Mumbai | SkillCouncils.Com Opinion

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) plan to seek Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funding to upgrade around 70 public parks, gardens and lakes under its “Participate Mumbai” initiative has opened up a wider debate about the priorities of corporate philanthropy in India.

Improving public spaces is a worthwhile goal. Parks provide places for recreation, support physical and mental well-being, improve neighbourhood liveability and can contribute to urban environmental sustainability. Well-maintained gardens and lakes can deliver meaningful public benefits.

But the proposal also raises an important question: when corporate funding flows towards visible civic infrastructure, will enough resources remain for the organisations working every day to address poverty, improve education, expand healthcare and support vulnerable communities?

The issue is not whether Mumbai’s parks deserve investment. They do. It is whether CSR funding can support better cities without weakening the financial support available for equally important, but often less visible, social development work.

The appeal of visible, tangible projects

Public parks and gardens offer something corporate donors can readily identify: a physical asset, a defined location and an improvement that communities can see.

A renovated garden, a restored lake or an upgraded recreational facility can provide a clear account of where money has gone and what has changed. Such projects may also offer companies opportunities to engage with local communities and demonstrate their contribution to urban development.

These advantages help explain why infrastructure-oriented projects can be attractive to corporate donors.

Yet visible outputs are not necessarily the same as lasting social impact. A renovated park still needs maintenance, responsible management, accessibility and sustained public use. Without these, the benefits of an initial investment may diminish over time.

The same principle applies to all CSR projects: the real measure of success should be the public value created, not simply the amount spent or the facility inaugurated.

The less visible struggle of grassroots organisations

Across the social sector, grassroots non-governmental organisations and community-based institutions work with children who need educational support, families facing economic hardship, people requiring healthcare and communities with limited access to essential services.

Their work may not produce a prominent physical landmark, but its impact can be profound.

A community educator helping a child remain in school, a local organisation connecting a vulnerable family with essential services or a livelihood programme helping a worker gain employable skills can change lives in ways that are less immediately visible than a refurbished public space.

Many such organisations need dependable funding for staff, outreach, training, service delivery and long-term engagement with beneficiaries. When funding is short-term or concentrated in a narrow set of projects, their ability to sustain essential services can be undermined.

However, the BMC proposal alone does not establish that CSR funding for grassroots organisations is declining. That would require evidence about actual corporate allocations, sector-wise spending and changes in funding patterns. The concern is a legitimate policy question, not a demonstrated consequence of this particular initiative.

Should CSR fund what municipal governments are expected to provide?

The debate also touches on the relationship between public expenditure and corporate philanthropy.

Maintaining parks, gardens, lakes and other public assets is ordinarily part of municipal governance. Public authorities have responsibilities for urban infrastructure, upkeep and the equitable distribution of civic amenities.

CSR partnerships may help accelerate improvements, introduce specialist expertise or mobilise additional resources. But they should not become a substitute for the public funding and accountability required to maintain essential civic services.

The distinction matters. If corporate contributions help deliver additional benefits that would otherwise be delayed, they can strengthen urban development. If public authorities begin to depend on uncertain corporate donations for routine responsibilities, questions arise about long-term maintenance, accountability and whether improvements will be distributed fairly across neighbourhoods.

Any partnership should therefore clarify who will own, operate and maintain the upgraded assets; how project selection will take place; and whether the benefits will remain accessible to all sections of the community.

CSR should not become a contest between parks and people

Framing the issue as a choice between green spaces and human development risks creating a false divide.

Cities need both. Parks and lakes contribute to public health, environmental quality and community life. Education, healthcare, poverty alleviation and livelihood development help people build secure and dignified lives.

The real challenge is to create a CSR ecosystem in which different priorities can receive support according to community needs, credible evidence and the potential for lasting impact.

Companies should be encouraged to assess projects on clear criteria: who benefits, how urgently the intervention is needed, what outcomes are expected, whether the project fills a genuine gap and how those outcomes will be sustained.

For social-sector organisations, transparent selection processes and multi-year funding where appropriate can help build continuity and accountability. For infrastructure projects, measurable standards should include accessibility, public use, environmental performance and maintenance—not merely construction or renovation.

What a more balanced CSR approach could look like

A responsible approach to CSR funding could include several safeguards:

1. Needs-based allocation: Consider local social needs alongside opportunities for visible infrastructure improvements.
2. Transparent project selection: Publish the rationale for selecting projects, the intended beneficiaries and the expected outcomes.
3. Support for grassroots capacity: Recognise the importance of trained staff, community outreach and sustained service delivery—not just direct project expenditure.
4. Long-term accountability: Establish clear responsibility for maintenance and continued service after the initial funding period.
5. Outcome measurement: Evaluate whether projects improve lives, expand access or address identified community problems.
6. Equitable distribution: Ensure that benefits reach underserved neighbourhoods and vulnerable groups rather than concentrating only where projects are most visible.

These principles would allow companies to support urban infrastructure while continuing to invest in the people and institutions that address social disadvantage.

The bigger question for corporate India

CSR is most effective when it complements public responsibility, responds to genuine community needs and creates measurable additional value. It should not be judged solely by the visibility of a project or the scale of the announcement.

The BMC’s “Participate Mumbai” initiative can be evaluated on its merits as an effort to improve public spaces. At the same time, it offers an opportunity for a wider conversation about how companies decide which social needs receive funding—and how the impact of those decisions is measured.

A beautiful city needs more than well-maintained parks. It needs children who can learn, families who can access healthcare, workers who can build sustainable livelihoods and vulnerable people who are not left behind.

The goal should not be to choose between green spaces and human development. It should be to build a CSR framework that recognises both as essential parts of a healthy, inclusive society.

The question for corporate India is therefore not simply where to spend CSR money, but how to ensure that every investment—whether in a public park or a community programme—delivers lasting value to the people it is meant to serve.