If 'giving in India’ were a country, it would need a team of cabinet ministers, an army of bureaucrats, subject matter experts, policy think tanks, and government employees supported by a slew of non-government organisations. After all, the stakes are high — the total pool of public, corporate and private philanthropic funds in the social sector is around ₹23 lakh crore (India Philanthropy Report, Bain & Company). Of this, over 1.4 lakh crore comes from private philanthropy. That’s more than the GDP of several countries such as Sierra Leone, Guyana and Montenegro.
India recognises the power of this capital. We are the only nation in the world where corporate giving is mandatory under the Companies Act, 2013, making it obligatory to spend at least 2 per cent of the average net profits of a company whose net worth is above ₹500 crore.
In response to this, dedicated nonprofit and social impact consultancies are on the rise in India, often informing and influencing India’s social sector spending.
In February 2023, SEBI granted final approval for the Social Stock Exchange as a separate segment under recognised stock exchanges to ease the flow of these funds and bring structure to the social sector in India.
Despite the government’s efforts, the inertia within the social sector is telling. Of the 1.8-1.9 lakh registered NGOs (NGO-DARPAN), less than 100 are listed on the SSE today. It is pertinent to note that similar efforts in the UK and Canada have struggled to gain momentum, with users remarking that “it’s just a directory, not a real exchange”.
In my work as a fundraiser, I have observed that building a compelling case that is rooted in purpose, tangible, and measurable is essential. But often, decisions are not made solely on a rational basis; instead, emotions come into play too. For instance, I recently spoke to an industrialist-philanthropist who was not looking for a pitch or spreadsheets. He just wanted to give as much as it was possible, for as long as it was possible. He believed what he was doing was for the good of the nation. In making that decision, his instinct trumped data.
The rise of social sector consulting may be pushing for more data-driven decision-making, but for several high-net-worth individuals and corporate philanthropies in India, it is only just beginning to peek its head from under a century-old system that is built on trust, virtue and beliefs.
This is what leads me to examine the issue at hand: what motivates India to give, what causes attract the most support, and why. The answer to these questions may help us understand how far we have come, where we are headed, and what determines our goal posts. Do our choices reflect the values we want to showcase/signal as a nation, or are they simply the causes we turn to after our priorities are met?
Recent data from Giving USA, a well-known public outreach initiative that provides comprehensive data on giving trends in the USA, suggests that giving to religious institutions stands at roughly a quarter of the total charitable contributions in the US. In India, though, religious institutions receive the largest share of household or individual giving, between 40-50 per cent, according to the CSIP-Ashoka Report.
Educational institutions come only second to religion when it comes to giving, that is.
There’s history behind this trend. Around the 18th century, philanthropy began to shift from religious institutions to higher education institutions in the US, when funds began to flow to universities such as Harvard and Yale. This was possible because at first, these universities were affiliated with religious institutions.
Today, as with the State and the Church, universities no longer have religious affiliations. Instead, they take pride in — and protect — their independence; academic freedom is considered a must to provide fertile ground to generate knowledge that is not marred by subjective interests.
Now, philanthropic giving in the same universities runs into billions of US dollars. This was spearheaded by industrialists like Rockefeller, Stanford, and Carnegie between the 1890s to 1920s. Their goal was to support the future of industrial growth in America. Philanthropy was a strategic bet for these men.
India may just be entering its own Gilded Age, where industry, progress, innovation and strategic philanthropic funding go hand in hand. Data will drive decisions, and strategic investments in nation-building will be fuelled by philanthropy — both individual and institutional — in the coming decades.
I recently attended a monthly online meetup where social impact leaders come together to discuss the power structures at play in philanthropy. “Are philanthropists giving back, or are they paying back?” was a question that led to much debate. If philanthropy is not here to upend systems rooted in inequality, then what is its purpose? the group wondered.
Is asking those who inadvertently benefited from unequal systems to fund its dismantling ‘fair’ or ‘smart’? For example, is NVIDIA or Apple Inc truly motivated to implement just labour practices all the way down to the last tier of their supply chain?
Such questions allow practitioners such as me to situate the work we do in history and geopolitics, even as we reflect on neo-colonial structures that influence philanthropy and aid.
For now, there are no clear answers.
What is clear, though, is that corporate philanthropy’s influence in nation-building beyond profit motives is and will continue to be instrumental in deciding where we put our focus as a nation.
If innovation, higher education and industry-academia collaborations are scaffolded well by philanthropy, we are headed for progress.
The giving culture in India is undergoing a shift. A collective envisioning by an informed citizenry, private players, and civil society is necessary to squeeze the maximum impact from our philanthropic prowess and pull both local and global funds for the growth of India.
The author is director, development office, BML Munjal University.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.
