Greening the Base of the Pyramid? SustainAbility Weighs In.

Submitted by Rob Katz on February 17, 2006 - 19:24.
Published in:
What does green look like at the base of the economic pyramid? SustainAbility’s John Elkington and Mark Lee take that question on in a recent article, Fatigue of Nations, published by Grist. Elkington and Lee write in the engaging, tongue-in-cheek style embraced by Grist, and the result is eminently readable. The authors discuss the potential role of business in greening the base of the pyramid:

In the business world, there are several levels of response to all of this. At the grassroots level, a growing number of social entrepreneurs are working to create new markets for, among other things, renewable energy and waste-management services. In the middle are the corporations that are being teased by the notion of the fortunes to be made at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. And then, perhaps the potential solution that really dares not speak its name, there is Wal-Mart and its globe-straddling supply chain.

The much-hammered $300 billion-a-year behemoth has begun pledging itself to sell everything from organic cotton baby clothes to sustainable fish. While its supply chain initiatives still lag way behind the likes of Nike and Gap, the potential for allying Wal-Mart's cost-reduction power with the green agenda should tempt us to at least think the unthinkable. What if Hurricane Katrina really did turn out to be CEO Lee Scott's Road to Damascus, and Wal-Mart really were to embrace sustainability? If Scott stuck with this long and effectively enough, would we put his name up in lights alongside the likes of BP's Lord John Browne and GE's Jeff Immelt? We shouldn't count on it, but stranger things have happened.


I like that environmentalists such as Elkington at least acknowledge the potential for companies to create wealth – sustainably – at the BOP. There’s been a knee-jerk reaction among the green crowd to corporate involvement in emerging economies for a long time, but that’s starting to change. And when you get down to it, the so-called BOP isn’t going to care about the environment unless they have enough income to put food on the table, a roof over their head, send their kids to school, and stay healthy. Unfortunately for the hard-core green set, the best way to do that is with a job. Fortunately for the green set, the companies out to provide those jobs are increasingly interested in doing so in environmentally sustainable ways. Yet to be seen, but food for thought.


. . . . .
Submitted by Dawson on February 17, 2006 - 22:45.
I completely understand that in order to bring those at the 'bottom of the pyramid' up, we need to increase their access to income, and therefore, increase their consumption. However, I really wonder if bringing them into the Wal-Mart world is a positive step forward for anyone? The type of over consumption (and I'm not a 'hardcore green') promoted by companies like Wal-Mart, although they are far from alone, is impossibly far from sustainable. Therefore, to bring those at the bottom into that business cycle is dangerous not only to us, but more so to them. There is no such thing as 'sustainable' when dealing in the quantities that Wal-mart needs to make a profit. The problems faced by the poorest in the world can only be met by small-scale, locally thoughtout initiatives. Anything else, I believe, is suicide
Submitted by _Kapil Marwaha on February 18, 2006 - 02:25.
It may be worthwhile to reflect on the eastern philosophy that advocates the precept of limitation of wants to take care of one’s need and not greed. This is a counterpoise to the entire edifice of mainstream economic thinking which is based on a continuous expansion of the goods space to satisfy unlimited wants: (Pulin Nayak in‘Gandhian economics is relevant’: The Times of India, Oct 3, ‘05). Interestingly, one of the causes of disgruntlement of the poor is their desire to multiply their consumption of items not linked to productivity in face of limited resources.
Submitted by Rob Katz on February 21, 2006 - 09:17.
Thanks Dawson and Kapil for your thoughtful comments. Your question, "I really wonder if bringing them into the Wal-Mart world is a positive step forward for anyone?" is both quotable and provocative. Wal-Mart is easy to vilify - I think that's why Elkington and Lee bring them up. I'm usually one of the first to ride the anti Wal-Mart wave, but this time, I'm not so sure.

One of my points in the post above is that the BOP need and want jobs. Wal-Mart (and other companies, both large and small) can provide those jobs. I'd argue that we need to think of the BOP as producers as well as consumers. Will Wal-Mart bring discounting to the global poor? They won't be the first - hundreds of national companies from Brazil to Mexico to the Philippines are beating them to it. But Wal-Mart entering new markets means new jobs, and new incomes.

And if Elkington and Lee are right, maybe Lee Scott and his smiley-yellow-faces crowd are serious about sustainability. I suppose my response is: give Wal-Mart (and other big corps) a chance this time.
Submitted by _Alex Bloom on February 21, 2006 - 12:17.
Very interesting blog / comment sequence. Rob, do you know if Walmart has ever sourced its goods locally? I think that is the salient issue when considering whether they are committed to "providing sustainable jobs." It seems to me that the major criticisms of Walmart is that while they may benefit the local community by 1. providing [somewhat] sustainable wages for its workers and 2. selling a wide variety of inexpensive goods, the *source* of these cheap products is always much cheaper, outsourced labor in other countries --working for wages one could not call sustainable. But I'm unsure on this last point; perhaps the wages in Chinese Walmart factories will help finance the education for these workers' children's generation and indeed promote development. I'm skeptical because that hasn't been the pattern for Walmart workers in the US. My basic doubt is this: I'm not sure that it makes sense to call a company sustainable when its benefits to one community are at the expense of another equally or more bereft community.
Submitted by _Kapil Marwaha on February 22, 2006 - 03:28.
BOP as Producers - you said it, Rob! Firms can seek out new sources of competitive advantage by developing and leveraging the productive capacity of the poor; and it is by enhancing income that the poor can climb out of the poverty trap. These propositions are demonstrated in success stories in India - we researched some of these and presented them at HBS's Global Poverty Conference in December '05 [the abstract and slides are posted on this site]. Regards Kapil
Submitted by Rob Katz on February 22, 2006 - 08:44.
Thanks, Kapil. The Harvard Global Poverty Conference resources are available in the afforementioned link. There are other BOP-as-producer resources available in the NextBillion Activity Database where we've added a search term for Role of BOP - you can choose "BOP as Producer" or "BOP as Consumer." As an aside, one of my favorite examples of empowering the BOP as producers is KickStart the Kenya and San Francisco-based NGO doing great work with low-cost appropriate technologies and integrated supply chains.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Basic HTML tags are accepted.
  • To ensure that you are human, your comment must first be previewed, then posted to the site. Please click "Preview" to see how your comment will look when posted.