Development in Practice

ISSN: 0961-4524 (Print) 1364-9213 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

NGO–business collaboration following the Indian

CSR Bill 2013: trust-building collaborative social
sector partnerships

Anuja Jayaraman, Vanessa D’souza & Trisha Ghoshal

To cite this article: Anuja Jayaraman, Vanessa D’souza & Trisha Ghoshal (2018) NGO–business
collaboration following the Indian CSR Bill 2013: trust-building collaborative social sector
partnerships, Development in Practice, 28:6, 831-841, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2018.1473338

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1473338

Published online: 21 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 201

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdip20
DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE
2018, VOL. 28, NO. 6, 831–841
https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1473338

NGO–business collaboration following the Indian CSR Bill 2013:

trust-building collaborative social sector partnerships
Anuja Jayaraman, Vanessa D’souza and Trisha Ghoshal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The CSR Bill of 2013 introduced systematic corporate participation into Received 9 April 2016
social development in India. In the light of this law, this article argues Accepted 29 November 2017
that NGOs will play a decisive role in determining the benefits of
KEYWORDS
corporate involvement and recommends that NGO–business Civil society – NGOs;
partnerships are needed for meaningful social change. The article Partnership; Social sector;
identifies a trust deficit between NGOs and businesses in India as a South Asia
key obstacle to the success of NGO–business collaborations in the
social sector. It suggests practices that could be adopted by NGOs to
build trust in their partnerships with business partners, using a case
study of one NGO, SNEHA (Society for Nutrition, Education and Health
Action).

Introduction
It was a historic moment for India when both Houses of Parliament passed the Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Bill under clause 135 of the Companies Act 2013 (Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India 2013). The Bill set eligibility criteria for CSR contributions, and legally obligated
all eligible businesses to spend at least 2% of their average net profit from the previous three years on
CSR activities (CII and PWC 2013) by funding NGOs or government programmes, or via their own
foundations or trusts.1 The Bill opened streams of corporate funding for development NGOs who
had over the years developed expertise in the implementation of social programmes.
However, CSR–NGO partnerships have not emerged as smoothly or numerously as expected.
While corporate aversion to state interference in CSR has been a major obstacle, a more fundamental
reason has been the inherent lack of trust between the two sectors. In the wake of the CSR Bill, this
article focuses on cross-sectoral collaborative trust building and reports a set of practices that could
be adopted by NGOs and corporates to enhance trust in partnerships with businesses.
The article first provides the macro political-economic background to the CSR Bill, emphasising its
critical importance in the development model of India and the significance of NGO–business CSR col-
laborations. The methodology and objectives are then outlined, before moving onto collaborative
trust building in NGO–business relationships, outlining the theoretical framework and justifying
the focus on trust building. This ties trust-enhancing processes in the governance of NGO–business
collaborations to the production of collaborative capabilities of partners, where collaborative capacity
is understood to generate various forms of value and move partnerships from philanthropic to inte-
grative endeavours.
The article then provides a case study of SNEHA to highlight a set of trust-enhancing practices that
could be adopted by NGOs and businesses to develop their partnerships. It also details areas where
trust-enhancing initiatives are required from the corporate side.

CONTACT Trisha Ghoshal trisha.sghoshal@gmail.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
832 A. JAYARAMAN ET AL.

Background
The CSR Bill as developmental policy
The CSR Bill refers to a new form of welfare governance in India that moves part of the burden of
social policy expenditure away from the state to the private sector. This is the result of fiscal concerns
on the part of the state which, in the post-reform period, must promote economic growth without
compromising on the basic standards of well-being for all sections of the Indian population.
The post-reform period has witnessed deep cuts in public spending on welfare (Joshi 2006), while
corporate influence on public policy-making has risen remarkably (Chandra 2015; Kohli 2007). With
the tightening of social sector budgets, business promotion, and economic growth have become
the state’s primary strategies for poverty alleviation. The strategy, however, has produced uneven
results. While on one hand, it has generated wealth for the business class, on the other, a two-
decadal stellar growth rate of 7% has failed to reach the more disadvantaged sections of the popu-
lation. A recent study observes that despite an improvement in India’s overall redistribution index,
several sections of the population have continued to persistently suffer; with an overall welfare
loss over the last decade, primarily because of the composition of economic growth (Anand, Tulin,
and Kumar 2014).
Considering this situation, the CSR Bill can be a remedy to the retrenchment of state away from
direct welfare provisioning, and unequal benefits of economic growth. It is an opportunity for the
corporate sector to contribute to social development and preserve the legitimacy of state support
to economic value creation and growth.

