April 1, 2009 — 08:00 am
Video Interview: C.K. Prahalad on Development Through Enterprise
I was very sorry to find out that WRI's board meeting was going to find me working away from DC. This was a special board meeting, as C.K. Prahalad had previously agreed to work with WRI staff on a short video interview about the evolution of the BoP idea and the trends he sees in business innovation being increasingly driven by engagement in emerging markets and low income populations.
In any case, my colleagues Polly Ghazi and Payson Schwin did a great job and captured interesting insights from someone that will always be considered a thought leader in the development through enterprise space. This video and interview first appeared on WRI's website and today we republish it for NextBillion.net's audience.
Polly Ghazi, WRI: You were one of the pioneers of the term and the idea of the bottom of the pyramid, which inspired NextBillion.net. What are your views on the evolution of the concept since then and how it is being put into practice around the world?
CK Prahalad: The book is about five years old, so it is premature to judge both its impact and its diffusion. That said some very interesting things have happened since then. For example, all the multilaterals - the United Nations, World Bank, IMF - have accepted the idea of the role of the private sector in poverty alleviation. That is a big shift from the traditional ways of thinking. There is also significant attention from multilaterals, the large private sector, the World Economic Forum, and a wide variety of other groups. So today I can say that this is not a new idea. People accept the idea, and the goal is experimentation to see how to make it work.
Polly Ghazi, WRI: So looking ahead, how do you see the role of emerging markets as drivers of global innovation and sustainability?
CK Prahalad: Fundamentally, what has been shown is that new business models, new approaches to capital intensity, new ideas about affordability, can come out of the bottom of the pyramid. For example, the NetBook computer initially had its origins in making operating systems available for the poor...but two million NetBooks have been sold in the Western world. So I think some innovations will come from the poor countries and some innovations from the rich countries. It's going to be a much more level playing field.
Sustainability is a different question. When you add an additional five billion people - as both producers and consumers - suddenly you have a very different equation regarding the ability of the planet to absorb the stresses, whether the cause is water, whether it's packaging, whether it's waste.
I think this is going to force a fundamental rethinking. For a long time, the debate has been about compliance and regulation. We are going to move into a territory where sustainability is looked at as providing potential opportunities for innovation. That, I think, is the key-to move from a compliance orientation to an innovation orientation, and I think the bottom of the pyramid will force it. For example, I expect to see waterless detergents. I expect to see biodegradable packaging. I expect to see construction which is totally green. I also expect to see a lot more renewable energy sources. I think the world is begging for new business models, and I think the pressure is on, and therefore I expect a lot of innovations.
Polly Ghazi, WRI: Can you give your views about how, through NextBillion.net, WRI could highlight good innovations and models?
CK Prahalad: We desperately need success stories. Success inspires others to follow. Part of it is good analytics, part of it is frameworks, but a lot of it is good models. Even if the model doesn't apply to my company, the fact someone else has done it gives me the confidence to go try. So what we need is for iconic companies doing things at the bottom of the pyramid to be highly publicized. WRI can provide caselets that allow people to understand that this is a real market opportunity, that the poor can be extraordinarily good micro-entrepreneurs, micro-producers, micro-consumers, and micro-innovators. And that it is in the interest of the large company to participate in these markets. I think case studies should be an integral part of what we do because that motivates others.
Polly Ghazi, WRI: What do you see as WRI's role in adding value and promoting private sector-led approaches to sustainable development?
CK PRahalad: WRI for me is a notable player in this game. We have the opportunity in the next ten years to make a fundamental change to the nature of poverty and poverty alleviation through market-based, private sector-oriented solutions-not exclusively, but in a significant way. Therefore, in order to motivate others, it is quite critical for those who have understood the problem, who have found solutions, to share it widely so that a larger group of people can benefit and participate in this process of making this world a different place, with more social justice and more inclusion. That's a worthy cause. So I invite companies and managers, civil society organizations to share success stories with WRI so that it can diffuse this knowledge around the world, and motivate other people to do the same.
3536 Views










Comments
Leila Chirayath Janah
Apr 1, 2009
Ethical Supply Chains and the BOP
"For a long time, the debate has been about compliance and regulation. We are going to move into a territory where sustainability is looked at as providing potential opportunities for innovation."
