‘fortune’ for all: creating shared value, reducing capability poverty and improving livelihoods...

King’s International Development Institute Essay Cover Sheet and Feedback Form

PLEASE COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS OF THIS FORM AND ADD IT TO THE FRONT OF THEPIECE OF WORK THAT YOU ARE SUBMITTING FOR ASSESSMENT.

FAILURE TO ATTACH THIS FORM AS REQUIRED MAY RESULT IN YOUR WORK NOT BEINGACCEPTED FOR ASSESSMENT.

Student’s Candidate no.

Module Code 7YYAA0023

Module Title MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES, GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Question Answered 2. Can “Base of the Pyramid” business models helpimprove the livelihoods of the poor? If so, under what conditions? And if not, why not? Please answer referring to at least two different industries/sectors.

Essay Title ‘Fortune’ for all: Creating shared value, reducing capability poverty and improving livelihoods at the Base of the Pyramid

Word Count of Submission* 4172

*The word count, which should preferably be calculated electronically,must be stated accurately above. Please refer to the Institute online handbook for word limit regulations and for what is included in the word count.

By submitting an assignment under this cover sheet, you are signifying your assent to the following declaration.

DECLARATION BY STUDENT

This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the author(s) concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY PLAGIARISM AND HAVE SIGNED THE DECLARATION CONCERNING THE AVOIDANCE OF PLAGIARISM. I UNDERSTAND THAT PLAGIARISM IS A SERIOUS EXAMINATIONS OFFENCE THAT MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION BEING TAKEN.

2014/15

Chiuchiarelli - King's College London International Development Institute 2015Kara Chiuchiarelli

King's College London

Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


‘Fortune’ for all: Creating shared value, reducing capability poverty and improving

livelihoods at the Base of the Pyramid

In 2006, Bangladeshi patriot, economics professor, philanthropist and successful

businessman Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his organization and

subsequent work with the Grameen Bank. Grameen Bank later spawned for-profit businesses

in textiles, Internet and mobile phones, as well as 13 not-for profit organisations for as

diverse sectors as funding to knitwear (Yunus 1999: 303-304). Yunus was one of the first

innovators of new business models with social missions geared toward the poorest of the

poor, with Grameen Bank established in 1983 in Dhaka. Without overstating the influence of

the Nobel Committee, by awarding Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the committee

clearly signalled a slow acceptance in the West of Yunus’ unorthodox, market- and

economics-driven solutions to poverty.

The Grameen family of businesses and not-for-profit organisations are one of many

examples of how interested parties can approach various sectors in developing countries like

Bangladesh. The for-profit ventures targeting the poorest in the global marketplace became of

especial interest at the turn of the century with Prahalad and Hart’s seminal work “Fortune at

the Bottom of the Pyramid” (2000). Base of the Pyramid (BoP) (also known as “bottom of

the pyramid”) business models are a 21st century phenomenon with roots in social programs,

value-based competition strategy, a drive for new markets and a desire to combine social

progress with business resources. These endeavours often target poverty alleviation as a core

business goal in addition to profit generation, scalability and other more common goals.

Many measurements of poverty alleviation are available to BoP companies, from the highly

tangible income poverty (which is often used to define BoP demographics) to the highly

abstract capability poverty devised by Sen (1999). This work will use multidimensional



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


poverty, founded in Sen’s capability poverty and measured in Alkire and Foster’s

Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) (2011). This measurement of poverty includes the

many facets of life in which the poor can experience poverty: income, nutrition, health,

productivity, and many more. By targeting indicators on the MPI, BoP businesses can change

the livelihoods of the poor for the better. BoP business models can help improve the

livelihoods of the poor when the business models create shared value at the BoP by targeting

multiple causes of poverty and demonstrably reducing multiple poverty indicators. Falling

short of targeting multiple poverty indicators, BoP models will not generate enough shared

value or have a large enough impact to improve the livelihoods of the poor.

What are ‘the BoP’ and ‘BoP business models’?