Need for cross-sector collaboration for social development under the new policy regime
The CSR Bill indicates a shift in welfare delivery away from the state, to corporate provisioning and
financing of welfare. This shift is close to a framework of welfare governance often referred to in lit-
erature as the “mixed economy of welfare”. The model has been widely adopted internationally to
smooth the impact of the reduction in the scope of the state (Brejning 2012). While corporate
sector initiatives will be critical to the success of this shift, its true potential may be unlocked only
through fruitful cross-sector partnerships in social development between corporate entities, the
state, and civil society.
Corporates are equipped to contribute influence and funding. Beyond these, CSR initiatives will
lack relevant skills and experience of programme design and delivery without the participation of
civil society organisations (Dahan et al. 2010). One study of corporates investing in rural development
in India as part of CSR found no connection between the companies’ agendas and the development
goals of the community (Vastradmath 2015). Corporates must therefore collaboratively engage with
grassroots civil society organisations to affect any systematic social change.

Corporate attitudes to cross-sector collaboration for social development

The CSR Bill has not been well-received by the business sector, with industry leaders criticising the Bill
and calling it covert taxation and tokenism (The Guardian 2014). Studies on corporate opinion have
seen the issue as state control over CSR, rather than CSR itself. Historically, CSR in India has roots in
philanthropy. Recent studies corroborate a continuing positive corporate outlook towards CSR.
Studies further observe a greater emphasis on CSR for reputational, financial, economic, strategic,
and relational benefits (PWC 2013; Dhanesh 2015).
Yet the same studies also continue to note a strong quorum in favour of keeping CSR voluntary. This
contention was one of the first obstacles to the Bill immediately after it was passed. Along with this,
there is also the fundamental problem of lack of trust between different sectors. The business sector
and NGOs in India, for instance, are known to share a history of mutual suspicion. While NGOs tend
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 833

to see businesses as predatory, the corporate sector appears to be apprehensive of a lack of operational
transparency, financial mismanagement, and inefficiency in NGOs. Corporate concerns are not
unfounded, with at least one report confirming that as late as 2015 only about 10% of NGOs in India
filed balance sheets (India Today 2015). This explains why larger corporations are relying on corporate
foundations to extend CSR funding to social causes, instead of partnering with NGOs (Pyres 2011).

Reforming attitudes to affect cross-sector collaboration

Therefore, the overall picture is that corporates are averse to state-regulated CSR and suspicious of
NGO-driven initiatives (Kaur 2014). To complicate the picture, the majority of NGOs are unprepared
to efficiently deal with massive inflows of CSR funding. Upcoming struggles are imminent in the
NGO–corporate alignment of values, culture, and mission. These problems will require contemplation
and action from both sides.
Subsequently, attitudinal changes will be necessary for the CSR Bill to find initial traction. First, a
change in corporate attitudes towards state regulation; second, a change in corporate attitudes to
NGOs. Both changes will go a long way in empowering the corporate sector in overcoming its limit-
ations in managing social engagement.
For the first, it will be necessary for the state to communicate the scope and importance of the Bill
more emphatically to the corporate sector. It needs to be clarified that there is a close association
between reducing the welfare scope of the government and its support of business-led growth.
The post-reform growth, with its pattern of maximising expenditure of the Indian state, has directly
benefited the business sector (Viswnathan 2000). For the state to continue on this path, alternative
means for financing welfare for sections of the population that bear the greatest cost of economic
reforms is necessary for the state to maintain its legitimacy and for the business sector to continue
to flourish.
Furthermore, in terms of execution, the corporate sector lacks expertise in the identification and
management of social responsibilities. Given clear economic motivations for engagement, the cor-
porate sector needs to see state intervention in CSR more as a strategy to funnel resources into
appropriate channels rather than as an attack on business autonomy.
Other than accommodating state regulation, the business sector also needs to consider the pos-
sibilities of partnerships with development NGOs. While NGOs must reform on several counts, includ-
ing operational transparency and efficiency, the fact remains that NGOs are a powerhouse of
programme implementation. In the post-reform period, development NGOs in India have extensively
partnered with the state in executive roles. Although they have operated under a definite power
differential, evident from state control over developmental planning in partnerships, NGOs have
managed to master the service delivery component of welfare programmes (Sen 1999). This has pre-
pared NGOs for implementation, correction of programmatic failures, and for evaluation of pro-
gramme design and delivery. Collaboration with NGOs will give corporates an insider and
practice-based view of the mechanics of programme development and delivery, which in turn
could determine the effectiveness of corporate contributions to social development.
This article is grounded in the belief that despite many initial challenges, NGOs and businesses
could draw on complementary capabilities to effectively deliver welfare programmes with minimal
risks and costs, and thus in turn maximise the reach of the CSR Bill (Dahan et al. 2010). NGO–CSR part-
nerships will be critical for welfare delivery in India in the future, and could be progressively calibrated
to fit the template of people–public–private–partnerships in development to bring about social
change and policy formation.

