The Elusiveness of Enforceable Corporate Social Responsibility in Nigeria: Oversight, Influence, or Intentional Neglect?

 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept that encourages companies to go beyond simply making profits—to consider their impact on society and the environment, and to contribute positively to the communities in which they operate. Around the world, CSR has become a cornerstone of ethical business practice, but in Nigeria, it remains largely voluntary.

In most cases, when companies in Nigeria engage in CSR, it takes the form of charity or goodwill gestures—building boreholes, sponsoring school competitions, or donating to local festivals. These acts, though valuable, are not rooted in any legal obligation. They are optional, often inconsistent, and left entirely to the discretion of the companies. This leads us to a central question: why is CSR not enforceable by law in Nigeria?

A Legal Vacuum

The Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), which governs corporate activities in Nigeria, makes no binding provision for CSR. This means there is no requirement for companies to give back to the society from which they draw labor, resources, and profit. While CAMA focuses heavily on corporate formation, governance, and accountability to shareholders, it is silent on the corporation’s responsibility to the larger community.

This absence isn't due to a total lack of effort. As far back as 2007, a bill proposing the institutionalization of CSR was introduced in the National Assembly. The proposal aimed to create a framework through which companies would be held accountable for their social and environmental responsibilities. However, the bill was ultimately defeated, and since then, little progress has been made.

This raises another critical question: Was the failure of the bill simply due to legislative oversight, or are there deeper forces at play?

Influence and Interests

Some observers argue that the lack of legal backing for CSR reflects a deliberate effort by powerful corporate interests to avoid financial and social obligations. These companies, often with deep pockets, are seen as exerting quiet pressure on lawmakers—possibly through lobbying or other means—to ensure that any law that could demand more from them is quietly shelved.

This isn’t far-fetched when we consider how politically influential big corporations can be, particularly in countries where regulation is weak and transparency is inconsistent. If companies are able to shape legislation to protect their bottom line, CSR will remain a matter of personal or corporate discretion, not national policy. But what if it’s not just companies lobbying lawmakers, but lawmakers actively soliciting influence? The recent allegations made by detained Binance executives, claiming that Nigerian legislators urged them to offer bribes to make regulatory issues “go away,” raise uncomfortable questions about the direction and dynamics of lobbying in the country. If legislators themselves are seen to initiate or welcome these exchanges, then the failure to enforce CSR may reflect not just external pressure but internal decay—a system that resists accountability by design.

A Desperate Trade-Off?

Another possible explanation is the country’s dire economic climate and the perceived need to attract investment at any cost. Nigeria is in urgent need of both foreign and local capital, and in this context, CSR may be seen not as a necessity but as a burden—an additional obligation that might discourage potential investors. But this begs a critical question: how far are we willing to go to accommodate investors and corporations whose primary motive is profit? And at what cost to the people and the communities in which they operate?

But this argument poses a moral dilemma: How far should we go to make investors comfortable? If the goal is to attract investment at any cost, are we prepared to overlook the needs and rights of the people affected by these businesses—local communities, workers, and the environment?

This trade-off, between economic need and social responsibility, places Nigeria in a precarious position. On one hand, the country needs economic growth. On the other, unchecked corporate behavior can lead to environmental degradation, exploitation, and growing inequality.

Reflecting on Responsibility

None of these scenarios—oversight, manipulation, or economic desperation—reflects a healthy legislative ecosystem. In each, the public interest is sacrificed in favor of convenience, influence, or private gain. Yet, in a country where corporations derive immense value from human labor, natural resources, and public infrastructure, the question of giving back should not be optional. To whom much is given, much is expected.

A Way Forward?

Some countries have chosen to answer this question through legislation. India is a case in point. Under its Companies Act of 2013, certain companies are required by law to spend at least 2% of their average net profits over the past three years on CSR activities. While not without flaws, India’s model demonstrates that enforceable CSR is not only possible but practical—it can be implemented without collapsing investor confidence or deterring corporate growth. It reframes CSR from a token act of goodwill to a structural responsibility.

Nigeria's situation is distinct, and direct imitation may not always be ideal. But India’s example shows that CSR can be formalized and standardized, helping ensure consistency and impact. The debate, then, is not whether CSR should be done—but how it should be done, and who should be held accountable when it is not.

The concept of noblesse oblige—that privilege demands responsibility—resonates here. Corporations cannot exist in isolation. They operate within societies whose stability, health, and prosperity enable business to thrive in the first place. CSR should not be a favor, nor an afterthought, but a social contract—one that reflects fairness, accountability, and shared value.

As Nigeria continues to wrestle with inequality, underdevelopment, and institutional fragility, it becomes more urgent to ask: what kind of corporate culture do we want to cultivate? Do we continue to allow companies to self-regulate their social responsibilities, or do we collectively design a framework where doing good is as integral as doing business?