If we turn our gaze to the geographical evolution of the concept i.e. the way in which businesses in different regions across the world adopted and implemented the idea, we find that there is no uniformity in the timeline nor there is a consensus on what actually constitutes CSR among businesses in different parts of the world.

For instance, CSR as a concept found its feet more in Europe than in the US though the latter was responsible for its early initiation into business literature.

The fact that the “green consciousness” and the “green movement” secured major gains in Europe meant that companies and firms in the continent were more amenable towards CSR than their counterparts in the US. However, in recent years, there has been a “levelling off” with the body polity in the US recognizing the need for businesses to be held accountable and hence shaking off the long inertia that enveloped them during the time Europe was making rapid strides in implementing CSR.

This has led to the mainstreaming of the idea of CSR to the extent that we have reached a point (in the West) where CSR is a business imperative in the same way taking care of the workforce is. The policies and programs that have been launched by many firms routinely include their commitment towards CSR and their affirmation of the need to be socially responsible.

However, the other continents like Asia and Latin America were lagging behind for a long time in even recognizing that businesses have a social responsibility. Though this might seem primitive or Luddite to say that businesses need have absolutely no responsibility towards society, the fact that many firms and businesses in these regions practiced a variety of capitalism that was unique to those countries and which included a certain inbuilt social conscience.

Hence, while it cannot be said that these regions and countries were left behind totally, the concept as it is perceived in the West was not being practiced here. Many commentators in these countries initially dismissed the idea of CSR as an imperialist construct and something that is a luxury much in the same way that early adopters in US and Europe faced these accusations.

In recent decades, countries like India and Brazil have indeed taken the lead in making businesses adopt policies that are socially responsible, environmentally conscious, compassionate in their human dimensions and thrifty in their use of natural resources.

The United Nations has had a significant role to play in universal acceptance of the idea of CSR with their promotion of the “Global Compact” to which various countries are signatories. This global compact binds the signatories to universally accepted principles of social responsibility which the businesses in those countries ought to follow and which is tracked for implementation.

The six criteria discussed by Young and Tilley are:

1. eco-efficiency,
2. socio-efficiency,
3. eco-effectiveness,
4. socio-effectiveness,
5. socio-sufficiency and
6. ecological equity

Taken together as a whole, these six criteria form an integrated model which corporations can follow for sustainable business practices and reap profits as well as be conscious in their business practices.

The point here is that the motto that CSR pays in real economic terms ought to be broadcast far and wide and only when corporations realize the economic benefits of conscious capitalism would they embrace the paradigm of CSR wholeheartedly (Young & Tilley, 206, 411).

Given Friedman’s injunction that the social responsibility of businesses is to make profits, if it can be shown that being socially responsible brings in profits, there can be no better business case for CSR.

This is realizable given the emerging research into CSR and business practices which throw up several connections between conscious capitalism and increased profits and the new “renaissance” in business thought and corporate behaviour ought to gladden the hearts of all CSR enthusiasts.

Before concluding the paper, it would be pertinent to note that Friedman’s article though cited widely might be a bit anachronistic for the imperatives of the 21st century and while the great professor was far sighted he could have not foreseen the complete breakdown of the neo classical model of economics that the Great Recession of 2008 has engendered.

Thus, while views such as that of Friedman’s can be a good starting point as to debate the relative merits and demerits of social responsibility versus profits, to base the whole idea of CSR on his ideas alone would be doing a disservice to the non-linear, complex and interconnected world in which we live in and which demands appropriate out of the box solutions.

CSR or Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives can extend to the realm of primary and secondary education. This entails close engagement and involvement of corporates in the schools, colleges, and universities where the corporates provide for funds, training, and associated programs with a view to educate the future workforce on how the corporate world works and the expectations from the future employees.

It has been found that in many developing countries, there is a disconnect between the education that the students receive during their graduate programs and the expectations from them when they join the workforce.

Indeed, it has been estimated that out of the millions of graduates in countries like China and India, only 10-20 percent are employable meaning that the rest do not have language, comprehension, verbal, and aptitude based skills to find gainful and meaningful employment.

This is the reason why many industry bodies in these countries have taken it upon themselves to reach out to the colleges and universities and impart skill based training programs so that the students upon graduation can be employed and be employable.