Objectives
The CSR Bill is a mandate to promote CSR funding of development programmes as philanthropic or
strategic contributions by businesses to NGOs. As the trust deficit between NGOs and businesses in
834 A. JAYARAMAN ET AL.

India as a major roadblock to the success of the CSR Bill, this article aims to emphasise the importance
of trust in cross-sector collaborations and use the case study of SNEHA to showcase practices that
could be adopted by NGOs to enhance trust and build collaborative capacity in partnerships with
businesses.

Methodology
The study draws from researchers’ exposure to non-profit business partnerships for funding in a mod-
erately sized NGO working on maternal and child health and violence against women in low-income
communities of Mumbai. Key informants include the NGO’s chief executive officer, and senior man-
agement officials with first-hand experience of managing corporate funders. Informal interviews were
carried out between July 2015 and July 2016.

Theoretical framework
This section outlines the importance of trust in the success of cross-sector collaborative relation-
ships and identifies practices that could help establish and enhance trust in cross-sectoral collab-
orations. The theory of trust-based rationalism emphasises that trust is the foundation of
collaborative relationships. Trust is critical to the quality of partnership outcomes. Literature
suggests that trust-laden partnerships equalise power in agreements between partners and offer
opportunities for meaningful exchange (Kumar et al. 1998 cited in Cao and Zhang 2013). The pres-
ence of trust increases cooperation, lowers the cost of coordinating activities, and increases the
level of knowledge transfer and potential for learning of all partners (Madhok 1995; Inkpen and
Beamish 1997 in Nielsen 2004).
The role of trust in cross-sector collaborations is even more intriguing. Cross-sector collaborations
link information, resources, activities, and capabilities of organisations in two or more sectors to over-
come the limitations of asymmetric partners in independently tackling complex social issues (Bryson,
Crosby, and Stone 2006). Relational risks are high in such propositions. Partners are not only expected
to encounter and negotiate common relational risks and calculate the cost–benefit balance in terms
of economic, strategic, and reputational gains; they must also deal with the additional tasks of recon-
ciling value frames, technological/process gaps, and cultural differences.
Trust is understood to stabilise expectations and promote joint value creation under such complex
circumstances. It promotes risk-taking in the direction of innovation (Coleman 1990; Das and Teng
1998 in Vangen and Huxham 2003; Sanzo et al. 2015). Innovation leads to joint production of
social capital (Nooteboom 2005) and also generates new knowledge. Collaborative capacity, the
capacity of partners to generate various forms of value via the partnership, is closely linked to the
measure of trust incipient in cross-sectoral partnerships, and is the chief indicator of a collaboration’s
potential for success (Blomqvist and Levy 2006).
Cross-sectoral trust building, while necessary, is a tenuous process. The challenge is momentous
for the task is to infuse trust between participants that operate under divergent organisational and
power structures, and even divergent world views. The differences could be fundamental enough to
include even the very definition of trust (e.g. Selsky and Parker 2005).
It is understood that the infusion of trust happens in two distinct phases of a cross-sectoral collab-
oration. Once partners are identified, formal contracts written in the early stages of a partnership
induce a measure of future trust in any partnership. The second and more complex phase is the insti-
tution of operational trust. Initial formal agreements smooth the process of goal-setting and establish
linked interests. Operational trust-building requires credible information sharing, demonstrating
intention and competence (Barber 1983). This is achieved through effective communication, knowl-
edge transfer, resource sharing, and joint action (Simonin 2000, 2002; Nielsen 2004). In this phase,
trust is built via monitoring, negotiation, and transfer of skills and knowledge.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 835

Communication requires the introduction of comprehensive monitoring systems at both ends.