I think that's a possibility. But as long as poor environmental and labor standards are a reality of the regulatory system in many developing countries (mainly as a consequence of trying to remain attractive to Western multinationals), there's no incentive for companies to care about things like biodegradable packaging.
Cost is still the most important aspect of competitive advantage from a supplier point of view. If a supplier country imposes taxes on, say, pollution, firms in that area will lose contracts to firms in less-regulated environments.
This system will only lead to innovation if buyers (big Western companies) aren't given the choice between working with suppliers in both regulated and unregulated areas. If the choice is theirs, then the race is to the bottom.
These are some of the inherent limitations of the profit-maximizing business sector in addressing social problems. I think that Dr. Yunus's social business approach -- which costs in things like environmental responsibility and good labor practices -- is far more likely to result in positive change in the long term.
— Rob Katz replied over one year ago
Thanks for your comment Leila. Yes, the profit-only business sector cannot address all social problems. But your analysis ignores externalities - like negative customer reaction, bad press, etc. - that may impact the bottom line in less clear ways. I take issue with the social business concept because it has zero room for profit. Why call something a business when it won't make any money? And will it be sustainable? I don't think Danone does anything with Grameen unless Dr. Yunus wins the Nobel and Danone can use the partnership as a PR tool. Biodegradable packaging is a nice discussion for Dr. Yunus to have at his talks, but Danone doesn't care - they probably just want to sell more yogurt and reap the PR benefits of partnering with the Nobel Peace Prize winner. And both of those lead back to profit, at the end of the day. Like it or not, we're stuck with capitalism, as imperfect as it is - so let's try to harness its powers for good. That will require plenty of good regulation but also plenty of good innovation - which is what I think CK is trying to say.
sahba sobhani
Apr 2, 2009
Government policies can be a driver to maximize pro poor impact
I think a lot of people are missing the issue that creating inclusive markets (i.e inclusion of the poor on a large scale ) as opposed to nice standalone stories of specific firm level initiatives here and there will only happen when there is a proactive involvement of the government to support the scaling of some of the initiatives but also address market failures.
The issue is not whether businesses should adopt social business model , csr approaches or profit maximizing initiatives but the need for a balance for state and markets whereby private actors are able to take risks, earn profits and have the incentives
to expand their productive capacity and to
use it well.
So businesses should be allowed to pursue profitable ventures in low income markets but governments as Leila mentions need to step in to ensure effective regulation and oversight of these activities to ensure that they are propoor in outcome
Without the balance and the need for formal regulatory oversight as opposed to voluntary reputational initiatives which are mostly window dressing operations, we can from the current crises the extent to which the profit motive can have disastrous impact.
So the last thing that the poor need is to be the next "frontier" laboratory for market driven interventions that have had disastrous effects in the more developed world (i.e subprime crisis for example in the housing sector"
Daniel Erwin
Apr 7, 2009
Businesses are bigger than Govt
CK is insightful as always. As a response to the commenters: big businesses have as much - if not more - clout and capital in the world as governments. They are in a strategic position to take the lead on sustainability, safety, and humanitarian standards. Because they often have more stability and resources than government officials have access to, they may have more freedom than the ostensible rulers.
Jeff Mowatt
Apr 17, 2009
Development microeconomics
I'm responding to CK Prahalad's comment about the need for success stories.
We've been working in Eastern Europe as a social enterprise for a decade now, applying a profit for purpose model which has since been supported by small business revenues from the UK. Early success was achieved in Russia in sourcing the Tomsk Initiative and Microfinance Bank which was replicated in several other cities.
Our 'Marshall Plan' strategy paper was delivered in Oct 2006 and called for US support of microeconomic development to foster democracy weighed against the cost of Iraq occupation.
Since delivery we've seen a new foundation from USAID to support CSR and sustainable community enterprise, changes in government policy to buold 400+ rehab centres for disabled children, doubling adopters allowance and a pilot of the 'family home for all children' proposition in one region. Wifi licensing restrictions have been removed and affordable broadband now available.
All of this was prescribed here:
http://www.p-ced.com/projects/ukraine/national/
Jeff Mowatt
People-Centered Economic Development
You are commenting on a reply.
To add a new comment, submit or cancel your comment reply.
Comment on article: Video Interview: C.K. Prahalad on Development Through Enterprise