Who is at the ‘BoP’?

Although the BoP is often thought of as a singular concept, there are actually several

variations of BoP theory that result in several variations of BoP business models. The first

division divides who makes up the BoP market demographic. Prahalad and Hart (2002)

introduced the idea of the bottom tier (Tier 4) of the global population when that population

is stratified by income. This is those living under $1500 PPP annually in 2002 dollars (4)—

about four million people. Hammond et al (2007) define the four billion at the BoP as all

persons earning under $3000 PPP/year––double Prahalad’s calculation. Rangan et al

demarcate three BoP groups––the “extremely poor” who live on or below $1-a-day, those

earning $1-$3-a-day, and those earning $3-$5-a-day (2011: 2). The World Economic Forum

similarly stratifies the BoP between the “low, middle and top” segments based on poverty

lines and purchasing power (2009: 10-11). Others delineate the BoP according to income

quintiles. Others differentiate the BoP according to poverty and access rather than income.

Rangan et al (2011) categorise three groups that can make up the BoP market and be



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


incorporated into the business model in different ways: consumers, co-producers, and clients

(6). For the purposes of this study, the BoP market will be defined by classic stratified

income according to Prahalad and Hart. The bottom tier of the global population is most

closely aligned with the consumer and producer base for and with which shared value is

created and poverty is alleviated through successful businesses models. It should also be

noted that while the group is defined by an income level, it is a diverse demographic defined

by many characteristics beyond income, such as lack of access to markets, high levels of

entrepreneurship, value-conscious consumerism and daily, large institutional and physical

constraints.

What is a ‘BoP’ business?

The second division is among the types of businesses that should operate at the BoP.

Seminal works from Prahalad (2005) and Prahalad and Hart (2000; 2002), as well as those

from World Economic Forum (2009), Porter and Kramer (2011) and Rangan et al (2011)

argue that Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are best suited to serve the BoP market

segment. London (2007) and Lenz and Pinhanez (2012) argue both MNCs and Small and

Medium Enterprises (SMEs) should operate in the BoP market. And London (2007), Lenz

and Pinhanez (2012) and Pervez et al (2013) argue social enterprises that serve the BoP

should also be considered in analysis. For analysis purposes, this work includes MNCs,

national SMEs and social enterprises as BoP businesses. All such business models can

include a central principal of shared value and target multiple poverty indicators if successful.

How should firms interact with the BoP?

The last division in BoP literature is how those in the BoP market should be

integrated into the business model. There are two main schools of thought here: the BoP as



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


consumers and the BoP as producers. The BoP as consumers focuses on “selling to the poor”

by incorporating innovative marketing and sales techniques for the unique market. As noted

by London (2007), selling to the poor models “are scalable profit-oriented ventures operating

in the informal economy, catalyzed by external participation and co-created with those at the

BoP, that connect non-local goods and services to BoP markets” (26). The BoP as producers

focuses on incorporating the poor into the value chain as distributors, local entrepreneurs,

staff members or product developers instead of merely consumers. This perspective focuses

on the economic potential of employing folks from the BoP and tapping into their social

networks, intimate knowledge of customer wants and needs, and general usefulness as

employees (London 2007: 26). Both “BoP as consumers” and “BoP as producer” models can

create shared value and alleviate multidimensional capability poverty.

Under what conditions do BoP models ‘work’?

Creating Shared Value

Creating value for both the firm and for society is essential for a BoP business model

to succeed financially and improve livelihoods of the poor. For decades prior to the BoP

approach, companies narrowly defined value creation and favoured short-term, firm-centric

value creation that generated the highest profits rather than long-term value in customers, the

environment, or society at large (Porter and Kramer 2011: 2). The BoP model is one way to

generate more value between both the firm and society; however, it should be noted that other

approaches could also generate shared value, such as public-private partnerships; innovation

of technologies, operating methods, and management approaches; redefining productivity in

the value chain; or building supportive industry clusters at the company’s location (Porter and

Kramer 2011: 5, 8). A BoP model reconceives both products as well as markets (defined by



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


relative income tiers). It can also incorporate innovation aforementioned, and therefore how

shared value is created at the BoP is dynamic.

