Corporate Social Responsibility in Africa

Looking back on the readings and lectures we have covered so far in class, I have realized that my interest mostly lies in the policy and economic/business aspects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. As someone entering the private sector post-graduation, I am most interested in the involvement of the private sector. Although Barnett and Whiteside do not completely discount the possibility of the private sector in Africa making a significant difference in the alleviation of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, they are certainly not positive, placing more importance and hope in the role of the government, donor organizations, and NGOs.

One aspect of private sector involvement in Africa's HIV/AIDS epidemic that most interests me is the corporate social resposibility programs of private corporations in Africa. This weekend, I found several interesting topics in articles written on corporate social responsibility in South Africa.
1. Can Corporate Social Responsibility Put the Brakes on HIV in Africa? (link)
2. How HIV/AIDS Impacts Corporations, and How Corporations Can Impact HIV/AIDS (link)
Some of the topics covered in the articles include the new requirement enforced by the Johannesburg Securities Exchange to abide by the second King Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa in 2003 and the trend for corporations operating in Africa to outsource their CSR to NGOs. The effectiveness of the private sector's corporate social responsibility programs currently in place and how the outsourcing of CSR to NGOs may form the bridge between the private sector and NGOs are possible paper topics. One issue to consider if I decide to look into the effectiveness of CSR in terms of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, is the fact that most of Africa remains rural and people living in rural Africa practice subsistence farming, which means certain CSR programs will not affect them at all. In this sense, can CSR make any difference in a world, in which most people are self-employed?

Simply Giving Money Is Not Aid

IRIN News-- Africa: Donors call the shots in HIV/AIDS Sector (link)

This article discusses some of the problems regarding the lack of efficiency in the current foreign aid structure and practice. One of the problems raised by the author is the misconduct and lack of accountability of the donors, including PEPFAR's "shoddy record-keeping," the Gates Foundation's investment in pharmaceutical companies that have placed high prices on antiretroviral drugs, and the Global Fund's executive director's excessive spending in his business expense. Another problem is the fact that because most African nations are over-reliant on the donors for their HIV/AIDS program operations. Because of this imbalance in power structure, even when the priorities of the donors and the recipient countries do not match, the recipient countries have been hesitant to raise their voices. PEPFAR's focus on A & B in its ABC approach reflects the prevalence of this kind of problems, in which the ideology of the donor organization wins over the recipient priorities because of financial reasons.

The author brings up another interesting point that donors still rule the decisions regarding HIV/AIDS program in recipient countries partly because there is more money than the local capacities can handle. Again, a mismatch between the donor and the recipient culture is the main source of this problem. Accoding to Transparency International's report, the donors are propelled disperse money quickly without enough contemplation because the "'performance' of a grant is odten assessed by how rapidly it is distributed," while recipient countries lack the infrastructure and human resources to keep track of the large sums of money. The Global Fund's Country Coordinating Mechanisms for allowing local control over grant use was an attempt at fixing this problem, but the failure of this CCMs approach tells us that what donors need to do is not to simply dump the money on the recipient countries but to help create sufficient public health infrastructures in local governments and organization to effectively use the grants. This is exactly Stephen Lewis 's point in his argument in the Harvard speech.

The uncertainty of the future of grants also place recipients in a difficult position. Donors typically have 5-year funding cycles, and the arrival of grants is not always punctual. Recipients also have to follow a spending schedule, which means if they cannot spend the money by a given deadline, they must return the money to their donors. If money comes late, yet they still need to spend money by a certain time, how can recipient organizations and countries make a well-contemplated, rational decision regarding the use of their funds?

Recipients will continue to need the financial support from donor organizations as the HIV/AIDS epidemic also continues to grow. If these problems are left untouched, the damages from the epidemic will be left to multiply while damaging effects of HIV/AIDS simply remain as topics of people's conversations around the world. Now it's time to take action instead of simply talking about taking action. When donors and recipients increase transparency about where the money is coming from and how it is being spent--not only between the immediate donors and recipients, but amongst all donors and recipients-- and learn to voice their concerns and act on them promptly, we can finally talk about foreign aid in the real sense.

The Private Sector Efforts

Related to the topic of last week's class, I found two interesting articles online related to the involvement of the private sector in the effort to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa.

1. Article on Barclays Bank's efforts (link)
2. Article on Sprint and Motorola's involvement (link)

The first article discussed Barclays Bank's launch of a new program in Africa, in which they provide confidential testing to their employees and anti-retroviral therapy to their employees and family members. Barclays Bank operate throughout Africa, including Botswana, where a confidential HIV/AIDS testing revealed that a third of the staff were infected. Due to the negative impact of HIV/AIDS on profit through factors, like absenteeism, high cost of emergency care, and loss of productivity (discussed by Barnett and Whiteside in Ch.10), executives of Barclays Bank decided that the returns from its investments to fight HIV/AIDS within its corporate structure outweigh the cost of running the program and the decrease in profits caused by the epidemic.

