Half of the world's pain is due to lack of money and the other half is due to excess of it, they say. I would not agree with this completely, though there is a lot of truth in it. I have always thought of business as a very good means of solving social problems. Whether it be related to health-care or education, a business oriented approach will prove more efficient than charitable solutions. In fact, it is generally observed that charitable efforts are the most inefficient in solving situations. There is a saying that goes like, "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for the day. If you teach him fishing, you feed him for life". Charitable means of educating people or making them capable of solving their own needs have never been really successful. But when you make a business-like approach, keeping in mind a win-win situation, things have shown improvements.
By being business-like, I do not mean to be entirely money oriented. What I mean to say is to show to everyone who receives help, that there is nothing like a free lunch. Charging some money for a service makes it more worthwhile for the recipient of the service.
If you take the example of efforts by the government to provide free/subsidized food to people below poverty line, it has only led to the increase in forgery in making the infamous BPL card (People with a BPL card are officially Below Poverty Line.) Is this the ultimate solution to help the poor get better food? I do not think so. People in slums who were given free houses by the government, let those houses on rent and made a new slum a little distance away. What was the problem that got solved? Wasn't a more business-like approach (than distributing free houses) feasible? Makes your mind tick...
The ideas of folks like Muhammad Yunus also reflect some new thoughts. We are not talking of a business that saps the poor but it does show the difference money (in however small amount) can make.
To quote Dr Yunus,
Similarly, have a look at efforts by John Wood for 'Room to Read' at http://www.leavingmicrosoftbook.com/ . Room to Read partners with local communities throughout the developing world to provide quality educational opportunities by establishing libraries, creating local language children's literature, constructing schools, and providing education to girls.
Suzlon solves the energy needs of millions of people using wind energy. And it is a 'for profit' venture. How is it different from what we discussed just now? Doesn't Tata solve the common man's problem from salt to steel? And Tata still believes in doing more for the individual as well as the corporation.
What about the aim of Infosys founder NR Narayanmurthy - he refers to corporate socialism as 'a problem solver' and the Infosys foundation under Sudha Murthy is dedicated to such efforts.
Have a look at the book "Business Solutions for the Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic Value", by V. Kasturi Rangan, John A. Quelch, Gustavo Herrero, and Brooke Barton . The work combines chapters from an assortment of views—business, academic, government, nonprofit—to examine the nature of poverty, how the poor can become producers as well as consumers, and the roles/responsibilities to be played by policymakers and society at large. Of particular interest to business leaders are a number of case studies of successful BOP (Bottom of economic Pyramid) business models.
My point is that in addition to conventional business ideas that do contribute to solving social situations, there a need for (and it is happening these days) folks who are dedicated 'Social Entrepreneurs'. We can use entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social progress. (I mentioned 'progress' - not just 'change'). It is not a loss making idea but a "more-than-profit" idea, because the metrics for measuring success are not just the monetary part but the social impact it has created.
I feel this can make this world a far better place, without distorting the true fact that there is never a free lunch.
By being business-like, I do not mean to be entirely money oriented. What I mean to say is to show to everyone who receives help, that there is nothing like a free lunch. Charging some money for a service makes it more worthwhile for the recipient of the service.
If you take the example of efforts by the government to provide free/subsidized food to people below poverty line, it has only led to the increase in forgery in making the infamous BPL card (People with a BPL card are officially Below Poverty Line.) Is this the ultimate solution to help the poor get better food? I do not think so. People in slums who were given free houses by the government, let those houses on rent and made a new slum a little distance away. What was the problem that got solved? Wasn't a more business-like approach (than distributing free houses) feasible? Makes your mind tick...
The ideas of folks like Muhammad Yunus also reflect some new thoughts. We are not talking of a business that saps the poor but it does show the difference money (in however small amount) can make.
To quote Dr Yunus,
Suppose we postulate a world with two kinds of people, having different objectives. One type is the existing type, i.e. profit maximizing type. Second type is a new type, who are not interested in profit-maximization. They are totally committed to make a difference to the world. They are social-objective driven. They want to give better chance in life to other people. They want to achieve their objective through creating/supporting sustainable business enterprises. Their businesses may or may not earn profit, but like any other businesses they must not incur losses. They create a new class of business which we may describe as "non-loss" business.
Similarly, have a look at efforts by John Wood for 'Room to Read' at http://www.leavingmicrosoftbook.com/ . Room to Read partners with local communities throughout the developing world to provide quality educational opportunities by establishing libraries, creating local language children's literature, constructing schools, and providing education to girls.Suzlon solves the energy needs of millions of people using wind energy. And it is a 'for profit' venture. How is it different from what we discussed just now? Doesn't Tata solve the common man's problem from salt to steel? And Tata still believes in doing more for the individual as well as the corporation.
What about the aim of Infosys founder NR Narayanmurthy - he refers to corporate socialism as 'a problem solver' and the Infosys foundation under Sudha Murthy is dedicated to such efforts.
Have a look at the book "Business Solutions for the Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic Value", by V. Kasturi Rangan, John A. Quelch, Gustavo Herrero, and Brooke Barton . The work combines chapters from an assortment of views—business, academic, government, nonprofit—to examine the nature of poverty, how the poor can become producers as well as consumers, and the roles/responsibilities to be played by policymakers and society at large. Of particular interest to business leaders are a number of case studies of successful BOP (Bottom of economic Pyramid) business models.My point is that in addition to conventional business ideas that do contribute to solving social situations, there a need for (and it is happening these days) folks who are dedicated 'Social Entrepreneurs'. We can use entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social progress. (I mentioned 'progress' - not just 'change'). It is not a loss making idea but a "more-than-profit" idea, because the metrics for measuring success are not just the monetary part but the social impact it has created.
I feel this can make this world a far better place, without distorting the true fact that there is never a free lunch.
Powered by ScribeFire.