For BoP models to be successful (e.g. to improve the livelihoods of the poor), shared

value must be built into the business model. It cannot be a positive externality of the model or

a happy accident from “selling to the poor”. Porter and Kramer (2011: 10) note BoP models

can easily adopt shared value as a principal tenant of business strategy and as a solution to

society’s largest problems (10). London (2007: 11), Simanis and Hart (2008: 3) claim all BoP

initiatives are established in mutual value creation––if mutual value is not built into the

business model, it is not a BoP initiative. This latter claim is a bit of a stretch—firms can

certainly target Tier 4 customers with a model driven by profits for the firm and new products

for customers without creating shared value. Coca-Cola’s “Micro Distribution Centres”

(MDCs) is a good example of a viable, BoP business model lacking shared value in its

paradigm. The MDCs began distribution at the turn of the century in Ethiopia in response to a

lack of reliable basic infrastructure and a high number of small retailers. Franchised MDCs

are run by local entrepreneurs who receive small shipments of product and then deliver via

4x4 trucks across the uneasy roads to small storefronts. The model focuses on analysing

market demand for Coca-Cola products and solving a distribution problem among BoP

consumers (BCtA 2010: 1-2). Nowhere in its business operations model is shared value a

priority.

Therefore, while the Coca-Cola MDCs may be considered a viable, profitable venture,

it is not one that helps improve the livelihoods of the poor consumers. If initiatives consider

social value creation (value outside of the firm) as an output instead of integral to the

business model, the BoP are consumers expected to pay for a product or service, and there are

few or no effects that benefit individuals’ lives such as better education, healthcare or

employment (Sinkovics et al 2014: 698). Successful business models with shared value at the



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


centre of strategy will be discussed later (a comparison chart can be found in Table 2), but

such a difference is an integral distinction between firms that serve the BoP market and firms

that improve livelihoods of the people that comprise the BoP.

The importance of creating shared value in BoP markets is that while the firm is

strategizing around value-added activities social value is also incorporated. Social value here

defined as: “an activity that leads to the realisation of any of the … core values of

development” (Sinkovics et al 2014). However, whereas the trio define the “core values” as

“sustenance, self-esteem, and freedom from servitude” (2014: 692), here core development

values are capability creation and deprivation reduction according to Sen (1999), Alkire and

Foster (2011), and Alkire (2005). Such capability creation and deprivation reduction can be

measured by improvements along the MPI index. Social value is easier conceived among

businesses that are not MNCs but start at the BoP (social enterprises, national SMEs,

companies started by BoP entrepreneurs, etc. While more difficult, it is possible for a national

company not native to the BoP market or an MNC to generate social value. This can be done

by incorporating the BoP members as consumers, producers, local entrepreneurs and

employees (Sinkovics et all 2014: 694; London 2007). If initiatives hold shared value as a

central strategy, social value creation will be just as important as profit generation to the

overall business model.

Alleviating Multidimensional Capability Poverty

“The amount of value created or destroyed across these different dimensions will

vary depending on the type of venture” (London 2007: 32) because poverty is

multidimensional. Several theories of poverty exist, but the capability approach is best suited

for firms to describe and measure poverty among BoP consumers and producers. Capability

poverty targeted by the MPI is founded in Sen’s notion of poverty as a set of deprivations that



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


constrains and individual’s capabilities to be productive, healthy or other personal measures

of value (1999). The individual-focused approach made measurement difficult until the MPI

was developed, because it highlighted how subjective and relative poverty can be. The MPI,

as aforementioned, is the current leading measurement of multidimensional poverty among

the international development community. Developed at Oxford University, the MPI is now

used as the base standard of poverty measurements created by many multilateral

organisations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and various regional banks. If a

business model can alleviate poverty by targeting several dimensions through one strategy, it

is more likely an individual’s human capabilities will improve and multiple deprivations will

be eliminated.

