What if India’s CSR debate is focused on the wrong number?
The Corporate Laws Amendment Bill 2026 proposes changes that would reduce the number of companies subject to mandatory CSR requirements, potentially freeing thousands of businesses from associated compliance obligations.
The argument for relief is easy to understand. For a smaller company, the cost of maintaining committees, documentation, reporting and other CSR processes can become disproportionate to the amount actually being spent.
But there is another side. India’s mandatory CSR framework has helped create a substantial pool of corporate spending on social causes. Some companies have also moved beyond compliance and built meaningful, long-term programmes.
So reducing the obligation base could affect not just paperwork, but actual funding.
How much of mandatory CSR spending creates measurable impact and how much simply creates evidence of compliance? If a company spends its prescribed amount, completes the documentation and ticks every reporting box, has CSR succeeded if the programme itself produces little measurable change?
Perhaps the debate shouldn’t be mandatory versus voluntary. It should be about whether the framework rewards impact rather than expenditure.
A smaller CSR programme that demonstrably changes lives may create more value than a much larger programme designed primarily to satisfy a statutory requirement.
Should India’s CSR framework measure success by how much companies spend or by what that spending actually achieves?
