Posted by: Taea Calcut
In our last post, we discussed some of the ways in which MFIs demonstrate and prioritize social responsibility to the communities where they work. Today, we ask what exogenous factors might determine the likelihood that MFIs have formal social responsibility to the community (SRC) policies.
MIX Social Performance Report data on SRC policies remains limited at this time, given the small sample size of self-reporting MFIs. However, we can explore correlations between MFIs' SRC policies and world region, working environment (i.e., rural, semi-urban, and urban), and regulatory status on preliminary basis.
So, what does the preliminary data reveal?
Table 1: MFIs with Written SRC Policies by World Region (n=133)
For the purposes of our review, we have defined MFIs having an SRC policy as those with written policies, rather than informal policies or policies under development. In Table 1, we find that the data reveals little variation between MFIs with SRC policies by region at this time. (When “policy” is expanded to include written and informal policies, each region reports a majority of MFIs with SRC policies, yet the variations between regions remains similarly small.)
Table 2: MFIs with Written SRC Policies by Working Environment (n=123)
In Table 2, we find that reporting MFIs which primarily serve rural areas are only nominally more likely to have SRC policies than those working in urban or semi-urban environments.
Table 3: MFIs with Written SRC Policies by Regulatory Status (n=129)
Finally, in Table 3, we find that reporting MFIs that are regulated are more likely to have SRC policies than MFIs that are unregulated. However, as in Tables 1 and 2, there is little variation between categories.
Each of the variables here – world region, working environment, and regulatory status – inspire a series of questions regarding their relationship to SRC policies. In the case of Table 1, for example, is it that the cultural environments in world regions demand that MFIs focus on communal rather than individual relations? In Table 2, is it that rural environments, being more sparsely-populated than urban environments, foster tighter-knit communities, leading MFIs to feel a greater sense of obligation to the entire communities in which they work? In the case of Table 3, is it possible that regulated institutions have stronger management processes in place that allow them to look beyond providing services to clients and focus on their effects on the community as a whole? Yet only with a larger sample size will we be able to assess correlations and better explore these potential causes or others that might explain MFIs' adoption of SRC policies.
For now, we welcome the thoughts of practitioners to these questions. How have factors such as region, working environment, and regulation influenced your institution's SRC policies? What other factors or motives might explain an MFI's decision to have SRC policies?
Comments