A Win-Win Situation for All Stakeholders

The other aspect about corporate outreach in schools, colleges, and universities has to do with building a brand image among the future workforce. Not only does this help the corporates in recruiting potential employees who are the best and the brightest but would help them in inculcating a sense of what it takes to succeed in the corporate world upon graduation.

Indeed, as part of the brand building exercise, the corporates can also provide for funds to the schools, colleges, and universities so that the equipment and the technology for vocational skill building can be provided for.

In other words, the corporates can combine their CSR activities with brand building and this would be a double whammy that would benefit all stakeholders in the process.

Apart from this, the corporates can also fund needy students so that they can complete their education.

Further, it has become the practice for many corporates to institute leadership awards in business schools that are targeted at women leaders, future leaders and potential leaders so that the leadership skills can be honed right from the time the students start their education. This is the case with many business schools in the west where leading companies often give out leadership awards to those whom they consider potential leaders.

Industry Academia Collaboration is good for alignment of objectives

The third aspect about CSR initiatives in primary and secondary education is that they help the collaboration between the industry and the academia, which would result in close alignment of what the corporates want and what the universities teach.

In other words, in many universities, there is a disconnect between the research undertaken in the universities and the emerging trends that industry and the corporates are handling. This disconnect can be remedied by close engagement and collaboration between the researchers and the faculty in the universities so that there is alignment of objectives between these stakeholders.

Further, by instituting chairs and fellowships, the corporates can benefit from increased exposure and involvement with academia. This is the case in most of the leading universities in the west that have dedicated programs that are funded by corporates.

Concluding Remarks: Catch Them Young and Watch Them Grow

Finally, the combination of CSR and brand building as well as funding and working closely with primary and secondary education is a win-win situation for all stakeholders. As the title of this article states, it is better to catch them young and watch them grow.

In other words, identifying future leaders, nurturing talent and incubating ideas right from school and college is a noble initiative that brings in good rewards for the students and the corporates and helps in aligning the objectives between academia and corporates.

The point here is that companies that practice good corporate governance are also those that are socially and environmentally responsible.

Being a good corporate citizen means that companies have to be internally well governed and externally responsible.

In other words, CSR and corporate governance are two sides of the same coin. The implication here is that unless corporates practice good governance they are unlikely to have a social conscience and hence the first step towards CSR is through practicing the art of effective corporate governance.

The role of the board of directors and the management is especially critical since they are the final arbiters of the actions of the companies. The buck stops with them and hence they have to ensure that the companies that they represent are run effectively and at the same time take into account the social and the environmental concerns.

It is not without basis that companies like Dow Chemicals and Pfizer are routinely accused of malfeasance and unethical behavior since they have outstanding liabilities as a result of their past actions.

On the other hand, companies like Unilever and Infosys are often held up as examples of the way in which effective corporate governance can be practiced. The choice for other companies is clear: either they set their own house in order and comply with social and environmental norms or they run the risk of a sullied image among the investors and the consumers at large.

The next aspect is that the employees and the stakeholders including the shareholders have an important function to perform as far as the twin objectives of good corporate governance and the practice of CSR are concerned.

Since effective corporate governance means that internal democracy and external responsibility go hand in hand, all the stakeholders have a duty towards the company to persuade the management to follow ethical and social norms of doing business. This is a manifestation of what has been called shareholder activism and stakeholder involvement which means that the entire stakeholder and the shareholders can exercise power over the actions of the board and the management to steer them towards the practice of good corporate governance and CSR.

Finally, the pressure groups and the consumers at large can vote with their wallets and their unrelenting focus on the actions of the corporates to bring about effective corporate governance.

As the cliche goes, charity begins at home and hence corporates need to ensure that their internal governance models are robust before they embark on CSR.

In conclusion, there is a mass awakening of sorts that is happening with society at large waking up to the need for corporates to be ethical and socially responsible and conscious. Hence, no corporate can afford to ignore the telltale signs of consumer and stakeholder focus on these aspects.

We live in an Age of Unprecedented Negativity. Everywhere around us, we see systems and institutions collapsing and degenerating.

Further, the 24/7 Media keeps us fed on a nonstop and real-time basis barrage of negative news.

In this context, it is worth asking the question as to what can corporates do to better the situation as well as discharge their responsibilities towards society. Indeed, given the fact that much of this present situation is driven by unbridled profit-seeking and runaway capitalism, corporates must and should take the lead in addressing and redressing the situation.