The second article talks about Sprint and Motorola's new partnership in fight against HIV/AIDS in africa by selling a special Valentine's Day model of the RAZR phone. The sales of this model so far is said to be enough to provide ARV treatments for 12,000 HIV/AIDS patients in Africa for a year. Sprint and Motorola are part of a larger private sector initiative, named RED, which is also supported by other corporations, such as Gap, Giorgio Armani, and Apple. Corporations involved in RED can sell RED products, and a percentage of their profits from such sales go to the Global Fund.

While the first article gives the perspective of a company that already has operations in Africa directly, the second article gives the picture of how corporations in the developed countries can participate in the fight against HIV/AIDS as a third-party. Barclays Bank's launch of their project is based on the fact that they directly receive direct impact from the spread of HIV/AIDS because they operate business in Africa. Their decision to make investment is based on the fact that such investments make financial and business sense, which means their efforts have a potential to be long-term. However, the second article is about corporations using the fight against HIV/AIDS as a PR tool and a chance to prove to their customers and investors that they have a socially responsible conscience. The project launched by Sprint and Motorola is very short-term (it's a Valentine's Day special). I can't help but to think about how much of a difference can projects of this scale actually make? In the consumers' mind, how much of an impact will this initiative leave? Some consumers may purchase the RED wireless phone because the proceeds go toward a good cause. However, many will buy the phone simply for the design and forget about the cause behind it. As a company already directly involved in Africa, Barclays Bank can initiate projects that can result in improvements in health of those who are infected. However, so many institutions in the private sector of developed countries have no operational ties in Africa--since they have no business in Africa, they can only launch anti- HIV/AIDS efforts as a third party.

Business Incentives and HIV/AIDS: Are There Any Solutions?

Barnett and Whiteside Ch. 11 Development and Economic Growth

My immediate reaction to this chapter was utter frustration. "Poverty assists the spread of HIV and AIDS pushes people into poverty"--it's an unending cycle! Numerous economists come up with various economic models to measure the economic impacts of HIV/AIDS, but many carry the big flaw--their quantitative analyses do not capture the qualitative loss caused by HIV/AIDS. Yet, when economists do try to come up with models that include qualitative analysis, such as QALYS, they are also deemed inappropriate due to their complexity. Are there any economic models appropriate for the measurement of economic impacts of HIV/AIDS? Can numbers capture the devastating effects of this epidemic? However, beyond these doubts surrounding numeric representations of the effects of HIV/AIDS on economies of countries, such quantitative analyses are needed for policy making and fund approvals. Donors must base their decisions on some measurable data, even if the data is unable to capture the whole picture. Can we ever capture the whole picture?

My other frustration with the readings on economic impacts and business decisions in regards to HIV/AIDS (Ch. 10 Private Sector Impact) was issue brought up in the concluding sentence of Ch. 11, that the effort to increase economic growth by battling the HIV/AIDS epidemic will most likely have to be carried on by the government alone. "Consistency and sustainability" are key elements in effective measurements against HIV/AIDS, and the authors claim NGOs lack these characteristics. The private sector are profit-driven entities, and these elements cannot be guaranteed in the possible profits they may make through anti-HIV/AIDS investments. Yet, can government, "with all its imperfections and limitations," carry all the burden alone? (Barnett and Whiteside, 314) Can NGOs streamline their policy-making? Can the private-sector find incentives to invest in long term anti-HIV/AIDS projects that outweigh the risks and costs involved?

I would like to be hopeful in the potential of private-sector involvement for personal reasons . I am going into the private banking sector after I graduate. I chose that path because I want to be able to help move money in the world economy in a way that can benefit both the investors and the invested. Impacts of HIV/AIDS on the private sector listed in Ch. 10 included depletion of markets and decrease in labor productivity. These are factors that not only affect domestic economies but also the global economy. When African nations can recover from the devastating effects of HIV/AIDS, the purchasing powers of these nations will go up, which means attractive markets, and increase in productivity will make positive returns on investments. Private sectors in wealthy nations certainly have incentives to join the global fight against HIV/AIDS, and they can make a difference.

Cultural Anthropology and Biases

Class Discussion 1/31

This week's class discussion was not necessary focused on HIV/AIDS, but on cultural anthropology as a study and the novelty of the multidisciplinary approach, which turned out to be an intriguing dialogue. When I read this week's assigned readings in the Kalipeni book before class, I did not stop to think carefully about the biases of the authors and how much of the text reflect their biased points of views, especially in the Lwanda article. The class discussion not only made me more aware of the language of the texts, but also forced me to think about the issue of who can best study and explain the cultural anthropological trends and details of a particular group of people.

One of my current apartment mates is an Asian Studies major, and she is planning to pursue that academic interest further in graduate school. As a non-Asian person, she had asked many times in the past whether she could ever "understand" the language, the people, the culture. She has doubted her ability to eventually become a well respected scholar in the field of Asian Studies multiple times because she is not sure if the scholastic community will receive her as a credible expert when they see that she is not of Asian descent.

