fertility. Because ofpoor economic conditions, the share of children attending school islow and illiteracy and child labor are prevalent in the region.Further difficulties faced by the communities include lack of accessto 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 feltthat Suzlon Energy’s operations did not harm surrounding com-munities as the company is dedicated to ecologically sustainablepractices and products. GVT further felt that the developmentapproaches of Suzlon Foundation and the NGO are similar andthat Suzlon Foundation has contributed greatly to the capacitybuilding of GVT, particularly in terms of promoting linkages withgovernment stakeholders and of learning within the area ofanimal husbandry. The NGO generally expressed to be morehesitant toward partnerships with government agencies than withcorporations (interview 16).

Concept Society

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


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 tofacilitate the access to resources, government policies, and pro-grams for its target groups by linking with different organizationsand networks.

Suzlon Energy was Concept Society’s first corporate partnerand the NGO viewed the partnership as very open and transpar-ent and, in contrast to government and other funding agencycollaborations, as flexible. This was attributed to the company’sunderstanding of the practical realities of the field and to the lackof ambition to micro-manage projects. The NGO also collaborateswith various government agencies, but perceived these as difficultbecause of the hierarchical and corrupt systems inherent in gov-ernment institutions (interview 2). The development approaches ofthe NGO and Suzlon Foundation were perceived as similar on asystem level in the sense that both organizations focus onbottom-up sustainable development. However, the NGO revealedthat there had been discussions regarding diverging perceptionsof processes and approaches. In general, Concept Society felt thatthe NGO has received valuable support from Suzlon Foundationin terms of dealing with unanticipated problems and linking withdifferent partners. A difficulty faced by the NGO was that the staffhad to work hard to change the negative attitude among theSuzlon Energy employees toward CSR. In due course, the aware-ness concerning the importance of CSR and of local developmentissues rose dramatically among the local Suzlon Energy staffbecause of the work and advocacy of the NGO (interview 2).

Bypass

Bypass, or Bhopal Yuwa Paryavaran Shikshan and SamajikSansthan, has since the year 2000 worked within the areas ofnatural resource management, community mobilization for ruralpoverty reduction, the promotion of quality improvements inprimary education, and women’s empowerment. The developmentapproach of the NGO is to work through CBOs and empowerthese to promote rural development and address their own needs(Bypass, unpublished data). Bypass’ Suzlon Foundation-financedproject is implemented in the village panchayats of Luhari and


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

When it comes to the partnership with Suzlon Energy, Bypassfelt that the process through which the project objectives were setwas appropriate. Their previous experience and knowledge of thearea were taken into consideration as the NGO, in collaborationwith the community, was allowed to set the objectives (interview7). In the eyes of the organization, working with Suzlon Energy,and corporations in general, was a positive experience as opposedto working with the government, which the organization expressedhas a tendency toward corrupt practices.

Samarpan

Like the Bypass project discussed above, the Suzlon Energy CSRprojects implemented by Samarpan are located in the Ratlamdistrict in Madhya Pradesh. Samarpan Care Awareness and Reha-bilitation Center was established by a group of young professionalsocial workers in Indore, in June 1999. The vision of Samarpan isto channel natural human and nonhuman resources and to breakthe 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 anddisabled, women and child welfare, environmental education andprotection, and research and evaluation on social and develop-mental issues (Samarpan, unpublished data).

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


people on a sustainable basis through the establishment of dairyunits. This was to be achieved through the formation of 250women’s SHGs and the capacity building of these in terms oftraining in record keeping, lending, entrepreneurship, contactswith financial institutions, skill development, and the formation ofan SHG forum. At an early stage, the project was integrated withthe Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana (SGSY) scheme estab-lished by the Indian government for the purpose of providingsustainable income to poor people living in rural areas. Theproject 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 theNGO 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 ofsustainable 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 formof banners, posters, and media attention (interview 9), which wasappreciated. In general, Samarpan was satisfied with the collabo-ration and felt that it had a positive impact on the NGO as thestaff learned a lot from it. In spite of this, and of the generalperception that cross-sector partnerships are good means to workwith development, Samarpan expressed some concerns linked toworking with a corporation. Here, the lack of clarity, suddenchanges affecting project progress or outcomes, the insecurity offunding due to the dependency on business performance, therelatively short time span for projects, a focus on quantitative asopposed to qualitative outcomes, and divergence in visions andgoals of the respective partners were emphasized as risk factors orcosts for the NGO.