Alkire (2005) argued a measurement for poverty needs to not only include dimensions

of health, education and income, but also employment, empowerment, physical safety,

freedom from shame, and psychological/subjective wellbeing (1-2). Dimensions of the MPI

can be found in Table 1 (appendix) and include health, education and standards of living,

with indicators across nutrition, child mortality, years of schooling, children enrolled in

school, cooking fuel, and access to toilet, water, electricity, floor and assets (UNDP 2014: 1).

These dimensions work to “identify multiple deprivations at the household level” (UNDP

2014: 9). Improving several of any of these indicators would indicate successful BoP social

value creation previously discussed; combining multi-indicator improvement with profits or

value-added for the business are the true markers of a successful BoP initiative.

As with shared value creation, not all BoP business models will tick one or more

poverty alleviation box (again, see Table 2 for comparison). Some BoP models, while

attempting to include BoP consumers or producers in a specific market or value chain, simply

do not target poverty reduction or multidimensional poverty reduction. For example, take the

case of Sambazon—a U.S. MNC employing indigenous communities in Brazil to harvest acai



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


berries for U.S. consumption. The company might be working with individuals at the BoP

and therefore generating employment for some acai pickers or small farmers. But

Sambazon’s business model is mainly collaboration with pre-existing, fair trade certified

small-scale acai suppliers. (Schmidt 2015) The suppliers had pre-established businesses and

therefore would not be considered BoP producers because of their income levels.

Furthermore, as the initiative is generating employment for the suppliers and training to

farmers, standards of living might improve; but, the BoP model would have no direct impact

on any other dimensions of BoP poverty. Sambazon’s development impact success measures

of improving buying power for farmers and their families reflect this.

The company does incorporate environmental sustainability into its business model’s

“triple bottom line” with social, environmental and economic bottom lines (Schmidt 2015).

However, commitment to sustainability, environmental protection and profit generation does

not significantly change the livelihoods of the BoP producers Sambazon works with. The

endeavour by Sambazon is a useful and clearly value-generating pursuit, but it does not

alleviate capability poverty. Capability poverty is the best indicator of poverty alleviation

available for BoP businesses and therefore should be the standard of BoP model ability to

improve livelihoods. There are industries and companies at the BoP that can successfully

alleviate multiple dimensions of capability poverty and generate profits through their

business models. This is done most easily through business models that bring new technology

or seminal services to BoP consumers and producers that have ripple effects to other sectors.

How can BoP models create shared value and alleviate multidimensional poverty?

Financial Services for the BoP: Micro, Entrepreneurial and Mobile Finance

The financial service industry can clearly both create shared value and alleviate

multiple dimensions of capability poverty at the BoP. Several finance models such as



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


microfinance, entrepreneurial finance and mobile finance currently serve BoP markets.

Microfinance models now include credit, savings, insurance and payment services

(Jachimowicz 2012: 3). Microcredit businesses loan to or service customers with small

monetary amounts, often under $100 USD. There are many examples of financial services

created specifically for BoP customers, such as Standard Bank of South Africa’s AutoBank

E-centres (Prahalad and Hart 2002: 7); Spandana, Compartamos, SKS Microfinance

(Banerjee and Duflo 2011); Kiva Zip in Kenya (Graber 2014); ICICI Bank in India, Anglo

American’s Anglo Zimele in South Africa, Tribanco in Brazil, ECOM Supplier Finance,

FINO, BASIX, (Jenkins and Ishikawa 2009) and many more. The sector holds opportunity

for MNCs like Anglo American and social enterprises like Kiva alike to get a share of the

BoP market. Financial services are probably the best-suited sector to demonstrate real

improvement for BoP customers.