Information sharing and communication open up possibilities for the generation and consolidation
of new knowledge, and the promotion of the collaborative capacities of interacting partners.
The resultant gains provide a boost to interaction value creation which “lock in the emotional
engagement of partners” and, by helping to harmonise organisational frames, lead to the co-creation
of innovative products, services, and skills (Austin and Seitanidi 2012). Trust in the operational phase
develops in a path-dependent manner. It enables value creation through interactive iteration and is
itself strengthened by the creation of value.2 Therefore, in cross-sectoral partnerships, trust is infused
in two stages; a formative stage (through formal contracts) and an operational stage (through and
from value creation). Operational trust is triggered and maintained by interactive value creation
(Figure 1).

Practices to enhance trust in NGO–business collaboration: SNEHA case study

SNEHA (Society for Nutrition, Education, and Health Action) is a moderately sized NGO that aims to
improve health outcomes in slum communities of Mumbai and beyond. For over 15 years, SNEHA has
used an evidence-based approach to community level interventions in four key areas of public
health. It has made extensive use of corporate funding made available as part of CSR.
Over the years, SNEHA has struggled with a lack of collaborative trust in its relationships with
funding partners. Trust deficit often resulted in asymmetric goal comprehension and unrealistic
expectations of results from its corporate partners. SNEHA introduced several trust-building initiatives
to overcome the trust gap, and to educate its partners on the complexities of social programme
implementation. SNEHA focused on formative trust-building by approaching funders via trusted net-
works. In the operational stages, SNEHA:

. strengthened communication bases via improved monitoring and programme evaluation

standards.
. insisted on resource sharing to upgrade internal processes to match corporate standards.

While these efforts have significantly improved SNEHA’s relationships with its funding partners,
the organisation continues to feel the need for corporate initiatives in trust building and continues

Figure 1. Cycle of trust building in cross-sector collaboration.

836 A. JAYARAMAN ET AL.

to encounter challenges in conveying the operational limitations and costs of managing programme
implementation. This section elaborates on SNEHA’s experience with trust building initiatives and
identifies challenges that the organisation continues to struggle with.

Trust-building initiatives from the NGO’s perspective

Networking to gain formative trust
SNEHA uses the services of Dasra, a networking organisation, to connect to potential funders. Funders
attach a certain level of credibility to NGOs fronted by Dasra. Dasra’s due diligence and high-quality
management support instil confidence in potential funders. SNEHA capitalises on this to achieve for-
mative credibility. SNEHA carefully nurtures its strategic partnership with Dasra as it plays a critical
role in bringing funders on board and providing a platform for SNEHA to present its work.

