I'm currently in Kathmandu researching an innovative e-commerce company called Thamel.com.  The business allows the Nepalese diaspora to purchase gifts online that are produced and delivered locally to their relatives back home.  By doing so, all the money spent is kept in the local economy, thereby creating jobs.  The company is now about to launch a new service in partnership with a local bank, which would allow family members living abroad to secure housing and car loans, as well as a variety of insurance plans, for their relatives back home. 

Last night, I attended a panel session co-organized by the UN Foundation and Vodafone, the huge multinational telco based in the UK but active worldwide. The session highlighted a report recently released by Vodafone entitled, Africa: The Impact of Mobile Phones. At the session, the report's authors discussed the impact of mobile telephony (a huge business) on development.

Corporate Watch recently released a provocative report on the upcoming G8 summit to be held in Scotland this July. The G8 has had some important things to say about development and the role of private enterprise, especially in Africa under the UK's presidency. The report, Bringing the G8 Home, puts some important issues on the table such as ecological health, social justice, and transparency -

I first read about these wind-powered, off-grid cell phone chargers on WorldChanging, which cites Gizmodo as a reference. The product, designed by students at the Indian Institute of Technology, is a small (fits in your pocket) wind-powered turbine that can quickly and easily recharge a cell phone - and it costs only 200 rupees (5 dollars). It strikes me as great for off-grid, rural areas that may have intermittent or non-existent electricity.

As its summer session gets going, the water temperature is already rising in the Capitol. The US Congress is currently debating legislation that would prioritize clean water projects within America's international aid budget and push the private sector to get involved, too. The bill's co-sponsors say that the private sector can quickly and effectively provide clean water using innovative technologies. Opponents contend that privatized water systems in developing countries tend to exclude the poor in order to break even, and have introduced competing legislation that keeps water provision in the public sphere. It will be interesting to keep an eye on these bills as they move through Congress. Will US companies currently developing new clean water technology shift research and development elsewhere if opponents win? Most importantly, how will underserved communities be affected by shifting priorities in the US international aid budget? It may be a long, dry summer before we find out. For more, check out this segment from NPR's "Living on Earth" radio show here.

Thanks for the introduction Al. I'll be answering a series of eight questions over the coming week, and would be interested in hearing any comments or questions that readers may have. To start, I'll talk a little bit about why capitalism is at a crossroads.

Q. Why is capitalism facing challenges right now? Is this time period very different from previous history?

Think of it this way: In my lifetime alone, the human population has ballooned from about 2 billion to more than 6.5 billion. If I live to a ripe old age, I could easily see 8 billion or more people on the planet. Thus, in a single lifetime, the human population will have grown from 2 billion to more than 8 billion. This growth is truly unprecedented. Never before in human history has a single generation witnessed such explosive change. Combine this population growth with humans’ insatiable use of resources and you have global impact of truly epic proportions. Indeed, every major living system on the planet is now either overused or in decline—fisheries, forests, soils, watersheds, and atmosphere, just to name a few. Yet, with only 800 million of the wealthiest people accounting for well over three-quarters of the current resource use, the impacts could multiply further if the 4-5 billion poor emulate the development path of the rich.

Q. You want to see a form of commerce that uplifts the entire human race and respects both the environment and the world’s cultures. So how should globalization develop over the next 25 years? What role does government play in this evolution?

I take the contrarian view that business—more than either government or civil society—is uniquely equipped at this point in history to lead us toward a sustainable world in the years ahead. I argue that corporations are the only entities in the world today with the technology, resources, capacity, and global reach required. Properly focused, the profit motive can accelerate (not inhibit) the transformation toward global sustainability, with non-profits, governments, and multilateral agencies all playing crucial roles as collaborators. I see three steps along the path to such an inclusive and sustainable commerce.

I subscribe to Fast Company, a cutting-edge business mag. Their sustainability section is particularly interesting, as are the Social Capitalist Awards. Check out the 2005 winners for some great models; if you think your organization might qualify in 2006, the application kit can be requested from the FC web site. I'm a FC fan and have been for a couple of years as is, but today they gave their readers a heads up about our NextBillion.net community on their staff blog. Thanks, FC! Check them out here.

Q. One of the central ideas of your book — that not only can private enterprises profitably promote global social equity and environmental stewardship, but that they must do so to ensure their own sustainability — requires a major paradigm shift. Aren’t old belief systems — such as the one you term the “Great Trade-Off Illusion . . . the belief that firms must sacrifice financial performance to meet societal obligations” — still widespread? How can they be overcome?

The Great Trade-Off Illusion is still alive and well but there’s been serious damage done to it. It’s no longer impregnable. . . . The quality revolution and the “greening” revolution have put a serious dent in that whole mindset so that there’s an openness now, at least, to the whole idea that it’s possible to make a societal contribution as a for-profit company and still be wildly successful — and maybe be wildly successful because you make a societal contribution.

Q. In your book, you cite the fact that over the past 40 years, as economic globalization led by multinational corporations (MNCs) has skyrocketed, the gap between the richest and the poorest in the world has widened considerably. This is just one factor that has led to “a rising tide of antiglobalization . . . that combines concerns about environmental degradation, inequity, human rights, cultural imperialism, and loss of local autonomy.” Do you believe that the antiglobalization movement will grow considerably stronger unless MNCs change their practices to address these concerns?

Q. How did you conceive of the idea that serving the needs of the four billion people at the base of the economic pyramid (BoP) — as opposed to continuing to focus on the 800 million at the top — could be done in a way that would be,  as you put it, “culturally appropriate, environmentally sustainable and economically profitable”?

I think that there’s real value in contrarian thinking. So I’ve consciously practiced it for a long time. When I hear accepted gospel and established wisdom and platitudes that are just accepted without question I turn them on their head.  Accordingly, there can now be little doubt that the best way to both generate growth and satisfy social and environmental stakeholders is to focus on emerging markets.  By this, I do not refer to incremental market expansion targeted at the wealthy few in the developing world.  Instead, the best path will be through a Great Leap Downward--to the base of the economic pyramid—where more than four billion people have been bypassed or damaged by globalization.  It is here that companies will find the most exciting growth markets of the future—and the basis for a formidable sustainability vision.  It is also here that the disruptive technologies needed to address the social and environmental challenges associated with economic growth can best be incubated and developed.

Over the course of four weeks in April and May, 400 people participated in the online discussion Business & Development: What’s the right approach. The exchange was moderated by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a coalition of 175 international companies united by a shared commitment to sustainable development via the three pillars of economic growth, ecological balance and social progress.

Q. Are you optimistic that a real, widespread shift to sustainable global enterprise is feasible in today’s world, given the challenges inherent in political realities and the resistance prevalent in many corporate cultures?

Those companies are there, the rigid, routine culture is there. There are plenty of companies you could describe that way. But those are the companies that are going to lose. If you’re incapable of making that transition, getting across this next chasm, then you’re probably going to fall down it. And 10 to 20 years from now, you won’t be around. I’m convinced of that. In the coming two decades we are going to see wholesale revolution from an industrial perspective. We’re going to see whole new industries born. Whole new global corporations 15 to 20 years from now that we haven’t even heard of today will be large, dominant firms. And large, dominant firms today will not be around.