By accessing credit, improving financial security, making loans available and other

services, BoP customers can pay for and insure education, health services, foodstuffs,

improved water and sanitation and home building materials. In other words, access to

financial services can directly affect every indicator of multidimensional poverty as measured

by the MPI. Moreover, since access to financial services (where available) can be essential to

maintain a certain standard of living, BoP finance customers become lifelong customers,

generating sustainable profits for the firm. Furthermore, as mobile banking (Ciravegna et al

2014: 229) and microcredit (Yunus 1999) have proven, innovations in financial business

models at the BoP can be transferred to more developed markets.

The Grameen Bank mentioned earlier is one of the first microfinance institutions

globally. The bank loans small amounts of money to BoP customers in Bangladeshi villages

(almost all to women) on credit (i.e. with no collateral). Previously, any entrepreneurial

women who sold bamboo stools or processed rice paddies or produced other products had to



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


go through credit middlemen to get money to buy supplies at rates of up to 20 percent interest

(Yunus 1999). Through Grameen, the women gain loans with no or low interest rates and the

ability to provide for their families. This endeavour creates value for BoP customers by

providing much-needed credit, albeit in small amounts, as well as financial education and

monetary independence from male heads-of-house. The bank’s loans have a 98 percent

repayment rate, generating economic value for the company, which has been profitable since

1983 (Yunus 1999).

The microfinance model incorporates small loans and most notably does not require

capital for loans (Yunus 1999). By loaning in small amounts not used in traditional banking

to BoP customers not traditionally serviced, the entire model is driven by providing access to

financial services for market segments previously shut out. Grameen’s central model focuses

on serving the BoP in order to generate a profit and provide credit to poor women. Shared

value is integral to Grameen’s model. Moreover, by providing access to credit, groups of

women are able to purchase materials for production, livestock, seeds for crops, agricultural

equipment, and housing materials. The microfinance model stretches into multiple facets of

life and subsequently reduces multiple deprivations.

ICT for the BoP: Mobile, Broadband and Satellite Technologies

Similar to and often in accordance with the finance industry, BoP business models in

the information and communication technology (ICT) industry can also improve the

livelihoods of the poor in a significant way by creating shared value and alleviating multiple

dimensions of capability poverty. Having access to mobile phones, broadband, or the Internet

is a dynamic experience for any market, but especially for the BoP. Recent innovations in

ICT have revolutionised the services available at low cost thanks to improve ICT

infrastructure, including telecom health services, mobile banking (previously outlined),



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


agricultural markets, and informational services for specialized markets such as fishing. As

ICT technology innovates and improves, creating ICT services and infrastructure specifically

for the BoP is easier and easier. As noted by Ciravegna et al (2014), failed states and

subsequent institutional voids made the original telephony technology hard to install and

penetrate BoP markets; but, with satellite and other technologies, over the past decade mobile

users in emerging markets outnumber those in developed markets (228). And unlike many

sectors, “ICT is unique in having an impact beyond the individual user's welfare as a

consumption good,” with ability to also “accelerate growth, create jobs, reduce migration

pressure from rural to urban areas, increase agricultural and industrial productivity, increase

services and access to them, facilitate the diffusion of innovations … [and] strengthen

competitiveness” (Von Braun and Torero 2006: 1).

ICT for the BoP models focus on small incremental payments that are affordable for

customers, ensuring reliable network access is available in the previously underserved area,

and offering value-added services for customers through mobile networks, such as health

care, informational services or banking. The potential for ICT models to incorporate value-

added services such as public health and education services (Von Braun and Torero 2006:6)

creates huge potential for social value generation within the ICT model. Poor basic ICT

infrastructure and room for innovation in business models leave huge potential profits for

firms willing to enter previously underserved or un-served market segments, especially in

rural areas. ICT can “expand markets, increase efficiency, provide better social services and

strengthen informal safety nets” (Von Braun and Torero 2006: 9). Simply by ensuring

payment plans are affordable for BoP consumers (either by micro-instalments or rental

schemes through local entrepreneurs), ICT business models can alleviate multiple

deprivations for consumers across MPI indicators. Health, education, standard of living can



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


all improve through the networks ICT models create, services ICT offers, and potential

expansion built into the models themselves.

