|
Editor’s response
The points made by Mr. Nariman Bacha are well taken. Before I deal with each one of them separately, I would like to refer to the concept note (written way back in 1994) that has been the basis of what CHANGE has become.
The note pointed out that Godrej have special concerns like family planning, environmental degradation, scientific management, the preservation of heritage, and many others. A house magazine has to cover these concerns adequately, not only with a view to present the true image of a socially conscious company, living up to the concept of trusteeship of wealth, but to create the necessary awareness of these burning issues among the staff and, with increase in circulation, also among business associates and others.
The note added (this point was particularly appreciated by our former Chairman, the late Sohrab P. Godrej): “Since, apart from Godrej, there are other Indian companies like
Tatas, Mafatlals, Bajajs, etc., which to a greater or less degree share these concerns, the publication would project these also, doing justice to the corporate sector as a whole and building goodwill within its various parts. The idea would be to project not only Godrej, but to what extent these concerns motivate Indian industry as a whole. Industrial organisations like the Confederation of Indian Industry, the various Chambers of Commerce, etc. could be invited to contribute in so far as these concerns matter to them. The publication therefore would be rendering service to Godrej and Indian industry as a whole, and would be in the nature of national service.”
Now, as to the points raised by Mr. Bacha:
1. There is to our mind sufficient focus on Godrej happenings. Whatever is sent to us by Branch Managers, Regional Managers and other staff members is published. The point is that in spite of our letter, especially addressed to managers, clearly stating the time schedule, the material reaches us too late for including in the issue for which it is meant.
Incidentally, in the second issue of CHANGE, 38 of the 60 (including cover) pages have been devoted to Godrej. Corporate Concerns cover 7 pages and General Articles are on the remaining 12 pages.
2. One interview would have been okay in a monthly as was originally planned. We find normally two necessary for adequate coverage in a bi-monthly. So long as each is on a separate theme. In this issue, in order to cover the Udyachal School, we had a third interview with its newly appointed Principal.
3. Instead of a dull report on each Division or Department, we contact, by turn, heads of important Divisions to get a more personalised and so more interesting “inside” report.
4. We wholeheartedly agree that more humour is needed, more light reading. The change should be apparent from this issue onwards.
5. Reports on our residential colonies/new projects/Pragati Kendra and its welfare projects are being adequately dealt with and will continue to be so.
We appreciate this letter because, above everything else, we want to interact with our readers. To enable us to do this more effectively, we repeat our appeal to readers to write to us.
Editor
|
