With little notice in the West, India has just launched the most far-reaching corporate social responsibility (CSR) program in the world. The CSR law, which took effect April 1, requires large and mid-sized firms to contribute at least 2% of their pre-tax profits (averaged over the previous three years) to social, health, educational, or environmental causes. It also requires companies to prepare a formal CSR policy and to report annually on their CSR activities. The CSR law, section 135 of the Companies Act of 2013, was part of the first major overhaul of Indian corporate law in nearly sixty years. In February, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued regulations implementing the new law.
The money involved is huge for India. The CSR requirement is expected to raise $2 to $5 billion annually for the social sector. A comparable 2% spending requirement in the United States would raise more than $48 billion per year, assuming it applied only to corporations. Even more money would be raised in the U.S. if such a requirement applied to “pass through” entities such as partnerships.
The 2% mandatory spending provision essentially operates as a tax, but it relies on an unusual mechanism: companies themselves will choose the recipients of their funds. Companies obtain some flexibility under the system as well as the public relations benefits that come from community giving.
No other country in the world has made it compulsory for companies to prepare a CSR policy and contribute a fixed percentage of their profits. Given the active debate in the U.S. and in other countries about what, if anything, corporations owe to their communities, India is an important test case for the social consequences of ramped-up corporate giving.
The law is sweeping. It applies to any company incorporated in India, including the Indian subsidiaries of foreign corporations. The threshold for being covered by the law is quite low. Companies are subject to the CSR requirements if they have, for any financial year:
a net worth of at least 5 billion rupees (approximately $80 million)
revenue of at least 10 billion rupees (approximately $160 million) or
net profits of at least 50 million rupees (approximately $800,000)
The CSR requirements could potentially apply to hundreds of thousands of mid-size companies throughout India, such as auto dealers, retailers, small manufacturers, and real estate developers. Each company is required to appoint an internal CSR committee of its board of directors, prepare a formal CSR policy, and publish an annual report on its CSR activities. If the 2% is not spent, the board is required to disclose this fact in its annual report, along with the reasons for failure to comply.
The new law is a boon to educational, health, and social institutions in India. Permissible areas for funding include public health, hunger and poverty, education, combatting AIDS and other diseases, cultural initiatives and the arts, gender equity, and environmental protection. A company can meet its obligations by undertaking projects itself or by contributing to charities, trusts, or foundations.
With an estimated 3.3 million charities and NGOs in India, there will be no shortage of groups lining up to receive the funds. And the social needs are immense in India, where a third of the population of 1.3 billion earns less than $1.25 per day.
In the U.S., thousands of large companies have voluntarily adopted CSR policies, which range from allowing employees paid time to volunteer in communities to reducing the company’s environmental impact. Many large companies have also established affiliated foundations for corporate giving. Few companies in the U.S. devote 2% of their net profits to CSR programs, however. Wal-Mart’s foundation, for example, gave away about 0.7% of the company’s net profits in 2012.
Many corporate leaders and scholars contend that corporations have no social obligations to their communities. Milton Friedman, for example, famously argued that the “social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”
The Indian CSR law will test whether corporations are better situated than government to identify and address social needs in their communities. India has a notoriously inefficient tax system and bureaucracy, so the CSR law can be seen as a way to avoid funneling money through centralized government agencies and to keep money in communities.
Moreover, the Indian law mandates that a committee of the board of directors create a CSR policy and report annually on the company’s progress. Through this mechanism, high-level board attention to community needs could become as institutionalized as board attention to quarterly profits and securities regulations. The Indian CSR program will have the most impact if companies go beyond making individual grants to non-profits and instead band together to address longstanding social problems that require collective action, such as water scarcity, inadequate education, and poor sanitation.
It’s too soon to predict the impacts of the Indian CSR law and the groups that will ultimately benefit. But U.S. lawyers and policymakers should closely watch this experiment in mandatory corporate spending for social goals.
Showing 2,913 results
| June 12, 2014
With little notice in the West, India has just launched the most far-reaching corporate social responsibility (CSR) program in the world. The CSR law, which took effect April 1, requires large and mid-sized firms to contribute at least 2% of their pre-tax profits (averaged over the previous three years) to social, health, educational, or environmental […]
Robin Kundis Craig | June 11, 2014
On Monday, June 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, — U.S. —, — S. Ct. —, 2014 WL 2560466 (June 9, 2014), a case that posed the seemingly simple legal question of whether the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA,” also known as Superfund), 42 U.S.C. §§ […]
Daniel Farber | June 11, 2014
OIRA should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of its own activities and explore alternatives to its current oversight methods. A White House office called OIRA polices regulations by other agencies in the executive branch. OIRA basically performs the role of a traditional regulator – it issues regulations that bind other agencies, and agencies need OIRA approval before […]
Joseph Tomain | June 9, 2014
The EPA’s June 2, 2014 announcement of a Clean Power Plan is momentous. On the surface, its scope, complexity, potential for myriad legal challenges and, not to mention, the difficulty of gathering reliable cost and benefit data, make it so. Mothers should advise their children to grow up to be energy lawyers, not cowboys. However, what […]
William Buzbee | June 3, 2014
On June 2, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued its much awaited and debated proposed Clean Air Act Section 111(d) regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing electric utility generating units, colloquially referred to as power plants. And because the largest GHG emitters in this category are coal burning plants, such […]
Daniel Farber | June 2, 2014
Megan Herzog has done a great job of explaining the background of the rules and summarizing the proposal in her blog posts. I just wanted to add a quick note about how EPA has structured its rules in light of possible legal challenges. The fundamental issue facing EPA is how to define the “best system” for […]
Erin Kesler | June 2, 2014
Today, Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Robert Verchick published an op-ed in New Orleans’ Times-Picayune entitled, “Gov. Jindal, don’t sign away our legal claims against BP.” The piece notes: Governor Jindal will probably sign SB469, a bill designed to neutralize the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East’s lawsuit against oil and gas companies. But does […]
Joel Eisen | May 30, 2014
Last Friday (May 23), in Electric Power Supply Association v. FERC, a D.C. Circuit panel split 2-1 and vacated Order 745, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rule designed to promote “demand response” (DR). DR is a rapidly growing and valuable means of reducing electricity demand, thereby benefiting consumers and the environment. It is also an important […]
Erin Kesler | May 29, 2014
Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar and Professor of Law and Emory University School of Law William Buzbee will be testifying today at a House Committee on Small Business Administration Hearing entitled, “Will the EPA’s ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule Drown Small Businesses?” According to Buzbee’s testimony: The purpose and logic of the new “waters” proposed […]