When we talk of corporate social responsibility, the first thing that comes to mind is the adoption of causes close to the business or local communities it is based in. Cynics will say it is for the avoidance of taxes, but others would say it is an avenue to contribute to what is precious to the nation.

It can be as large as a commitment to sustainable development which we see through Sime Darby sponsoring the orangutan enclosure, or YTL’s continuing contribution to the arts through the Kuala Lumpur Performing Arts Centre, KLPAC.

In the case of Malaysia Resources Corporation Bhd (MRCB), it involved hoarding up the 100 Quarters in Brickfields, building a pedestrian bridge to the Monorail station and even providing a shuttle service and porters at the temporary Penang Sentral transport hub.

And just launched last weekend, a 1Malaysia library in the Pantai Dalam area.

Of course, there are smaller contributions such as upgrading suraus, contributing to mosques and other religious buildings and school funds, natural disaster donations and even getting involved in the rebuilding efforts as well.

There are many examples of such, even with controversial entities such as Yayasan 1MDB and Permata.

But how far should corporations go?

What I mean by this is; where is the line to where corporations take over the role of government in adopting communities to the point of even supplying and maintaining amenities of an entire community?

One such question I would raise is with local community security. Of course, we have fenced communities which are supported by the members living in it. But what about auxiliary police or APs?

This has been a sore topic in Selangor especially among the state assemblypersons who want such a service provided by local councils in an effort to reduce crime. And it has been a topic discussed since 2008.

Personally it would be lovely to have more officers available, but we must wonder to ourselves, why does it need to be outside the Royal Malaysian Police?

Similarly, the initial issues of traffic control is done by developers in the initial planning process for local council authorities. That is the way it is supposed to work. However, when local communities then go out and demand developers take over the role of local councils, should they and must they?

Have local councils and city halls failed?

Also, the maintenance of roadworks, local irrigation and drainage. We have a national level department for that as well as states and even local councils, yet again. Yet, it goes back to the developers to suddenly cater to the demands of the communities which believe that local councils and city halls have failed.

Sure, the building of a mall or even an apartment complex should provide ample parking for its customers or residents, but when did it become the duty of developers to address this issue for an entire community under the authority of a local council?

Yes, if a developer were building up a new township, it would be responsible for all its developments which will then be maintained by the local councils. But for urban renewal projects, how far should corporations go as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to advance a local agenda which should be under the management of local councils and have fallen either into disrepair or even bad mismanagement?

Because most of the time, the tussle between local communities and developers is due to the local council’s absence.

Personally, I am guessing this is where communities and developers alike are willing to discuss and even negotiate for the betterment of local institutions such as schools, libraries, police stations and places of worship - all areas supposed to be managed by local councils with funds doled out by the federal government.

It is one thing to get corporations to ‘adopt’ certain things in a community, but if it is tasked to take responsibility for everything in the community - including the management of amenities supposedly under the maintenance of local councils - then perhaps we are all barking up the wrong tree.