Corporate Social Investment (CSI) has become a key mechanism for addressing South Africa’s most pressing social issues. Over the years, it has channelled resources into education, healthcare, and community upliftment, often filling gaps left by government services. Yet, a glaring omission remains embedded in the CSI framework: the exclusion of religious organisations from funding. This principle, adhered to by many corporates, raises fundamental questions about its fairness and its consequences for the country’s most vulnerable communities.
Religious organisations in South Africa are deeply embedded in rural and township communities, often serving as the backbone of social support systems. These institutions are not just places of worship; they are critical lifelines. In remote areas, churches and temples run feeding schemes, house orphaned children, deliver education, and provide emotional and social support to those who need it most. Yet, despite their significant contributions, these organisations are largely ignored in corporate funding models.
The rationale behind this exclusion is often rooted in concerns about neutrality, inclusivity, and the separation of religious and corporate mandates. Many corporates fear that funding faith-based organisations may alienate other groups or appear to favour specific beliefs. However, these concerns overlook a key reality: in many communities, religious organisations are the only institutions with the reach, trust, and infrastructure to address local needs effectively.
Take, for instance, a small village where a church operates a feeding scheme for 4,000 children. Every month, these children receive meals that keep them nourished and in school. Without this support, many would go hungry. In such cases, the exclusion of religious organisations from funding is not just a missed opportunity; it is a disservice to the very communities CSI aims to uplift.
The scale of need in South Africa is immense, particularly in rural and underserved areas where government services are scarce or absent. Religious organisations have stepped into this void, delivering programmes that directly impact lives. Yet, corporate South Africa’s refusal to fund these institutions leaves them to rely on dwindling donations from congregants or international donors. This approach raises an uncomfortable question: if religious organisations don’t receive support, who will fund the essential services they provide?
The current funding model, entrenched over the last 30 years, prioritises compliance and neutrality over impact. While compliance is vital to ensure transparency and accountability, it should not come at the cost of excluding organisations that are driving real, measurable change. The rigid exclusion of faith-based institutions from funding overlooks their unique position as trusted, established entities within their communities.
Re-evaluating this policy does not mean abandoning compliance standards. Rather, it calls for a nuanced approach that considers the outcomes delivered by these organisations. Impact should be the primary criterion for funding decisions, not the affiliation of the organisation delivering it. Programmes that feed, educate, and support thousands of children deserve support, regardless of whether they are run by a church or an NGO.
The Given Group Foundation is an example of how this balance can be achieved. By focusing on compliance while supporting impactful grassroots programmes, the foundation ensures that resources reach those who need them most. This model demonstrates that it is possible to fund faith-based organisations without compromising on accountability.
The exclusion of religious organisations from corporate funding also highlights a broader issue within CSI: the need for more adaptable and inclusive funding models. South Africa’s challenges are too vast and complex to be addressed by rigid frameworks that exclude key players. A reimagined funding model would recognise the unique contributions of religious organisations and integrate them into the broader strategy for community upliftment.
Such a shift would not only benefit the 2,000–4,000 children supported by one of these programmes but also strengthen the social fabric of rural and township communities. Religious organisations have long been trusted anchors in these areas, providing not just material support but also a sense of hope and belonging. Ignoring their role undermines the effectiveness of CSI initiatives and leaves many communities without the resources they desperately need.
It is time for corporate South Africa to wear a different hat and reconsider its approach to funding. Excluding religious organisations denies support to some of the most impactful projects in the country. Instead, CSI should focus on outcomes and embrace a funding model that prioritises the greater good over strict adherence to outdated principles.
By revisiting these policies, corporate South Africa has an opportunity to make a real difference. Supporting religious organisations does not mean endorsing specific beliefs; it means acknowledging their vital role in society and empowering them to continue their work. In doing so, CSI can fulfil its mandate of uplifting communities and creating a more equitable South Africa.
The exclusion of religious organisations is a policy that has outlived its purpose. It is time to build a funding framework that reflects the realities of South Africa, prioritising impact and inclusivity over ideology. Only then can we ensure that no child, no community, and no institution capable of driving change is left behind.
Leave a Reply