CAPACITY BUILDING

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


outcomes. This has more specifically involved the promotion ofCSO ownership of projects, openness to NGO partners’ input,ideas, and suggestions, the enforcement of long-term strategiesand, to some extent, efforts to decrease NGO donor dependency.The NGOs experienced a high level of project ownership as well asmutual influence and shared control, which implies that the risksof excessive organizational adaptation and business influencewere minimized in the partnerships. That the partners haveshared responsibility and control over project processes, based ontheir respective areas of expertise, is likely to have created oppor-tunities for joint learning, enabling partners to correct problemsand achieve mutually desired impacts. That Suzlon Foundationenabled the NGOs to control and take responsibility for theaspects of the partnerships that they were seen as experts onimplies that the CSOs’ resources, such as their close ties to thecommunities, were harnessed and valued, which is pointed out asimportant by Ashman (2001, p. 1110). Opportunities for jointlearning, technical support, and advice on how to solve problemswere explicitly mentioned by a majority of the NGOs as positiveaspects of the collaboration. However, the NGOs overall expressedto have received less support within the areas of human resourcesand organization development than when it comes to ensuringproject outcome sustainability. In spite of this, the NGOsaccounted for having increased the scope of their developmentwork as a result of the partnership.

While several NGOs emphasized that their partnership withSuzlon Foundation has resulted in increased collaboration withother NGOs and, to some extent, government departments, theydid not perceive their abilities to establish inter- and intra-sectorassociations, alliances, and networks as significantly enhanced.This implies that the NGOs would have liked to receive moresupport in terms of establishing linkages with potential partners,particularly with state actors. As empirical evidence has shownthat the relevance and sustainability of projects are enhancedwhen the government is involved and plays an active facilitatingrole in business–civil society partnerships (Hamann and Acutt2003, pp. 266–268), this is an important aspect of NGO capacitybuilding. A category of capacity building within which SuzlonFoundation had contributed little is that of research, inform-ation, and advocacy (the average scores for these questions in the


questionnaire were between 2 and 3), which most probably can beexplained by the fact that both parties think of these aspects asbeyond the scope of the partnership, as the NGOs in questionare working with specific development projects rather than withadvocacy and information dissemination. When it comes to theaspect of Suzlon Foundation’s support in terms of financial andmaterial resources, the project funds were the major aspect ofthis, although Suzlon Foundation in many cases went beyondproject funding and supported the NGOs materially through theprovision of office material, computers, etc. Despite the docu-mented capacity-building support that Suzlon Foundation hasprovided, the NGOs expressed a desire for further capacity build-ing of their organizations, especially when it comes to establishinglinkages with potential donors, project management, planningand documentation, training of NGO staff, and technical supportfor agriculture, water, and marketing components of the projects.Ultimately, the value of Suzlon Foundation’s capacity-buildingefforts has to be evaluated in relation to the potential losses orcosts borne by the NGOs as a consequence of entering intocorporate partnerships, such as decreased credibility and corpo-rate steering of the agenda (Ashman 2001, p. 1106; Covey andBrown 2001, p. 7).

CHANGING PARTNER RELATIONSHIPS, ROLES,AND RESPONSIBILITIES

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


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 beenextended 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 ofcapacity building and funding, associated with the partnerships,the NGOs can be argued to have borne the highest costs out ofthe three partners. This can be attributed to the credibilitylosses within the communities and the wider civil society as aconsequence of corporate collaboration, and to the insecurity ofproject terms and funding.

