Philanthrocapitalism is being used for personal business!
What is the one thing that is common between Tony Blair, Jet Li, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Muhammad Yunus and Sir Richard Branson? In a single word – it is philanthrocapitalism which is bringing a businesslike approach to solve society's problems at global level. Corporate honchos have jumped into this bandwagon to take advantage of this ongoing global spree and straightening their latent purposes. However, a few genuine donors like Gates (who donated $3.8 billion), Jet Li (Jet Li's organisation, One, has already signed up 1 million Chinese to give money), Md Yunus (developed microfinance), Branson (social causes as a profit-making strategy) – to name a few – are taking all the possible initiatives to change the image of corporations and of course helping the society at the same time. A recent survey conducted by the US-based public relations firm, Edelman, discovered that only 38 per cent of people trust enterprises to do what is right and about 17 per cent trust the information they acquire from a company's CEO.
Projects like One Laptop Per Child or Project Shakti, not only helps the poor, but goes a step further and empowers them and promotes community action as well. Besides jobs, health care and housing, the concept of philanthrocapitalism should go further and ensure participation of civil-society on business and not vice versa. But with business and projects getting more complex and diverse, donors also need to strike the right balance. On one hand they ask for enough information to be able to monitor the effectiveness of the organisations they fund, but on the other they do not bog them down in form-filling bureaucracy. True, today most of them are eying on the tax break they receive from their initiatives. Most of them are investing in projects that redirect the money to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Of course, the rise of the philanthrocapitalists does make some people nervous, fearing that these wealthy donors are unaccountable and lack legitimacy. Gates and others certainly need to be transparent and open to challenge. The initiatives have just reduced to marketing gimmicks that enable these entrepreneurs to push their products to even inappropriate demographies.
Philanthrocapitalism is of course shaping the most destituted part of the world and is trying to embrace business opportunity for the upliftment of the society. But then most of the times, the money get channelised to mid-size entrepreneurs in these developing countries (highly perforated with corruption). The big names need to urgently track down the flow of their money and make sure that it reaches the right audience. Otherwise, soon the whole concept of philanthrocapitalism will get written off.
What is the one thing that is common between Tony Blair, Jet Li, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Muhammad Yunus and Sir Richard Branson? In a single word – it is philanthrocapitalism which is bringing a businesslike approach to solve society's problems at global level. Corporate honchos have jumped into this bandwagon to take advantage of this ongoing global spree and straightening their latent purposes. However, a few genuine donors like Gates (who donated $3.8 billion), Jet Li (Jet Li's organisation, One, has already signed up 1 million Chinese to give money), Md Yunus (developed microfinance), Branson (social causes as a profit-making strategy) – to name a few – are taking all the possible initiatives to change the image of corporations and of course helping the society at the same time. A recent survey conducted by the US-based public relations firm, Edelman, discovered that only 38 per cent of people trust enterprises to do what is right and about 17 per cent trust the information they acquire from a company's CEO.
Projects like One Laptop Per Child or Project Shakti, not only helps the poor, but goes a step further and empowers them and promotes community action as well. Besides jobs, health care and housing, the concept of philanthrocapitalism should go further and ensure participation of civil-society on business and not vice versa. But with business and projects getting more complex and diverse, donors also need to strike the right balance. On one hand they ask for enough information to be able to monitor the effectiveness of the organisations they fund, but on the other they do not bog them down in form-filling bureaucracy. True, today most of them are eying on the tax break they receive from their initiatives. Most of them are investing in projects that redirect the money to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Of course, the rise of the philanthrocapitalists does make some people nervous, fearing that these wealthy donors are unaccountable and lack legitimacy. Gates and others certainly need to be transparent and open to challenge. The initiatives have just reduced to marketing gimmicks that enable these entrepreneurs to push their products to even inappropriate demographies.
Philanthrocapitalism is of course shaping the most destituted part of the world and is trying to embrace business opportunity for the upliftment of the society. But then most of the times, the money get channelised to mid-size entrepreneurs in these developing countries (highly perforated with corruption). The big names need to urgently track down the flow of their money and make sure that it reaches the right audience. Otherwise, soon the whole concept of philanthrocapitalism will get written off.
Congress-backed Krishi Jami Raksha Committee, is leading the second round of protests for the return of 400 acres agriculture land. He said: “We are still against the forcible acquisition of land. A power plant is welcome but we are committed to our stand against acquisition of agricultural land”. He added: “We will now start breaking the boundary wall of the project area.”