by Alex Roldan
I was given the opportunity last week to discuss about project development monitoring and evaluation nefore a group at a local training center here. It was like going back in time. Back to the days when I was still actively involved with a social development organization whose main commitment as to help alleviate poverty condition in the country.
The staff of Kasilak Foundation, led by Joemil Montebon, who at the time we worked together had already showed signs of an inherent ability to lead, was remarkable in their desire to find their exact spot in the so-called development industry.
I was glad to learn that despite the foundation’s benefactor Stanfilco, a multinational company, they knew very well their direction – to implement projects that could change the lives of the poor for the better and not simply as an image builder for the company or merely helping poor communities so that the company would earn the public’s goodwill.
Kasilak Foundation has grown to become a real mover of what a company’s social responsibility (CSR) ought to be which is already a departure from the conventional concept of simply creating mechanisms for cleaning up the mess that companies create, or to prevent potential conflicts with communities wherein they operate.
Though it is impossible to dissociate themselves from the company, which obviously causes confusion as to their identity and intention, the staffs are in general agreement to push for an operation with greater autonomy, particularly in deciding what projects and assistance are needed by the community, to which the company gladly agreed. The company supported the foundation’s decision not only in relocating the office outside of the company’s compound, but most importantly decision as to where the development assistance should be allocated. I learned that they were already implementing poverty alleviation projects in areas that the company had presence.
This has given the organization the opportunity to listen to what the community needs – a basic and critical pre-requisite in any project development process. I am a firm believer in this process. A project has a good chance of success if the company does not insist on what it believes the people want, but knowing and supporting what they need. Many development projects fail, not because they are poorly conceived, but because of what I call “hypocrisy of the social development technocrats” who base their decisions on what they perceive is right and not what the people aspire for.
Implementing an effective and sustainable development project cleanses the projects from public suspicion on the real intention of the assistance. Effectiveness and sustainability in this case mean that it addresses the real need of the project beneficiaries and the durability of the results. What I am saying is that even if the public knows that the assistance has traces of the benefactor, if it addresses the felt need of the community, the sincerity of the assistance would prevail.
This is what I was insisting on in my previous column that CSR is an investment of companies, but the only difference is that it is meant to bring social change. This can be facilitated by developing CSR mechanisms, one of which is to organize foundations that are given enough leeway to determine their course and implement meaningful projects in communities. Company’s resources cum “investment” are more efficiently used through this method. Yet, it still serves the other purpose of the company in their CSR investment such as image building, marketing support and improved business opportunities.
As in any objective of development projects, this is not only effective and sustainable but efficient as well.
For comments, email to: roldanlex@yahoo.com