Steps to improve communication and information sharing

SNEHA monitors and evaluates its programmatic interventions using tools and methods rec-
ommended by international organisations working in the field of public health. This is done to sys-
tematically determine the scope of the evaluation, define goals and objectives, design M&E plans,
plan implementation of M&E strategies, and collect and analyse data. While such exercises contribute
heavily to its ability to capture processes and changes triggered by an intervention, the challenge was
to convey the insights to corporate funders in a framework that is intelligible and accessible to them.
To overcome this challenge, SNEHA decided to attune its reporting structure to the culture of
reporting in the corporate sector. This was done with the aim of enabling the seamless visibility of
its work to its corporate funders. Two major steps were taken in this regard. The first was to structure
and systematise data collection for programme monitoring, and the second was to adopt corporate
metrics for programme evaluation alongside the M&E frameworks already in use.
Adoption of mobile technology for programme monitoring: SNEHA partnered with Dimagi, a low-
cost technology solutions provider in the healthcare space, to digitise data collection and curation
for routine programme monitoring. The aim was to move all operational data to cloud reserves
and provide real-time access to raw data and auto-generated progress reports to corporate
funders. Dimagi’s ambit of services includes mobile health, SMS, and care coordination in low-
resource settings.
Most data collection for programme monitoring and impact assessment in SNEHA is now done
using mobile technology. Dimagi’s CommCare is used by community workers in the organisation
and the data generated, in turn, are used to build evidence-based models for future corporate
donors. CommCare is a free open-source software application with mobile and cloud infrastructure
which has also streamlined data management in SNEHA and made field monitoring more efficient.
Adoption of corporate metrics for programme evaluation: SNEHA has actively tried to align its pro-
gramme evaluation methodologies with project evaluation metrics used in the corporate sector. This
practice has helped the NGO establish clear metrics of programme evaluation, provide relevant infor-
mation to the implementers for course correction, and communicate periodic results to corporate
funders. An example of this is the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of SNEHA’s Child
Health and Nutrition programme. The programme is run in partnership with the Maharashtra state
government’s Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), which seeks to achieve rapid reductions
in prevalence of acute malnutrition among children below three years of age in certain vulnerable
slums of Mumbai. It implements the WHO recommended community-based management of acute
malnutrition (CMAM) model, which is adjusted to take into account local conditions, and delivered
by trained community workers.
For this programme, SNEHA developed extensive M&E plans and tools. The evaluation plan
involved the collection of baseline data for a representative sample of the target population of chil-
dren, which were then compared to data from an endline study after the programme’s completion, to
study impact.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 837

New metrics have ensured that monitoring data are routinely generated and used to update
monthly process reports, outcomes reports, and key result areas reports. All reports are shared
with corporate partners on a periodic and request basis. The practice has helped SNEHA retain credi-
bility with corporate partners through phases of target revision and course correction. Owing to the
routine conveyance of intermediate outcomes to funding partners, the NGO has not had to expend
effort in negotiating longer timelines and additional resources. For instance, regular data sharing
helped SNEHA convince the funders of the Child Health and Nutrition Programme that there are
no quick solutions to achieving reductions in maternal mortality and malnutrition. This helped
SNEHA successfully renegotiate more realistic timelines and funding spans.
The adoption of corporate evaluation methods has not only helped SNEHA maintain credibility, it
has also compelled it to improve programme design. Post adoption, the organisation now designs its
programmes with careful consideration of target populations and the overall environment of the
population. Greater visibility of intermediate outcomes of programme implementation has motivated
SNEHA to study best practices and protocols to solve emergent issues, adjust implementation models
as needed, and train staff to deliver high-quality programmes.
More significantly, SNEHA has used the data generated to carry out careful research on the per-
formance of its model of intervention. The knowledge generated is shared with present and
future funders. Academic research evidence has considerably increased corporate confidence in
SNEHA.

Resource sharing for process convergence and skills transfer

Process convergence and skills transfer are important components of trust building in cross-sectoral
partnerships. SNEHA has used its corporate alliances to identify gaps and design more efficient oper-
ational processes to achieve identification with its funders. SNEHA has also used the opportunity to
request resources to educate corporate personnel on the work culture of NGOs, to aid corporate
understanding of the resource requirements of any NGO. The major steps taken here are as follows.
Internal technology evaluation using corporate standards: SNEHA engaged in a technology audit
exercise in collaboration with its corporate partners in December 2014. While imposing routine
data-sharing clauses are the first step, data accuracy, integrity, and security are related and equally
important concerns for corporate funders. SNEHA uses technology as an operational apparatus as
well as a tool for data collection. Its corporate funders rely on information generated using various
technology platforms at the NGO end to make decisions on funding. Therefore, SNEHA decided to
use insights from its corporate partners to improve its technology infrastructure to be on the
same page with its partners. In December 2014, a leading IT consultancy firm conducted a technology
audit at SNEHA. The audit team reviewed SNEHA’s operations and processes, interviewed staff, and
reviewed the management information systems. The audit produced valuable recommendations for
better efficiency and outcomes.
Promoting transparency through business audits: SNEHA has tried to adopt the best practices of the
corporate world from its funding partners, in the form of improved technology, governance, and
process innovation. For instance, in September 2013 SNEHA engaged a leading audit firm to carry
out a month-long risk audit. The exercise was followed by risk identification and mitigation planning.
As a result of this audit, 25 risk areas were identified and prioritised for action. The auditors did an
annual review in December 2014 to follow up on the implementation of recommendations and
evaluate the risk sensitivity of staff. The report showed that risk areas has reduced from 25 to six,
and there was a significant increase in risk awareness of across all levels of the organisation. As part-
ners, SNEHA is pushing its funders to absorb such exercises. Not only has such an initiative helped
SNEHA secure its operations, it has also given the corporate partner insights into the robustness of
its model of intervention, enhancing its credibility in the bargain.
Skills transfer through personnel sharing: Corporate and NGO partnerships can lead to businesses
sharing high-quality personnel resources that NGOs would otherwise not have access to. SNEHA has
capitalised on this opportunity to improve its own capacity for collaboration. For example, each year
838 A. JAYARAMAN ET AL.