For instance, ICT Ltd’s e-Choupal network has radically improved the lives of

farmers in India with consequences beyond its intended use. The “e-Choupals” are series of

information centres with Internet connectivity in farming communities operated by a local

farmer. The kiosks were intended to distribute information for crop prices so the BoP farmers

would be able to negotiate better prices daily by having access to sales information for a

variety of possible markets. (Prahalad 2005: 320, 356) Despite having a narrowly defined

purpose (agricultural information) by establishing the connectivity networks, the e-Choupals

were eventually used for checking weather reports, setting grain prices via the Chicago Board

of Trade, helping children with schoolwork, and expanding access to credit and insurance

(Prahalad 2005: 364, 372). This clearly improves multiple poverty indicators among the

population, as it directly affected education and standard of living. The e-Choupals now

include the value-added service of regional brick-and-mortar shops offering everything from

farm equipment to health care (Jenkins and Ishikawa 2009). Apart from generating profits for

ICT, the farmer-operators and the individual farmers who are able to negotiate better crop

prices, e-Choupal also generated large, community-wide social value.

PC-based ICT models are perhaps not as popular as mobile ICT because the

infrastructure is more costly, difficult to install and equally difficult to maintain for successful

service. However, because of the potential access with Internet connectivity, PC-based ICT

models are still a viable option for BoP markets, especially if the focus is on access (i.e.

through a village entrepreneur) and not units sold. With the ability to provide access to

information on a variety of industries and direct improvements in key poverty dimensions

such as education, health or income, ICT business models can be both highly lucrative and



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


value-added ventures for firms while generating a wealth of social value for BoP

communities.

A note on finance via ICT: The case of mobile money

As it combines both the financial services and ICT sectors, M-PESA is a unique and

successful example of a business model vastly improving livelihoods of those in the BoP

market. M-PESA revolutionised the global mobile finance industry from its roots in Kenya.

By using mobile phone technology, banking became available to the BoP consumer. “M-

PESA allows users to deposit money into an account linked to their cell phones and then use

the cell phone to send money to other people's accounts and to make payments” (Banerjee

and Duflo 2011: 189). The innovative model to move all money to mobile has been so

successful “that M-PESA has begun to be implemented in Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, and

Afghanistan, and it is considered an example to be emulated across the developing world”

(Ciravegna et al 2014: 229). This endeavour was so successful because in the Kenyan BoP

market, traditional banking models did not work, small sum transfers were easy,

technological innovations reduced prices of handsets, minutes and SIM cards, and the BoP

consumers’ needs were built into the business model from the beginning (Ciravegna et al

2014: 229). As with microfinance and PC ICT, M-PESA and mobile banking combines the

benefits of each to have a wide-ranging impact on the lives of BoP customers. The market is

lucrative throughout the value chain (from operating MNCs like Vodafone to entrepreneurs

selling handsets or minutes) and mobile phone access opens up a wide variety of services to

improve livelihoods of the poor such as health care, credit, education, etc.

What lessons and limits exist at the BoP?



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


As demonstrated by both the financial services and ICT sectors, improving the

livelihoods of the poor through BoP business models is possible. However, not all BoP

business models are capable of having a lasting impact and improving livelihoods. In order

for this to occur, business models must incorporate creative and competitive strategy that

generates mutual value for both the firm and society. This shared value cannot be a positive

externality of the model, but rather must be central in order for shared value to be generated.

Moreover, to have a lasting impact on the livelihoods of the poor, the BoP model must target

multiple dimensions of capability poverty and reduce deprivations as an outcome. Without

reducing multiple deprivations, the ability for one business model or one industry to create

large impact at the BoP is severely reduced. However, if firms can successfully achieve both

of these markers, as Grameen Bank, ICT’s e-Choupal, or M-PESA have, they can have a

lasting impact on the livelihoods of millions of poor globally. This is the true potential of

BoP markets—to improve the lives of millions while generating value for firms and

economic profits along value chains.