Apart from this, fears over automation and the looming threat of joblessness keeps many employees in perpetual fear and hence, there is a role for corporates in this as well. Proposals such as Universal Basic Income and other aspects can remedy the situation, but only to a limited extent.

The real solutions would come when corporates and civil society work together to create a sustainable and equitable future for all irrespective of class, race, and gender.

While all this sounds Utopian, it is indeed the case that unless corporates rise to the challenges and the situation, their very basis, and existence for survival would be threatened in this Race to the Bottom.

Corporates are Constrained by the Need to Make Profits

It is also the case that corporates are constrained by several forces such as the wider political and economic trends as well as societal forces.

For instance, when economic conditions are gloomy dire, the natural instinct is to ensure survivability, and this is where most corporates prioritize their immediate needs before anything else.

This is also the reason why we are not seeing much action on addressing social and environmental problems by the corporates. Moreover, in times when the Media is quick to pounce on any small or big incident, it takes courage and determination from the corporates to stick their neck out and do something about the wider societal and economic aspects.

Further, given the fact that corporates work on the basis of responsibility to profit first and then to society, unless there is a systemic overhaul and systemic change, corporates by themselves would not be able to do much to address what essentially problems are caused by the larger forces.

Corporates are doing something and Some Real World Examples of This

However, it is also not the case that corporates are not doing anything and they are just interested in themselves and their profits.

There are many VCs or Venture Capital firms that promote Green Projects and Socially beneficial initiatives by upcoming entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and China and India.

Moreover, Europe has taken the lead in this respect through governmental subsidies and incentives for entrepreneurs to setup socially conscious and environmentally friendly ventures.

Indeed, in the developing world, both China and India as well are promoting such initiatives and providing support for entrepreneurs who wish to make a difference to society.

This can be seen in the way Social Entrepreneurship has taken off in a big way in many countries such as these wherein both small scale, and large-scale projects are being promoted.

Thus, there is some action by conscientious capitalists to address the problems of society and the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, NR Narayana Murthy, and Jack Ma all have taken the lead in providing funding and support through their Philanthropic Foundations to budding social entrepreneurs.

Indeed, given the fact that most big problems often have small causes, it is the case that micro initiatives at the ground level can make a difference and hence, this is the way to go as far the future is concerned.

Charity Begins at Home and Corporates Must Set Their Own House in Order

Which brings us to the point about how must corporates address such concerns internally and externally? To start with, they can ensure that they invest in Ecologically Friendly office spaces and create green energy initiatives by promoting waste recycling.

Also, they can ensure that they are Zero Carbon Emitters by installing filters and purifiers that reduce or even eliminate the Emissions.

Another valuable lesson for many corporates is that often, they must set their own house in order before doing or saying anything and this is where they can make a real difference by an equitable distribution of pay and perks as well as being humane with their employees.

In the case where they have to downsize and fire employees, they must do so in a just manner by providing with adequate severance packages.

Moreover, as they say, Charity Begins at Home and hence, this is where they can make a real difference by ensuring that cases related to sexual and on the job discrimination on any basis are not only not tolerated but the perpetrators punished and others warned sternly.

Conclusion

Lastly, it is also the case that other stakeholders must help the corporates in their endeavors and this is where sustained interactions that go beyond dialogue and instead, focus on action are followed.

For instance, it is often the case that CSR is much talk and no action means that corporates must start “Walking the Talk” by following the Motto that Actions Speak Louder than Words.

This is where the last mile connectivity makes a real difference to the way in which real action and results on the ground can be actualized.

To conclude, these are the Best of Times and the Worst of Times, and hence, the challenge is to improve on the former and act and remedy on the latter.

This example shows that good corporate governance is a prerequisite to CSR. For instance, the various charitable trusts and the 108 Ambulance services that were being sponsored by Satyam ran aground once the scandal became known to the public.

This shows the need for good internal governance first and then practicing CSR as otherwise there would be issues of credibility and trust. The other example is that of the Enron Corporation which in itself was engaged in dubious internal accounting and shady business practices. No wonder that the shareholders and other stakeholders who invested in Enron were left flabbergasted with the extent of the corporate mis-governance.

