The term “corporate social responsibility” has been tossed around for a few years now.  It sounds pretty important, doesn’t it?  Something you might say at the Board meeting or a cool phrase to include on a resume.  But where’s the substance?  And is it more than just a phrase for Bulgarian businesses?

I’ve realised that CSR is somewhat similar to a rediscovered and renovated monument; complete with curious onlookers, a three pillar construction, and in dire need of a tour guide;  old-fashioned ethics resurrected to enhance not just an individual, but a discourse, common-interest community. 

In the vaguest sense, CSR is about how companies manage business processes to produce an overall positive impact on their internal and external society.  The original model includes a balance of social, economic and environmental factors.  However, like any well-run company, they don’t operate in silos, but overlap and collaborate on a confusing maze of multiple levels.  The trick, it seems, is to capitalise on your firm’s expertise and resources and then create programmes to enhance your employees’ and your community’s quality of life, while also contributing to the “global good”.  Consequently, decision-makers across the corporate world have learned that virtually every company requires a different approach.  It’s all about context.

 For example, in Costa Rica, a pharmaceutical company donated over one million doses of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines to the Pan American Health Organisation, demonstrating a commitment to health and strong support for their region’s vulnerable groups.  In Brazil, where in certain areas, many people don’t finish basic education, a construction company offers employees a chance to complete the programme.  This firm discovered what their workers had missed and helped them get it back, improving morale, increasing skills and enhancing employee loyalty.  A high-tech company in India annually organises over 30 science workshops and three science fairs, involving two million children, using their accessible knowledge to educate tomorrow’s technology leaders.   A South Korean manufacturing company, by providing a set customer price list, introduced complete transparency of all marketing operations and eliminated the chance for bribery or inappropriate wholesale margins.  They determined that transparency, regardless of trade, builds trust, and this initiative would promote a culture and economy of honest business.

But here in Bulgaria, “social” pillar, perhaps the sexiest of the three, carries most of a firm’s CSR weight, often resulting in generic and uninspiring corporate giving initiatives that provide little long-term sustainability or impact.  Meanwhile, the environmental, employee and economic concerns receive a mere website mention to confirm their existence.  Why worry about anything besides corporate giving?  Because while philanthropy can easily rest in the periphery of one’s mission, it’s only when you develop personnel policies and environmental commitments that CSR becomes part of a firm’s core business, helping prevent a premature exit when cuts come around the corner. Shell, at one time, went so far as to say that adoption of corporate social responsibility:  “demands a deep shift in culture, corporate values, decision making processes and behaviour”.

But while covering every facet of corporate social responsibility is ideal, corporate giving is certainly a good place to start.  The difficulty can be in determining which organisations are legitimate, how to stretch your leva and what programmes are available.  Enter Bulgarian Donor’s Forum (BDF), a membership and consultancy organisation providing financial and technical assistance for civil society development in Bulgaria.

“We were created to build a bridge - to mediate between NGOs and private businesses,” explains Vessela Gertcheva, executive director for BDF. “BDF is about associating, representing and serving philanthropists and increasing the quality of their initiatives.”
The organisation was founded by a diverse collection of foundations, each now providing support through either research, operations, funding or expertise.  For both members and clients, BDF provides structure to firm’s giving strategies by educating them on current funding programmes, organising effective partnerships, helping clients select an appropriate philanthropic initiative and then monitoring their contribution.  And BDF, still a young organisation, has come together just in time. 
“In Bulgaria, we’re seeing a trend toward more strategic philanthropy,”says Vessela.   “And that’s huge. Companies want to know exactly who their money is helping.” 

Globul, for example, which was previously doling out an annual humanitarian orphanage donation, has now developed a programme that focuses on providing emotional comfort and education to orphans.  First Investment, who used to throw money at social institutions during Easter and Christmas, now distributes funds to offer teenage orphans  the professional training and job opportunities for successful societal integration.

Specifically in preparation of the upcoming EU accession, BDF stressed the importance of co-ordination between public and private giving efforts-ensuring they work together instead of in competition.   Too, as private foundations increase their wealth, they’re enhancing EU lobbying efforts.

“We’re hoping this means they’ll form a new and enriched funding community in Bulgaria,” says Vessela. “One that will add strategy, purpose and value to Bulgaria’s framework of philanthropy.”