Blog

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?

Continue reading this article

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.

The debate was very rich in both its content and its diversity of opinions. It provided a lot of interesting insigths into the practical challenges of developing pro-poor business models. Specifically, the dialogue addressed the following six questions:

1. Do you think there a risk that "the poor will be persuaded to purchase things they did not formerly need", and which won't make them richer?

2. Do you think that growing markets in developing countries will result in additional strain on the environment?

3. Do you think that multinationals companies investing in developing countries represent a threat to local enterprises?

4. Can we also find ways to develop the capacities of poor communities to be local suppliers for MNCs and include the poor as producers into the value chains of international business?

5. What is needed to replicate and scale business solutions for development?

6. How long should companies wait to be sure that they are not creating “unsustainable lifestyles” beforing going into new markets?

At only 4 pages in length, the summary document is concise and worth a quick read. An archive of all postings can be accessed through the WBCSD site.

Continue reading this article

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”?

Continue reading this article

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?

Continue reading this article

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?

Continue reading this article

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. 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.

First, greening has been an important step because it eliminated the myth that a trade-off exists between a firm's financial and societal performance. Driven by the realization that pollution is waste and dialogue with stakeholders is superior to court battles, greening opened the door for companies to take a proactive stance toward social and environmental issues. Indeed, over the past decade, pollution prevention and product stewardship have succeeded in reducing waste, emissions, and impact, while simultaneously reducing cost, risk, and stakeholder resistance. The incremental gains associated with greening, however, have been clearly inadequate: They only slow the rate of destruction rather than fundamentally changing course.

Moving beyond greening, therefore, is a critical second step, both to a sustainable world and to a sustainable enterprise. Driven by an accelerating rate of technological change and the growing realization that something fundamental must change if we are to accommodate a population of 8 billion to 10 billion human beings on the planet, beyond greening provides the motivation for companies to think in terms of reorientation rather than just adjustment. Leapfrogging to inherently clean technologies through disruptive business models at the base of the pyramid enables companies to confront directly the two biggest problems facing humanity: poverty and global-scale environmental degradation. These also provide the basis for the repositioning and growth that will be needed for companies to thrive in the future.

However, strategies for the base of the pyramid and clean technology, if narrowly construed, still position companies as outsiders, alien to both the cultures and the ecosystems within which they do business. The third step is, therefore, to become indigenous. By hearing the true voices of those who have previously been bypassed by globalization, and by learning to codevelop technologies, products, and services with nature and local people, MNCs can become native to the places where they operate. This requires a healthy dose of humility and respect, as well as a greater appreciation for the many and varied ways that people choose to live. Through bottom-up innovation on a human scale, MNCs effectively become part of the local landscape. In so doing, the corporate sector becomes a primary driving force for global sustainability. And in the process, visionary companies realize opportunities of untold proportion.

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.

Continue reading this article

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.

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. Ideal conditions for the gadget are coastal areas, which have near-constant wind. The success of models such as GrameenPhone in Bangladesh, Smart Communications in the Philippines, and CelTel in Tanzania hasve been, to this point, somewhat dependent on a reliable source of power - or else villagers have to travel into a nearby town to charge their phones. With this innovation, the potential of cell phones to break down information barriers throughout the developing world could be unlocked and enabled on a wholly new scale. For more, read the story.