The implications of this are clear. Corporate leaders ought to concentrate first on providing sound governance and fair business practices. Then they should look towards practicing CSR.

The point here is that companies ought to walk the talk where CSR is concerned and hence, they must first be internally and externally conscionable. This can be actualized by following transparent accounting, oversight over business practices and regular auditing of the company’s procedures and processes.

Only when whistleblowers are encouraged and there are mechanisms for grievance redressal can there be good corporate governance. And only when there is good corporate governance can there be effective concern for society.

The key take away from this discussion is that companies must actualize their vision for society by following sound business practices which would go a long way in ensuring reputational benefits and top of the mind recall.

For instance, companies like Infosys are known for their good corporate governance world over and hence society looks up to them for guidance and direction whenever ethical and social concerns are discussed.

Further, these companies set standards for others to follow and hence are considered benchmarks on which corporate governance ought to be measured.

It is apparent that good corporate governance is the first step towards keeping employees, shareholders and other stakeholders happy and hence is the first step towards practicing CSR.

When companies behave with integrity and trust they engender confidence among the stakeholders which translates into socially responsible business practices.

In conclusion, good corporate governance is becoming more important by the day and with the spate of scandals that have rocked major corporations in recent times, it is imperative that companies follow sound business practices.

It wouldn’t be an understatement to say that we are living in Dark Times and where the discourse and the narrative are dominated by hate and vitriol.

Moreover, there is an unprecedented assault on the marginalised and the underprivileged, what with stripping them off their rights and scaling back the welfare state that was achieved after decades of struggle by progressives.

So, in such times, what is the responsibility of business and how must business leaders react to the prevailing political and social conditions?

In addition, while corporates have always tried to steer clear of commenting on the political events of the day, should they not make an exception now considering that the very fabric of society is being torn apart and worse, shredded?

Agreed that many corporates worldwide still believe in the Dictum of the Late Milton Friedman, who famously proclaimed that the responsibility of business is business yet, should not businesses now take a stand against the bigotry and the negativity, because after all, when societies are threatened, the foundations on which the businesses rest is also shaken.

Therefore, the argument that businesses and business leaders stay out of reacting and commenting and more importantly, actualising strategies to alleviate some of the consequences of the current discourse holds good now.

Why the Present Times Make it Difficult for the Business Leaders who speak up?

Having said that, it must also be noted that the race to bottom strategies that politicians in cahoots with corporates worldwide are engaging in leads to even well meaning business leaders being circumspect about reacting to the events of the times.

For instance, in India, in the recent past, eminent and iconic business leaders such as NR Narayana Murthy, Rahul Bajaj, and Anand Mahindra , have realised that speaking out comes at a price.

They have either found themselves as the targets of vicious social media trolls or have had their Philanthropic Foundations and their licenses being cancelled for speaking out.

Indeed, this is the reason why one must re-evaluate how businesses and business leaders must behave in such times.

On the other hand, for those few brave and courageous celebrities who took a stand, they found themselves the targets of ire and the victims of boycott of their brands and services.

For instance, it has been the trend in recent years to call for boycott of anyone who dares to speak out and this can be seen worldwide including in India where Bollywood celebrities and some businesses such as Zomato have been the target of the so-called Cancel Culture wherein Netizens often cancel their orders from these businesses as well as return their products.

Businesses and Business Leaders Must Act before it is too Late

On the other hand, this must not be a reason to not speak out as acquiescing with the prevailing mood means that sooner or later, one has to pick sides.

Of course, there are many (indeed, the majority) of corporates and business leaders who are egging on the prevailing discourse aimed at marginalising the already marginalised.

Perhaps these businesses and the business leaders are the true inheritors of Milton Friedman’s legacy wherein their obsession with profits at all costs and any price leads them to co-opt themselves with the politicians the establishment in all countries.

Moreover, as can be seen in the exuberant profits that some corporations make and the stratospheric stock markets, perhaps being on the side of the prevailing discourse is good for business.

Indeed, this has been the case for decades now as corporates have found that high sounding terms such as Corporate Social Responsibility must be restricted to the Optics of the events and not to any genuine attempt at reform.

Why Leading Icons of Industry Must Refocus Their Philanthropic Activities

Therefore, it goes without saying that the present times are such that CSR exists only on paper. And those business leaders such as Bill Gates and Azim Premji who have bequeathed almost their entire humungous fortunes to charity and helping the poor do so in non controversial (to the prevailing narrative) aspects such as Health and Education.