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Table 1: Levels of the Multidimensional Poverty Index

Table and all information has been taken from UNDP 2014.

Chiuchiarelli - King's College London International Development Institute 2015

Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


*Value activities for firms from Porter (1980: 39-41).** Dimensions according to Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) (UNDP 2014). Cases from: Yunus 1999, Prahalad 2005, UNDP 2010, Ciravegna et al 2013, UNDP 2015,

Table 2: Sample BoP Firms and Projects, Value Creation and Poverty Alleviation

Company Original Country of Operation

Business Model Firm Value Created*

Social Value Created

Dimensions of Poverty Alleviated**

Successfully improved poor’s livelihoods

Coca-Cola Ethiopia Micro Distribution Centres (MDCs) with small shipments sent to local distributors, product shipped via truck to small local retailers

Inbound logistics, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, service, firm infrastructure

Economic opportunity, entrepreneurship, access to Coca-Cola products

Assets No

Sambazon Brazil Sustainable cooperative of acai suppliers, sustainability education for small farmers, fair trade certification

Marketing and sales, procurement

Economic opportunity, environmental sustainability

Assets No

Grameen Bank

Bangladesh Microloans with no capital collateral; women-principal group lending mechanisms

Operations, marketing and sales, service, firm infrastructure

Economic opportunity, access to basic services, access to credit, risk management, community trust

Assets, nutrition, child mortality, years of schooling, children enrolled in school, cooking fuel, access to toilet, access to water, access to electricity, flooring

Yes

ICT Ltd.’s E-Choupal

India Network of PCs and Internet connectivity operated by local sanchalak, with crop weighing by farmers

Operations, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, service, technology development, human resource management, firm infrastructure

Economic opportunity, knowledge of the world, access to credit, better connected social networks, insurance and risk management

Assets, nutrition, years of schooling, children enrolled in school, cooking fuel, access to toilet, access to water, access to electricity

Yes

SafariCom’s M-Pesa

Kenya Mobile phone money payments and transfers via text message, deposits via local entrepreneurs’ shops

Profit, operations, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, service, technology development

Access to information and basic public services, access to credit, risk management

Assets, nutrition, child mortality, years of schooling, children enrolled in school, cooking fuel, access to toilet, access to water, access to electricity, flooring

Yes

Chiuchiarelli - King's College London International Development Institute 2015

Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Alkire, S. (May 2007) “Working Paper Number 00 – “The Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data: An Introduction”. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. Oxford: Oxford Department of International Development and Queen Elizabeth House.

Anderson, J. and C. Markides. (August 2006) “Strategic Innovation at the Base of the Economic Pyramid”. London: London Business School.

Asian Development Bank (2003). “Making Markets Work Better for the Poor: Proceedings of the Inception Workshop”. Inception Report. Hanoi: Asian Development Bank.

Banerjee, A. and E. Duflo. (2011) Poor Economics. New York: Public Affairs.

Business Call to Action (BCtA) (2010). “The Coca-Cola Company: Enabling Jobs and Opportuinty”. Innovations in Action. New York: Business Call to Action Secretariat.

Chakravorti, B., G. Macmillan and T. Siesfeld. (2014) “Growth for Good or Good for Growth?” Citi Foundation Reports. New York: Monitor Institute and Tufts University.

Ciravegna, L., R. Fitzgerald and S. Kundu. (2014) Operating in Emerging Markets: A Guide to Management and Strategy in the New International Economy. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.

Corporate Citizenship. (June 2012) “Inclusve Business: The Next Frontier for Corporate Responsibility”. London: Corporate Citizenship.

Goyal, Sandeep. (2011) ‘Understanding Base of the Pyramid Literature – A Thematic, Methodological and Paradigmatic Review’. Gurgaon: Institute for Competitiveness, India.

