You are posted as the General Manager (CSR) in a large public sector undertaking (PSU) in the mining sector. Your role involves evaluating and disbursing funds under the company's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mandate, especially in districts affected by mining-related displacement. Your team has shortlisted three NGOs for a major livelihood promotion initiative: • Two are small, field-tested organizations with verifiable work in the affected tribal belt. • The third is a well-connected urban NGO, recently floated by a relative of a senior PSU board member. It has flashy brochures and political backing, but no track record in the region. During internal discussions, subtle signals are sent that favour the third NGO, with phrases like "strategic alignment" and "long-term stakeholder management." The CSR committee chair even jokes, "It's just CSR, not rocket science." Meanwhile, field officers caution you that the communities need culturally rooted, decentralized interventions and the urban NGO's one-size-fits-all proposal won't work. Some colleagues suggest approving all three, dividing funds equally. You must finalize your funding recommendation this week. Technically, all three proposals have processed minimum screening, though the field evidence differs widely. Your decision will affect both ground impact and organizational politics and will set a precedent for future CSR allocations. 1. What are the ethical concerns involved in the allocation of CSR funds in this case? 2. How would you assess the competing pressures of organizational politics and public interest? 3. What decision would you take, and how would you justify it ethically and professionally?

Answered by 5 toppers · CSE 2023–2025

Syllabus: Case Studies on above issues.