Should public sector enterprises fund cultural heritage through CSR? Examine the ethical and governance dimensions.

Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, profitable companies must spend on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and protecting national heritage is an eligible activity. In the recent HAL–NCF–ASI Memorandum of Agreement, HAL gave in-principle approval of ₹23.60 crore for Hampi, the Taj Mahal and Bekal Fort [1]. PSE funding of heritage is desirable, but only with strong accountability safeguards.

Ethical Dimensions

• Shared duty to heritage: Article 51A(f) asks citizens to value and preserve India's composite culture. PSE CSR extends this duty to state-owned companies.
• Corporate citizenship: When a defence PSE funds cultural goods unrelated to its business, it shows responsibility to society beyond profit [1].
• Opportunity cost: PSE profits are public wealth. Heritage CSR may displace health or education spending in the PSE's own operational areas.
• Visibility bias: Iconic sites like the Taj Mahal attract donors because they bring publicity. Lesser-known monuments risk neglect.

Governance Dimensions

• Fills a real funding gap: The CAG found that 21% of ASI's approved Annual Conservation Plans in its Uttar Pradesh circles were not executed as planned, mainly because of shortage of funds and staff [2].
• Clear division of roles: HAL funds, NCF facilitates and ASI supervises technically [1]. Conservation standards therefore stay with the expert body.
• Weak ability to spend: NCF's endowment rose from ₹19.50 crore to about ₹76 crore by March 2021, yet less than 14% was used for its objectives [3]. More money does not mean more conservation.
• Problems money cannot solve: 456 (94%) of UP's centrally protected monuments were managed by ASI without legal title [2]. Land title disputes need state action, not CSR money.
• Accountability gap: Public money passing from a PSE through NCF makes it unclear who answers for results unless projects are audited for outcomes.

PSE CSR for heritage is ethically sound and fiscally useful, but outcomes depend on the capacity of the bodies that carry out the work. The way forward:

• time-bound public roadmaps for each site
• the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation of closer ASI–NCF coordination to bring in more donors [3]
• independent third-party audits

Built this way, PSE CSR can advance the Article 49 mandate to protect monuments and SDG 11.4 on safeguarding cultural heritage.