Lenguaje no-verbal

Philanthropy23 _{was given the third position by managers for two reasons. First, the}

social needs of people in Mukuni communities are many; ranging from needs in the areas of education (both services and infrastructure), health (both services and infrastructure, especially issues connected to HIV/AIDS), water and sanitation, which required considerable investments, time and a project or programme type of approach. The second reason given by managers of large companies was that traditional power and cultural influences in community structures are a limiting factor to effective use of philanthropy in Mukuni (see more in Chapter Six). In contrast, the limiting factor for

23_{This study found it important to draw a distinction between long-term impact investment donations}

(philanthropy) and short-term impact welfare donations (moral). This is because in practice the CSR development impacts of the two practices are not the same.

146

small locally-owned lodge companies is the high levels of investments required to undertake social investment projects in the communities. Managers of these small companies explained that due to unfair tax policies by Government, most of the locally- owned tourism companies are most concerned about meeting the financial obligations of their businesses. They found philanthropy too demanding for them and unfavourable to do. To this effect, one of the managers of a small locally-owned lodge made the following remarks:

“…As a lodge we just struggle to make profits…Government should consider relaxing some of the taxes which are putting too much pressure on small tourism businesses like ours…there are too many taxes which are a constraint on our business and affects what we can plough back into communities in terms of CSR activities. At the moment Government discriminates against local investors in tourism...it provides incentives to foreign investors to operate tax-free in their first 6 years of establishing their business in the sector, this is not the case with locals, we have to start paying taxes from the word go. This makes small tourism businesses to struggle to grow or expand and thus, cannot do large social investments in local communities…” (MELmger, 25thSeptember, 2014).

These sentiments support findings of a study in Zimbabwe which concluded that some tourism companies there consider investing in social and environmental issues as a peripheral issue. The study summed up its conclusion by stating that; “the preoccupation of the majority of hotel chains in Zimbabwe remained the profit motive” (Nyahunzvi, 2013, p. 607). In this research experience, in addition to the profit motive, weak community structures and tax policies appear to adversely affect the ability of some hospitality companies to engage in CSR, especially through philanthropy. However, the senior Government officials and community participants favoured philanthropy. They explained that philanthropy offers high prospects for community development as evidenced by social issues (such as education, health, water needs) that have been addressed through social investment projects and programmes in Mukuni by some hotels and lodges. Nevertheless, they did not dismiss the presence of limiting factors as reflected in the following statements by two senior government officials in the Ministry of Tourism:

147

“…Under wildlife concession agreements with communities, safari companies pledge to do projects such as building clinics and schools. There are also stories that some companies do not do much for communities but only for chiefs and a few powerful people around them, just to ensure that they hold onto concessions year after year, without spreading benefits to a wider community population. These things could also be happening in Mukuni…” (CTSI, 9thJuly, 2014).

“…It is often mistaken that a powerful chief will provide a voice to his or her subjects, but when the chief crosses over on the side of tourism companies, the situation is even worse, like in Mukuni, culturally, the subjects cannot reprimand or criticise their chief. So, the subjects end up with two [hurdles] to deal with: (i) the chief - who chooses the persons that should be employed or do business with companies and communities in which projects should be done and (ii) to deal with companies who claim that they are working with communities and supporting communities when actually they are only dealing with the chief…either way the poor majority still lose…” (CTDO, 3rdJuly, 2014).

These sentiments show that communities need strong institutions and strong community leaders. As reflected in these sentiments, because of these limitations philanthropy was given a low priority at third position by tourism resort managers. A comparison of these findings with the findings of a study by Lindgreen et al. (2010), in Botswana and Malawi shows a slight contrast. In their study, philanthropy was given a second priority position by companies as reflected in the quote below from the study conclusions:

“…philanthropy is given second highest priority for three reasons. First, the socio-economic needs of the African societies in which organizations operate are so great that philanthropy is an expected norm – it is considered the right thing to do by business and the most direct way to improve the prospects of the communities in which business operates. Second, many African societies have become reliant on foreign aid. Third, Africa is generally still at an early stage of maturity in CSR rather than the more embedded approaches now common in developed countries...” (Lindgreen et al., 2010, p. 431).

148

Considering that Zambia, Botswana and Malawi are close neighbours, in the same African region, the possible explanation for this contrast might be differences in local contexts (institutional frameworks, people and practices) which might play some critical role in shaping the CSR practices at a local level.