a major multinational mass media and information firm selects a group of employees to engage with
NGO for two months on a specific project. One such team visited SNEHA in 2010 and suggested a tech-
nology platform, along with helping set up email facilities, servers, staff training, and so on.
Such engagements have exposed corporate employees to the harsh realities of the lives of the
underprivileged and increased their sensitivity. From the corporate point of view, employees who
volunteered have taken a more positive culture back to their own work environment and reinforced
team spirit, and also developed leadership skills. The NGO gained expertise that it would otherwise
find difficult to afford.

Challenges to trust building from the NGO’s perspective

Despite active efforts at trust building to achieve convergence, SNEHA continues to face challenges in
working with corporate partners. As with any partnership, trust-enhancing initiatives are required
from both sides to achieve convergence. SNEHA has encountered several areas where the trust
deficit requires corporate initiative to provide resolution, and to illuminate the quality of the partner-
ship. Corporate action is needed to incur the trust of the NGO partner in the following areas:

Comprehension of programmatic lifecycles

In SNEHA’s experience, business funders are often resistant to the idea that social change and devel-
opment cannot be achieved in the short time windows corporates usually operate within. Often the
corporate sector funds NGO projects for a short time, usually between one to three years, and expects
changes which are unrealistic in terms of social development. For a partnership to succeed, funders
need to be conscious of what is reasonably achievable within short-, medium-, and long-term time
periods. In the case of a mismatch of understandings, all parties involved need to be equally
willing to be educated.

Consideration for operational limitations and costs of NGOs

SNEHA often struggles with its corporate funders in the perceived trade-off between cost of collect-
ing data and the monitoring and evaluation of programmes. Although it is important to measure
impact and conduct evaluations, NGO concerns around cost effectiveness should not be ignored.
Corporates often insist on the collection of excessive information and data, which increases work-
loads and takes NGO staff away from their regular work, causing operational disruption and
discontinuity.
Workload and staffing concerns also affect SNEHA’s relationships with its corporate funders in
other ways. SNEHA and the private sector CSR teams struggle with staffing issues but, while CSR
teams are overstretched but well paid, SNEHA is tied to funding restrictions required by corporate
partners that impose overhead caps on personnel costs.
This puts a constraint on the amount of money SNEHA can spend on capacity building, and
depresses salaries paid to SNEHA’s staff. As such, attrition in SNEHA is higher as staff move to the
CSR arm of the private sector, where they are better paid. At some level, this indicates a lack of
vision and perhaps lack of regard from the corporate end in seeing personnel cost as investment
in human capital in the NGO sector. Corporates impose arbitrary limits for personnel costs instead
of analysing the benefits of incurring the expense, especially in the context of CSR. Effective
ground level implementation requires well-trained and experienced grassroots workers. Low salaries
and benefits negatively affect outcomes and in the long run are not cost effective.