Graber, C. (June 5 2014) “Ten Days in Kenya With No Cash, Only a Phone”. Bloomberg Business News. New York: Bloomberg L. P.

Hammond, A., W. J. Kramer, J. Tran, R. Katz and C. Walker. (March 2007) The Next Four Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute and International Finance Corporation.

Jachimowicz, J. (2012) “Microfinance: Fortune at or also for the bottom of the pyramid?” New York: Colombia Business School.

Jenkins, B. and E. Ishikawa. (March 2009) “Business Linkages: Enabling Access to Markets at the Base of the Pyramid”. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue. Jaipur: International Business Leaders Forum, Harvard Kennedy School and International Finance Corporation.

References and Bibliography



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kaplinksky, R. (November 2011) “Bottom of the Pyramid Innovation and Pro-Poor Growth”. IKD Working Paper No. 62. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Karamchandani, A., M. Kubzansky and P. Fradano. (March 2009). “Emerging Markets, Emerging Models: Market-Based Solutions to the Challenges of Global Poverty”. Cambridge: Monitor Group.

Lenz, A.K. and M. Pinhanez. (2012) “A business strategy contribution to poverty alleviation and sustainable development: the Base-of-the-Pyramid theory’s validity and inadequacies”. 2nd Congres Transformare. Paris: ISC Paris School of Management Research Center.

London, T. (2007) “Base-of-the-Pyramid Perspective on Poverty Alleviation. William Davidson Institute Working Paper. Ann Arbor: William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.

McKague, K. and C. Oliver. (2012) “Enhanced Market Practices: Poverty Alleviation for Poor Producers in Developing Countries”. California Management Review. Vol. 55 No. 1. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.

Michelini, L. (2012) Social Innovation and New Business Models in Low-Income Markets. Spring Briefs in Business. Heidelberg: Springer.

Pervez, T., A. Martiz and A. deWaal. (2013) “Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship at the Bottom of the Pyramid – A Conceptual Framework”. SAJEMS Special Issue 16. Swinburne: Swinburne University of Technology.

Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. First Export Edition. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (2004) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. First Export Edition. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M.E. and M. R. Kramer. (January 2011) “Creating Shared Value”. Harvard Business Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Prahalad, C.K. (2014 [2005]) Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits. India Subcontinent Version. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley Pvt Ltd.

Prahalad, C.K. and S. L. Hart. (2002) “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”. Strategy+Business Magazine. Issue 26, Q1. New York: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Rangan, K. P., M. Chu and D. Petkoski. (June 2011) “The Globe: Segmenting the Base of the Pyramid”. Harvard Business Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Schmidt (2015) “Sambazon: ”. Innovations in Action. New York: Business Call to Action



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Secretariat.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sinkovics, N., R. R. Sinkovics, and M. Yamin. (2014) “The role of social value creation in business model formulation at the bottom of the pyramid—Implications for MNEs?” International Business Review. (23) London: Elsevier.

Simanis, E. and S. Hart. (2008) “The Base of the Pyramid: Toward Next Generation BOP Strategy”. BOP Protocol Series. Second Edition. Ithaca: Cornell University.

UNDP. (2008) “Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor”. Growing Inclusive Markets. New York: UNDP.

UNDP (2014) “Technical Notes”. 2014 Human Development Report: Sustaining Human Progress, Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. New York: United Nations Development Program.

Von Braun, and Torero, M. (2006) “Introduction and Overview”. Information and Communication Technologies for Development and Poverty Reduction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

World Economic Forum. (January 2009) ‘The Next Billion: Unleashing Business Potential in Untapped Markets’. Geneva: World Economic Forum and The Boston Consulting Group.

Waibel, P. (2012) Putting the Poor First: How Base of the Pyramid Ventures Can Learn from Development Approaches. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing

Ynus, M. (1999) Banker to the Poor. London: Aurum Press Ltd.



Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


Kara Chiuchiarelli


‘fortune’ for all: creating shared value, reducing capability poverty and improving livelihoods...

Documents