Espousing the cause of social welfare, the university don, who has been teaching for over three decades now, hopes for business activities that are non-violent and enhance the quality of life. Holmes has travelled extensively all over the world and has a number of fellowships, grants and prizes to his credit. Holmes is also the first recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi chair in Peace and Disarmament at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Excerpts from an interview given to Shelley Singh:

You have advocated a Gandhian approach among corporates. Is this possible?

It is not possible to find one. I only try and encourage people in the corporate world to at least have a Gandhian perspective. Corporates have to be sensitive toissues concerning welfare at large. We are a product of a system that needs to be rethought. Only when the transaction between the capitalist and a worker is a fair exchange will profit-making be morally legitimate.

What is the thinking in the West on social issues and profit-making?

In the last two decades, there has been a growing concern about holding companies socially responsible. The idea has been to make them aware of things beyond making money. At the same time, some questions are difficult to answer. For instance, there is a huge drug trade in the world, which only leads to acute health and social problems.

The solution might be to burn poppy fields and ban drugs. But it is a complicated economic system with a huge population earning its livelihood from drugs. When an activity is habitual and you try to stop it, there can be a bad effect. It is more of a paradox where you have one bad activity, but once started, it is difficult to stop.

What do you have to say about Union CarbideLtd (UCL), an American company, which was responsible for the worst industrial disaster in Bhopal? In a similar situation, what might have been the reaction in the US?

UCL is an example of a company moving activities into other countries, which is very common all over the world now. I would not like to specifically comment on UCL. But in many cases, when companies take decisions to shift, there is a blatant disregard for the people of the other country. In the US also, there was a tremendous uproar after the Bhopal tragedy, but probably, people didn't feel the same way as it was not in their own country.

With better awareness, there are companies that are doing lot of good in other countries. For instance, Kodak set up its manufacturing plant in South Africa. They deal with chemicals that are harmful to the environment. But the executives have given a lot of thought towards creating an environment that is clean and ensured that there are no health problems as a fallout of the company'sactivities.

Funds for social work will only come if companies make money. Many companies make money by manufacturing products that are harmful to health, like cigarettes. And later they channel money towards social development projects? Do you justify this?

Just because profits are used to do some good is not enough justification to carry out a harmful business. Early this month, I got the news that my sister died of lung cancer. She was a heavy smoker. A cigarette manufacturer simply cannot justify any social good out of the money he makes when he is actually responsible for damaging the health of people.

The intrinsic character of any business activity has to be good. Only then can you justify channelling money for social good. Unfortunately, it seems that good corporate citizenship can be bought by doing some welfare activity. It is up to the people to be more alert and they should not approve of any cause simply because a corporate is putting money into it.