A nurse checks a tuberculosis patient for further treatment.(Courtesy of IBL)

When we think about the remote areas of Indonesia, immediately we think about the lack of infrastructure, low education levels, poor communities and a lack of medical facilities. Their beautiful surroundings, clean environment and local wisdom are often told like a fairy tale, and are easily superseded by the negative news. Then, there comes the blame on everybody, i.e. local government and companies operating nearby.

One of the most common health problems in remote areas is rooted in poor sanitation and hygienic behavior. This also happens in urban and densely populated areas in Indonesia. The Health Ministry in 2014 reported that child mortality (age 0-59 months) is 44 in 1000 babies, largely due to diarrhea. Other data show that 40 percent of Indonesian people do not have proper sanitation facilities. It is believed that the improvement of sanitation practices and hygienic behavior is a key to reducing mortality. For that, the ministry issued Regulation No. 52/MENKES/SK/IX/2008 on a national strategy for community based total sanitation. This regulation emphasizes five key elements: stop using inappropriate toilets, like rivers and back yards, wash hands with soap, use safe drinking water, responsibly manage garbage and manage domestic waste water well.

We know that in remote areas, there are lots of reasons why the five aspects mentioned above are happening. Lack of water, lack of knowledge about health, lack of good personal habits and mismanaging garbage are some of the causes that require an integrated approach.

The past administration in Indonesia endeavored to improve the condition, through three strategies: demand creation, creating enabling environments and increasing the supply of sanitation infrastructure. Whilst the above strategies are well defined and executed, why then has the situation not been significantly improved? Lack of consistency in program implementation has often been the cause of ineffectiveness. Changes in government and personnel often shift priorities. We are hoping the current government will pay attention to this essential aspect, which is crucial to future human equality.

There has been a lack of cross-sector coordination in tackling various health issues, including malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDs. So, who can play a pivotal role in all those cases? Is it the government'€™s responsibility only? Today, many would say '€œthe private sector and corporate social responsibility [CSR]'€. My next question is: Do those mentioning CSR actually understand its true meaning?

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a term that has become popular in the last decade, but unfortunately has been interpreted variably and is often misleading

Companies that are operating in remote areas can contribute significantly to improving health conditions in partnership with the government and NGOs. Their contribution is not merely through physical infrastructure, but also through educating local people about healthy life styles. Many companies are taking leadership in this area, through various programs including sanitation, medical facilities, clean water provisions and garbage management. Other companies take active roles in education about public health, reproductive health and other medical services.

Examples about companies'€™ programs related to health are numerous, and the list is getting longer year by year, which is a good trend. But then such terminology has been misinterpreted by stakeholders, as though companies are the only source of help. Even worse, companies become a target of threat in the name of CSR. Health, like many parts of human life, is the responsibility of all elements of society. The private sector is one among several partners in development. Solutions to any health issues, regardless of location, should be tackled through multi-sector partnerships.

In the last decade, there have been massive contributions from private sector companies that improved health conditions in remote areas. Mining companies, oil and gas companies and plantation companies ranked highest in terms of contributions to basic medical facilities. Consumer products manufacturers often conduct CSR programs addressing healthy life styles. Service industries tend to empower communities through education and health campaigns.

How interesting the CSR dynamic is these days. There are a wide range of drivers, including gaining a social license to operate, marketing, public relations or simply compliance to regulations. Some experts say CSR is still a relevant term for community care, while others think CSR should be more inclusive and sustainable.

Companies must secure human resources that come from surrounding areas. If the areas are prone to contagious and/or endemic diseases, business operations can be disturbed due to high absence rates and low productivity. Moreover, good future clients are grown up from healthy communities. If companies do not empower their communities, there will be less of a client base, less buying capacity and higher rates of insurance claims and all of this means less profit.

In conclusion, in today'€™s business world it is not enough to be seen as a good citizen. The business mind-set focuses on sustainability and hence they must turn challenges into benefits for all. Let us put social and environmental benefits into our core business. The health sector is a never ending area where profit goes along with people and their environment.
___________________________________

The writer is currently the executive director of Indonesia Business Links ((www.ibl.or.id) and chair of the Board of Trustees of the ASEAN CSR Network (www.asean-csr-network.org). She can be reached at yanti@ibl.or.id.

Popular

Yearender: Civil movements take center stage in 2025

Spanish family of four missing after boat sinks off Labuan Bajo

Another year lost in the energy transition