“Complementary core competencies” were realized to someextent as the respective actors’ knowledge and strengths largelywere 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 localknowledge and social capital of NGOs and CBOs, and the broaderdevelopment knowledge and framework provided by the govern-ment (Hamann and Acutt 2003, p. 261). In the initial stages of theprojects, Suzlon Foundation identified NGOs with knowledge andexperience of local conditions, which were employed to conductlocal needs assessments, on which the project objectives thenwere based. However, an important aspect for the realization of“complementary core competencies” and for sustainable “criticalcooperation” is that the government assumes an administrativerole (Covey and Brown 2001, p. 7), which was not the case inSuzlon Energy’s CSR projects. Instead, the civil society partnerslargely took responsibility for partner and stakeholder relations,as the government partners rarely were in direct contact withSuzlon Energy, and several of the NGOs expressed difficultiesassociated with collaborating with the government because ofits lack of flexibility and its ineffective and corrupt practices.It is noteworthy that basically all NGOs expressed a preferenceof working with corporate partners, or at least Suzlon Found-ation, over working with government partners as they generallyperceived government agencies as less flexible and more bureau-cratic, hierarchical, and inefficient. Two NGO heads explicitly


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

However, the NGOs also emphasized the importance of multiplefunding sources and the fact that project outcome sustainabilitytends to be enhanced when the government is a partner, aspointed out by Ashman (2001, p. 1104). When it comes to otheraspects of “critical cooperation,” a majority of the NGOs havemaintained a critical vigilance of Suzlon Energy and have playedactive roles in shaping the CSR discourse and agenda, factorspointed out as crucial by Hamann and Acutt (2003, pp. 267–268).Further, critical rights have largely been acknowledged by thepartners and they have been aware of each other’s respectiveinterests and the power relations inherent in the partnerships,and have to a large extent managed and promoted the interests oftheir respective stakeholders (Covey and Brown 2001, p. 7).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

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


It is crucial that Suzlon Foundation’s NGO capacity-buildingefforts are evaluated in relation to the costs borne by the NGOs asa consequence of entering into partnerships with the corporation.Our findings indicate that the NGOs, regardless of the type of CSRproject, have borne the highest costs, in terms of a credibilityloss, extensive coordination efforts, and insecurity concerningproject terms and funding, out of the partners. Aside from thecapacity-building aspects, the civil society partners viewed SuzlonEnergy and the cross-sector collaboration in a positive light, asthe 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 civilsociety actors did not see themselves as co-opted in the corporateagenda. The perceptions of the partnerships expressed duringinterviews have further led us to conclude that “complementarycore competencies” largely have been realized, as the respectiveactors’ knowledge and strengths in most instances have been putto use in the different stages of project implementation. Further,“critical cooperation” has been practiced as a majority of theNGOs have maintained a critical vigilance of Suzlon Energy,managed the interests of their key stakeholders, and played activeroles in shaping the CSR discourse and agenda. However, thegovernment cannot be said to have assumed an administrativerole in the partnerships in which it has been involved, as this rolemainly has been taken on by the NGOs. But as some scholarshave failed to recognize, this may be a positive factor in cross-sector partnerships in contexts where the government is perceivedas corrupt and ineffective. Seen in this light, it may be positivethat the government has partly withdrawn from its traditional rolein development work, at least in cases where the private sectortakes on some responsibility for this by providing civil society withfunding without significantly affecting the agenda-setting role ofCSOs.

Although the CSOs collaborating with Suzlon Energy mayhave downplayed the negative aspects of the partnerships, suchas becoming increasingly accountable to and implicated with theprivate sector, our findings indicate that the CSOs have achievednet benefits of entering into partnerships with business. Theroles and responsibilities of the NGOs are perceived to havechanged only marginally as a consequence of the partnerships,


while the corporation’s role and responsibilities have beenaltered 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 someextent as state authorities have been able to withdraw fromsome of the areas where the CSR projects are implemented. Civilsociety involvement in CSR can further constitute a valuableopportunity 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 beneeded to change the conditions of the poor and to developsociety 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 butmay entail significant “costs” for CSOs, which must be carefullyconsidered before entering into partnerships. For civil societytheory, the implication of these findings is that the risk high-lighted by many that CSO collaborations with the private sectornecessarily will lead to civil society cooptation in the businessagenda and a reduced ability to constitute a positive force fordevelopment is exaggerated.