Conclusion
NGO–business partnerships are a key requirement for the success of business-led social change via
CSR in India. However, the establishment of successful NGO–business collaborations is marred by a
lack of mutual trust. Trust in cross-sectoral partnerships is the result of joint value creation. Joint value
creation and the infusion of trust require fruitful exchanges in terms of information, technology,
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 839

personnel, and processes, among other resources. This article highlighted how efforts from the NGO
side have contributed to the creation of collaborative capacity at SNEHA.
SNEHA has used information sharing, knowledge creation, technological infrastructure improve-
ments, process rebuilding, and process reviews to build trust with its partners. However, efforts at
trust building need to also come from the business side for any meaningful engagement to
sustain. SNEHA, for instance, needs corporate understanding in terms of project cycles and overhead
costs to maintain trust and improve the quality of engagement.
Successful partnerships are possible when corporates truly want to make a difference in the areas
they undertake to work on, and when the partnerships benefit both partners and society (Barroso-
Méndeza, Galera-Casqueta, and Valero-Amaro 2014; Gupta 2014). The impulse for social responsibility
needs to come from a space deeper than long-term business reputation. Businesses need to allocate
the same level of priority to their investments in the social sector as they do when they invest for their
own business. They need to think strategically, invest deeply to gain a good understanding of the
sector, and then allocate resources accordingly. It is necessary for them to engage with the NGO
throughout the investment period to gain a good understanding of the challenges in programme
implementation and in bringing about long-term sustainable change.
NGOs, in turn, need to be transparent and invest time in providing corporate partners with a good
understanding of the challenges at grassroots level. In such collaborations, NGOs need to be proac-
tive and not reactive, and need to be aware of their own attributes and risks involved (Al-Tabbaa,
Leach, and March 2014). Only through mutual understanding and trust can corporates and NGO’s
work together to bring about sustainable change on the ground.

Limitations
The insights shared here draw from the experiences of an NGO that operates in the public health
sector, and are expected to be of relevance to NGOs that function under the service delivery
model of programmatic community intervention. However, this article does not address the possibi-
lities, gains, and issues of NGOs involved in other roles – particularly democracy building, human
rights promotion and protection, and advocacy for governance reforms.

Notes
1. The eligibility criteria were companies with an annual turnover of 1,000 Crore INR or more, or a net worth of 500
Crore INR or more, or net profit of 5 Crore INR or more.
2. Value creation could be in the form of social value, interactive, or associational value (Austin and Seitandi 2012) or
in the form of co-creation of social innovations (Sanzo et al. 2015).

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Maaike Bijker, Sheila Chanani, Kyoko Miura, Luis Miranda, and Gayatri Divecha.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Anuja Jayaraman is the Director, Research at SNEHA (Society for Nutrition, Education, and Health Action).
Vanessa D’souza is the Chief Executive Officer at SNEHA (Society for Nutrition Education, and Health Action).
Trisha Ghoshal is a Research Coordinator at SNEHA (Society for Nutrition, Education, and Health Action).
840 A. JAYARAMAN ET AL.