While this is entirely laudable as these areas remain points of concern for all, perhaps it is also time that such Icons of Industry donated more to the causes that are at odds with the establishment.

Moreover, these Billionaires command so much respect and awe among legions of their followers that any stand taken by them would surely help the CSR as well as Society in general.

In other words, what we are saying is that instead of solely focusing on a few areas, corporates and business leaders can also turn their attention to issues such as Climate Change, Environmental Pollution, and the ever present and increasing income inequalities.

Thus, this can be construed as an Appeal to their Conscience to act according to the dictates of their Inner Voice and do something that would outlast them and leave a legacy that future generations can be proud of.

Conclusion

Last, it goes without saying that the concept of CSR must be debated afresh in these troubled times and there is a need by all stakeholders to engage with each other and ensure that corporates do not become the ones that tacitly and overtly support the prevailing narrative.

Moreover, there is also a need to act before it is too late to Save the Planet.

To conclude, businesses and business leaders have a responsibility towards society and it is high time they broadened their focus to encompass larger concerns about the world.

This article analyzes the statement, “the idea that the company’s resources should be devoted to some cause other than making a profit is outrageous”.

There is an ongoing debate over whether a firm should exist solely for making profits or whether it should pay heed to the social and environmental concerns that accompany the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR.

The proponents of the view that a firm exists solely for making profit argue about the market being the final arbiter of allocating resources and point to the market as the place where incentives for allocating resources for social and environmental causes is to be found. The opponents of this view take the stand that everything cannot be left to the market and there needs to be a mechanism in place whereby the environmental and social causes need to be taken care of.

If we examine both sides of the debate as well as take into account superficial attempts by businesses to pay lip service to CSR, the first strand of thought that comes to mind is about the need for businesses to invest in CSR as a way of mitigating the deleterious effects of the industrial paradigm on the environment.

The practice of CSR by industrial companies is in vogue these days because of the fact that they have contributed to polluting the environment.

As Martha Nussbaum contends, “If this world is to be a decent world in the future, “we must acknowledge right now that we are citizens of one interdependent world, held together by mutual fellowship as well as the pursuit of mutual advantage, by compassion as well as self-interest, by a love of human dignity in all people, even when there is nothing we have to gain from cooperating with them”

Hence, in this interconnected and flat world there is a need for concerted action by the businesses to take steps that would alleviate the pressing issues of the day. However, the opponents of this view are some of the multinationals themselves as can be seen from the following excerpt, “Thus the central theoretical and practical question in the discussion of corporate social responsibility is whether it remains a voluntary choice of the business or should be ensured through formal control”.

The point here is that CSR is being enforced rather than voluntarily embraced. This fact alone makes it clear that businesses by themselves do not contribute to CSR and that they have to be regulated to do so.

This evolution has been necessitated both due to the myriad problems that we as a race face which has changed the environment under which firms operate as well as a realization among business leaders that profits as the sole reason or raison d’être for existence can no longer hold good.

The reason why companies must look beyond profits is also due to the peculiar situation that humanity finds itself in the second decade of the 21st century. Given the political, economic, social and environmental crises that humans as a race are confronting, corporations have a role to play since they contribute the most to the economic well being of humanity and in turn influence the political and social trends.

Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR makes for eminent business sense as well when one considers the knock-on effect that social and environmental responsibility brings to the businesses. For instance, corporations exist in a symbiotic relationship with their environments (the term environment refers to all the components of the external environment and not to ecological environment alone) where their exchange with the larger environment determines to a large extent how well they do in their profit seeking endeavors.

The evolution of CSR as a concept dates back to the 1950’s when the first stirrings of social conscience among management practitioners and theorists were felt. The writings of Keith Davis starting in the 1950’s and continuing into the 1970’s speak of the need for businesses to engage in socially responsible behavior and to ensure that society as a whole does not lose out in the process of profit making behavior by businesses.

CSR as a concept was starting to be taken seriously by the time the 1970’s dawned and through the tumultuous decade when big business and their minions were accused of several misdemeanors pertaining to rampant disregard for the environment and society as a whole.