What we discussed in class today was essentially opposite of her worries and doubts. We debated over how Lwanda should have dealt with his biases as a Malawian writing about Malawian cultural norms and their influence and interactions with HIV/AIDS in the country. The problem was that he IS of the origin, of which he is studying. The problem with Lwanda's biases are further complicated by the fact that he is an European-trained scholar of Malawian origin. The readers have no way to tell where he fits in Malawian society and to what degree he sees himself attached to the culture and people; we can only assume--always a dangerous act. Where do these facts place him in Malawian society and the professional sphere of cultural anthropological studies? If we have to assume about his biases, do his observations, studies, and conclusions have any validity?

As I thought more and more about this debate, I began to turn the question around to ask myself about my position. I am of Japanese descent, and I was born and raised in Japan. However, I attended school in the U.S. since middle school. Am I not in a similar position as Lwanda? Throughout my fours years here at Georgetown, I have written several research papers on Japan, some involving studying sociological trends in Japan. None of my professors doubted the quality of those papers, and they all gave me good marks. Yet, with the recent class dicussion in mind, I cannot help but wonder what biases I held while writing those papers? The problem with this issue is that while laying out biases in papers is a logical solution, it is very hard to do--one cannot easily point out his or her biases. I cannot point out exactly where my biases played out in my papers because my biases are, in essence, my blind spots. That is why peer review and scholarly discussion among experts of different origins are critical. Scholars, like one my roommate is striving to become, are needed in fields like cultural anthropology because they can point out the blind spots of native experts.

Abstinence vs. Condom Use

Condom Use and Abstinence Among Unmarried Young People in Zimbabwe: Which Strategy, Whose Agenda?

Growing up without a religion AND being raised in the U.S., where premarital sex is a more open subject than in most countries, I had never really considered condom use and abstinence as conflicting ideas for preventing pregnancy and STDs, including HIV/AIDS. I assumed (and assumptions are always so dangerous...) people generally accepted abstinence as the best option to prevent abstinence and STDs, but when abstinence cannot be kept, use of condoms or any other protection was the next best option--I thought people gladly accepted and used condoms in that situation. I guess I was wrong. What this article revealed was a conflict between abstinence and condom use as a strategy for HIV/AIDS prevention, not only in the minds of the individuals but also society as a whole.



The most interesting and enlightening part of this article was the discussion on responses young Zimbabwean men and women gave during focus groups. What they had to say about condoms and abstinence contained clues about their religious views, their parents' opinions about premarital sex, and opinions of their peers. Realistically, they all seem to agree that abstinence does not always work because young people lack self control. Yet, condom use also did not seem to be a favorable choice, mostly due to the bad connotation of premarital sex. As another young adult, I can understand their turmoil. Whether it is due to religious views or cultural taboos, many societies often view premarital sex as a sin, a condemnable act. Someone mentioned during class that using a condom on top of having premarital sex may seem like committing a double sin to them, which I think was a valid point. Engaging in premarital sex is a big decision, but the opportunity may come as a surprise. When kids are placed in the situation, their thoughts may not necessarily reach to the next level of decision of whether or not to use a condom. From reading the focus group discussion, it sounded like the kids were putting off that particular decision because they did not want to deal with such a complex matter. Yes, culture is one of the factors and religion also plays an important role, but we need to remind ourselves that making personal decisions like this is hard for anyone, especially for adolescents. The refusal to use condoms have various factors and reasons, but we may not need to look so far to understand why-- at least part of why.

My First Thoughts Overall

This is my first AIDS course, let alone my first Africa course, so everything I read is new information. Being a senior, who has followed a fairly narrow path of Asian Studies (mostly Japanese and Chinese) and Business in STIA, that is a pretty different sensation. I have probably heard about the Japanese bubble economy and the Chinese One Child Policy about 50 times, but I know very little beyond the basics of AIDS and its presence and ramification in Africa.

Having said that, the readings assigned for class and some outside readings I have done so far have been eye openers in many ways.

Barnett and Whiteside Ch. 1
Reading "Disease and Denial" first made me realize what a 180-degree change this subject is from what I am having used to study. At one point I have focused my studies on Japanese economy and the aging population in Japan, which are essentially opposite problems in Africa. The age pyramids on pg. 21 are good illustrations. In African countries heavily impacted by prevalence of HIV infection, the age pyramid looks like a regular triangle due to shorter life expectancy. Developed countries have age pyramids of an opposite shape, with an increasing elderly population and a diminishing youth populaiton. However, both types of countries share one common problem: the decreasing number of adults and young adults, a.k.a. the working population. Developed countries are now facing difficulties sustaining their growth and developing countries have troubles developing their economies.

BBC News also had an article related to the "denial" Barnett and Whiteside discuss in Ch. 1. (Aids Experts Condemn SA Minister- 9/6/06). Pg.7 in the book, the authors list several examples of so-called "denials" of AIDS and HIV by experts or politicians, whether it is dismissal of the need to combat AIDS/HIV or flat out disbelief in the cause or preventative measures of HIV/AIDS. BBC's article points to the South African Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who is condemned for promoting beetroot and garlic to HIV/AIDS patients. instead of focusing on anti-retroviral drug treatments. If even the educated, literate, and politically powerful few cannot understand or choose not to acknowledge the scientific background of HIV/AIDS, how are we supposed to teach the masses about correct preventative measures and importance of their enforcement?