References
Al-Tabbaa, O., D. Leach, and J. March. 2014. “Collaboration Between Nonprofit and Business Sectors: A Framework to
Guide Strategy Development for Nonprofit Organizations.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations 25: 657–678.
Anand, R., V. Tulin, and N. Kumar. 2014. India: Defining and Explaining Inclusive Growth and Poverty Reduction. IMF Working
Paper/14/63. IMF Asia and Pacific Department.
Austin, J. E., and M. M. Seitanidi. 2012. “Collaborative Value Creation: A Review of Partneering Between Nonprofits and
Businesses: Part 2.Partnership Processes and Outcomes.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41: 929–968.
Barber, B. 1983. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Barroso-Méndeza, M. J., C. Galera-Casqueta, and V. Valero-Amaro. 2014. “Partnerships Between Businesses and NGOs in
the Field of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Model of Success From the Perspective of Relationship Marketing.”
Journal of Relationship Marketing 13 (1): 1–27.
Blomqvist, K., and J. Levy. 2006. “Collaboration Capability a Focal Concept in Knowledge Creation and Collaborative
Innovation in Networks.” International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy 2 (1): 31–48.
Brejning, J. 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Welfare State. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Bryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby, and M. M. Stone. 2006. “The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations:
Propositions From the Literature.” Public Administration Review 66 (S1): 44–55.
Cao, M., and Q. Zhang. 2013. Supply Chain Collaboration: Roles of Interorganizational Systems, Trust, and Collaborative
Culture. London: Springer-Verlag.
Chandra, K. 2015. “The New Indian State: The Relocation of Patronage in the Post-Liberalisation Economy.” Economic and
Political Weekly 41: 46–58.
CII and PWC. 2013. “Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility in India.” Accessed October 26, 2015. www.pwc.in/
assets/pdfs/publications/2013/handbook-on-corporate-social-responsibility-in-india.pdf.
Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Dahan, N. M., J. P. Doh, J. Oetzel, and M. Yaziji. 2010. “Corporate-NGO Collaboration: Co-Creating New Business Models for
Developing Markets.” Long Range Planning 43: 326–342.
Das, T., and B. Teng. 1998. “Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances.”
Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 491–512.
Dhanesh, G. S. 2015. “Why Corporate Social Responsibility? An Analysis of Drivers of CSR in India.” Management
Communication Quarterly 29 (1): 114–129.
Gupta, A. D. 2014. “Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility in India: Issues and the Beyond.” In Implementing
Corporate Social Responsibility: Indian Perspectives, edited by S. Ray, and S. S. Raju, 19–29. New Delhi: Springer.
India Today. 2015. “Only 10 Percent NGOs Have Filed Balance Sheets.” www.indiatoday.intoday.in/story/cbi-ngos-filed-
balance-sheets-supreme-court/1/411581.html.
Inkpen, A. C., and P. W. Beamish. 1997. “Knowledge, Bargaining Power, and the Instability of International Joint Ventures.”
Academy of Management Review 22 (1): 177–202.
Joshi, S. 2006. “Impact of Economic Reforms on Social Sector Expenditure in India.” Economic and Political Weekly 41: 358–
365.
Kaur, J. 2014. “India Inc Faces Trust Deficit with NGOs for CSR Activities.” Accessed October 26, 2015. www.
governancenow.com/news/regular-story/india-inc-faces-trust-deficit-ngos-csr-activities.
Kohli, A. 2007. Poverty Reduction and Policy Regimes: Case Study of India. Mumbai: UNRISD.
Kumar, R. and K. O. Nti. 1998. “Differential Learning and Interaction in Alliance Dynamics: A Process and Outcome
Discrepancy Model.” Organization Science 9 (3): 356–367.
Madhok, A. 1995. “Revisiting Multinational Firms’ Tolerance for Joint Ventures: A Trust-Based Approach.” Journal of
International Business Studies 26 (1): 117–137.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. 2013. The Companies Act. Section 135& Schedule VII, 80& 294. New
Delhi: Government of India.
Nielsen, B. B. 2004. “The Role of Trust in Collaborative Relationships: A Multi-Dimensional Approach.” M@n@Gement 7 (3):
239–256.
Nooteboom, B. 2005. Trust, Institutions and Development. Mimeo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers. 2013. Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility in India. New Delhi: PWC India.
Pyres, J. 2011. Changing Trends in Business-NGO Relationships in India. New Delhi: SOS Children’s Village.
Sanzo, M. J., L. I. Alvarez, M. Rey, and N. Garcia. 2015. “Business-nonprofit Partnerships: A New Form of Collaboration in a
Corporate Responsibility and Social Innovation Context.” Service Business 9 (4): 611–636.
Selsky, J. W., and B. Parker. 2005. “Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice.”
Journal of Management 31 (6): 849–873.
Sen, S. 1999. “Some Aspects of State-NGO Relationships in India in the Post-Independence Era.” Development and Change
30 (2): 327–355.
Simonin, B. L. 2000. “Collaborative Know-How and Collaborative Advantage.” Global Focus 12 (4): 19–34.
 DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE 841

Simonin, B. L. 2002. “The Nature of Collaborative Know-How” In Cooperative Strategies and Alliances, edited by F. J.
Contractor and P. Lorange, 237–263. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
The Guardian. 2014. “India’s New CSR Law Sparks Debate among NGOs and Businesses.” Accessed October 26, 2015.
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/india-csr-law-debate-business-ngo.
Vangen, S., and C. Huxham. 2003. “Nurturing Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in Interorganizational Collaboration.”
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39 (1): 5–31.
Vastradmath, N. 2015. “The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility for Inclusive Growth in Society: The Practice of CSR in
the Context of Rural Development in India.” International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 5 (10): 1–5.
Viswnathan, B. 2000. “Economic Reforms in India: A Welfare Evaluation.” Development Policy Review 18: 139–155.