One can trace the anxieties of activists and management theorists during this time as they feared that the rapacious behavior of businesses and corporations ought to be checked if a semblance of social responsibility was to be maintained. Of course, both sides started to stick to their positions and this resulted in the debate over CSR getting shriller during the 1980’s.

I conclude the article with two quotes that illustrate the need to think beyond the ordinary and at the same time remind ourselves of the responsibility we have towards succeeding generations: The first one by Albert Einstein where he said that “problems cannot be solved from the same level of consciousness that created them” and the second one which says that “We have not inherited the Earth. We have merely borrowed it from our children.”

The recent announcement by Mark Zuckerberg, the Founder of Facebook, that he would give away 99% of his shares in his company to charity has brought into focus the trend of Billionaires giving away their fortunes to charity. Indeed, starting with the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, and including the legendary investor, Warren Buffett, there are many ultra rich individuals who have or are in the process of donating their entire wealth to charity. While this is welcome news for the Billions of poor people around the world since much of the monies would go into helping them, the other side of the debate has to be considered as well.

Is This Greenwashing ?

For instance, many critics argue that these monies are supposed to be given away to charity amount to nothing but a CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) green washing wherein the corporates simply setup trusts and foundations to handle the monies with the purpose of investing in projects that again follow the for profit model.

In other words, instead of following a pure charity model wherein the trusts and foundations donate money to NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) that are engaged in myriad issues, the trusts and the foundations focus on a businesslike approach wherein there is no difference between them and the corporates that operate in a similar manner.

Paradigm Change Needed

The reason for this criticism is that even the NGOs that benefit from the trust and the foundations are the corporatized organizations which again follow the principles of cost benefit analysis and other methods that might or might not work in the business of solving the problems of the world.

The Business of Saving the World

Indeed, the term the business of solving the problems of the world has been used deliberately since the corporates essentially are saying that whatever money they donate has to be used in a manner similar to their core businesses wherein the bottom line is more important than the means to such ends.

The ends justify the means approach does not always work in the world of NGOs where the complex nature of societal problems is such that a more humane and empathic approach is needed. Another point that is made is that the corporates and their wealthy founders are simply giving money that they earned through an exploitative system and hence, if they follow the same method in donating the money as well, the end result is similar to the for profit model that has been widely cited as one of the reasons for the multiple social and environmental problems in the world.

Worthy Example for Others

Having said that, it must be noted that there are others who brush aside these concerns and insist that any money donated to the cause of the poor is welcome and that at least, these individuals such as Gates, Zuckerberg, and Buffett are making a conscious effort and setting a worthy example for other wealthy individuals to follow their lead and give back to society from which they had earned so much fame and fortune. Therefore, there are two sides to this debate and hence, one must weigh in both sides before jumping to conclusions about whether this new form of philanthropy is good or bad.

Differences between Earlier Era Rich and the Current Rich

Historically, the mega rich have always been at the forefront of philanthropy and the difference between earlier era businesspersons such as the Rockefellers and Gates is that the former donated only a fraction of their wealth whereas the latter along with others such as Buffett and Zuckerberg intend to give away most of their money. Therefore, it is the contention here that this new form of charity is indeed a welcome development given the high stakes in the issues of solving the problems of the world.

Therefore, to address the criticism of such individuals, it would be better for them if they personally get involved in a manner similar to Gates in overseeing the disbursement and the impact of their charity as well as ensure that the projects that they fund connect the macro as well as the micro.

In other words, they should not be content with looking at the big picture and instead, they must ensure that genuine grassroots work gets done with the monies that they donate.

Charity Begins at Home

An even better method would be for these individuals to institute responsible business practices in their organizations so that they set an example with the saying charity begin at home being their motto.

In other words, what better way to save the world than to follow socially and environmentally responsible business practices and set an example for the others to follow. Indeed, saving the world can mean that one must first put one s house in order and then proceed from the internal to the external.

Responsibility towards Future Generations

To conclude the discussion, having examined both sides of the debate, we can now say that while these acts of charity have to be welcomed and followed by others as well, there is nothing better than leading by example and ensuring that they change the system from within and actualize a better world for everyone. After all, since Zuckerberg donated the money to celebrate the birth of his daughter, it is worth remembering that the world belongs to the future generations as much as it belongs to us and we have merely borrowed it from them and hence, are responsible for ensuring that what we pass on can endure the future.