It is evident that Suzlon Energy’s CSR projects go well beyondthe immediate interests of the corporation and the “businesscase” 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 thebusiness operations—largely has been left unaddressed bySuzlon Energy (with the exception of the Conjunctive Land Useproject). Evidence of this includes that the corporation hasmade no real efforts to spread conjunctive land use initiatives toother areas or to actively strive to employ women. This discrep-ancy between the CSR agenda and the business operations andimpacts may be explained by the sharp distinction between theCSR department—Suzlon Foundation—and the core businessdepartments 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 intothe business cycle, which implies that there is a risk of trans-forming the CSR agenda into the setup of charitable projects


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

LIST OF INTERVIEWS

Madhya Pradesh

Interview 1, January 2011, Suzlon FoundationInterview 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 DewasInterview 6, September 2010, Suzlon Energy Regional ManagerInterview 7, September 2010, Bypass (NGO)Interview 8, September 2010, Suzlon Energy Staff JaoraInterview 9, September 2010, Samarpan (NGO)Interview 10, September 2010, Suzlon Energy staff PalsodiInterview 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 CorporateCitizenship. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

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

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


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

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

Brown, L. D., and Kalegaonkar, A. 1999. “Addressing Civil Society’sChallenges: Support Organizations as Emerging Institutions,” ResearchReport 15 (2). Harvard University: Institute for Development ResearchReports. (2).

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

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

Covey, J., and Brown, L. D. 2001. “Critical cooperation: An alternativeform 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 ThirdWorld. Uppsala: Seminar for Development Studies.

Googins, B. K., and Rochlin, S. A. 2000. “Creating the partnershipsociety: 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 thegovernment) respond to ‘corporate social responsibility’? A critique ofbusiness motivations and the potential for partnerships,” DevelopmentSouthern Africa 20(2): 255–270.

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

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

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

Jenkins, R. 2008. “India: Associational life and its discontents,” inP. 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: CambridgeUniversity Press.


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

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 projectagendas and longer-term alliances,” Journal of Business Ethics 123(3):527–547.

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

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

Prieto-Carrón, M., Lund Thomsen, P., Chan, A., Muro, A., and Bushan,C. 2006. “Critical perspectives on CSR and development: What weknow, what we don’t and what we need to know,” International Affairs82(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 institutionalisationof nonprofit-business partnerships,” Journal of Business Ethics 85(2):251–477.

Suzlon Energy 2010. “Annual report 2009–10,” Sustaining developmentacross 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 windenergy 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: Anempirical analysis of the role of its economic, social and environmentaldimensions on the association between capabilities and performance,”Journal of Business Ethics 115: 383–402.

UNDP 2010. “‘Capacity is development’ A global event on smart strategiesand 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


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

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.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 andbusiness-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 relateto the general development issues in the area and to civilsociety capacity building?

• How and by whom were the objectives set? (To what extentcan 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?



5. Views on cross-sector partnerships

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

• 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’sroles and agendas?

• How is the stakeholder collaboration perceived by thedifferent actors?

6. Civil society capacity building and sustainability

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

APPENDIX 2

Questionnaire to NGOs Implementing Suzlon Foundation’sCSR Projects

Please answer the following questions by encircling the numberthat corresponds to your perception, according to the followingscale.

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 governmentdepartments/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, andideas?


1 2 3 4 5

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Human resources and organization development


a) Strengthened your NGO’s technical capabilities?

1 2 3 4 5

b) Strengthened your NGO’s organizational and managementcapabilities?

1 2 3 4 5

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

1 2 3 4 5

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

1 2 3 4 5

Has Suzlon Foundation provided your staff with training inany specific areas?

Yes, namely____________________________________________________

No___

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3. Material Resources

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

Yes, namely____________________________________________________

No___

4. Research, information, and advocacy


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

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Sustainability


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

1 2 3 4 5

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

1 2 3 4 5

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

1 2 3 4 5

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


1 2 3 4 5

Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Apart from financially, in what ways has the partnershipwith 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!


corporate social responsibility through cross-sector partnerships: implications for civil society,...

Documents