BOP ExpandingOpportunity+ (Fullreport) PDF

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS
Approaches that harness markets and the private sector

to create business value and development impact
Jane Nelson
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research, writing and publication of this report would not have been possible without
the input of numerous colleagues and friends. Particular thanks to Beth Jenkins and Rashmir
Balasubramaniam, who provided extensive content and editorial support. Thanks also to Belinda
Richards, Shannon Murphy, Scott Leland and John Ruggie at Harvard Kennedy School, and to
the members of our Corporate Leadership Group. And to my colleagues at the International Business
Leaders Forum and Brookings. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided valuable assistance for
the project, and special thanks to Kim Hamilton, Mark Suzman and Oliver Babson for their support.
This report has also benefited from research carried out by colleagues at FSG, Monitor Inclusive
Markets, Dalberg Global Development Advisors and the IFC. Thank you also to Alison Beanland,
Anthony and Libby Nelson for their valuable contribution. Above all, this work is informed by the
hundreds of inspiring and remarkable practitioners in business, government and civil society I have
been fortunate to work with over the past 18 years and who are demonstrating the potential of
harnessing markets and the private sector for development. It is impossible to do full justice to their
creativity, persistence and commitment.
Written by Jane Nelson

Designed by Alison Beanland
© 2010 CSR Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School
Rights and Permissions

Quoting, copying, and/or reproducing portions or all of this work is welcomed provided the following
citation is used:
Nelson, Jane. EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS, Approaches that harness markets and the private
sector to create business value and development impact. CSR Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School,
Cambridge, 2010.
Cover photographs: Workers at a textile factory in Tirupur. There are some 7,000 garment factories in the
city, providing employment to close to one million people, Atul Loke/PANOS; Farmer Oumar Sakho, 50,
stands in his corn field using a mobile phone in Senegal, Jacob Silberberg/PANOS; Radja outside her
small shop, selling mobile phones, scratch cards and photocopying services in Naivasha, Sven
Torfinn/PANOS.
Contents
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
PART ONE The Role of Inclusive Business and Markets in Poverty Alleviation 15
I. The role of the private sector 17
II. Defining inclusive business and markets 25
III. Pathways out of poverty 29
IV. The challenges of building inclusive business and markets 37
PART TWO Private Sector Leadership 41

I. Large corporations 43
II. ‘High-Impact’ entrepreneurs 134
III. Private financiers 162
PART THREE Other Actors Enabling Inclusive Business and Markets 203
I. Helping to overcome barriers 205
II. Governments 209
III. Bilateral and multilateral donors and financial institutions 220
IV. Philanthropic foundations 231
V. Non-governmental organizations 236
VI. Academic and research institutions 242
PART FOUR Collaborative Leadership to Scale and Sustain Impact 245

I. The need for competition and collaboration 247
II. Firm-level partnerships 252
III. Business leadership coalitions 255
IV. Multi-stakeholder alliances 261
PART FIVE Recommendations: An Agenda for Joint Action 289

I. Assess and promote empirical evidence 292
II. Build collective capacity and knowledge 296
III. Pool resources for innovative financing facilities 299
IV. Establish or strengthen market intermediaries and platforms 301
V. Support multi-stakeholder alliances 303
VI. Advocate jointly for targeted policy innovation 304
Appendices 306
Endnotes 309
References 317
“
The market mechanism, which arouses passion in favor as well as against, is a basic
arrangement through which people can interact with each other and undertake mutually
advantageous activities. In this light, it is very hard indeed to see how any reasonable critic
could be against the market mechanism, as such. The problems that arise spring typically from
other sources – not from the existence of markets per se – and include such concerns as
inadequate preparedness to make use of market transactions, unconstrained concealment
of information or unregulated use of activities that allow the powerful to capitalize on their
asymmetrical advantage. These have to be dealt with not by suppressing the markets,
but by allowing them to function better and with greater fairness, and with adequate
supplementation. The overall achievements of the market are deeply contingent on political
and social arrangements.
Amartya Sen
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge University
Winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economic Science
Development as Freedom
19991
We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative
capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a
profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities.
We can also press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that
better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes. If we can find approaches that meet
the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we
will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. The task is open-ended.
It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.
Bill Gates
Chairman, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Commencement Address, Harvard University
June 7th, 20072
Executive Summary
This report outlines the role of inclusive markets and the private sector in increasing opportunities and access for people
in developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty. The report profiles key trends and examples of private sector
engagement in development. It illustrates new models of collaboration between business, government and civil society
and concludes with recommendations for increasing the quantity and quality of private sector resources for development.
A vibrant and diversified private sector is a desired outcome of development, a crucial driver of development
and an increasingly important partner with other actors in achieving effective development outcomes.
Domestic and foreign private enterprises of all sizes and industry sectors are playing a role in expanding
opportunities and access for people in developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty. Pioneering
corporations, entrepreneurs and financiers are delivering innovative new approaches and resources to support
development goals while achieving their business objectives. They are leveraging their core competencies and
value chains along with strategic philanthropy and public policy dialogue to include the poor as producers,
employees and consumers, to spread more accountable and responsible business practices, and to drive more
environmentally sustainable growth. They are developing new business models aimed at achieving
competitive advantage alongside new collaborative models aimed at achieving systemic change.
Over 250 examples of domestic and foreign enterprises reviewed for this study illustrate the potential of
private investment that explicitly aims to realize development impact while also creating business value. To
achieve this dual objective innovation is often required in products, services, technologies, business models
and stakeholder engagement mechanisms at the level of individual firms. Systems-level innovation is also
necessary to accelerate the pace of change and to achieve scale and sustained impact. This includes
coordinated interventions along key value chains and the creation of development clusters in areas such as
agriculture, health and nutrition, water and sanitation, energy, housing, education and financial services. It
requires the use of new technology platforms and the creation of new types of financial instruments and
intermediaries that harness a combination of public, private and philanthropic resources. And it calls for
policy and institutional reforms on the part of both donor and developing country governments.
These innovations require a dynamic combination of competition and collaboration among governments,
among companies, and across private enterprises, governments, and civil society organizations. They require
new mindsets and better understanding of and engagement with the poor as producers, employees and
consumers. In short, new approaches to development are called for to unleash the capital, expertise,
technology and ingenuity of the private sector and to make markets work better for the poor. They are also
required to minimize negative impacts and ensure greater transparency and accountability for development
outcomes on the part of governments, donors and corporations. The challenges are numerous, but so too are
the opportunities to help several billion people lift themselves and their families out of poverty. And the
urgency has rarely been greater.
The global financial crisis, volatility in food, fuel and other commodity prices, fundamental demographic
shifts, conflict and state fragility in some countries and the early impacts of climate change in others,
combine to make poverty alleviation an economic and security imperative, as well as a humanitarian and
moral one. They force us to think more systemically about how to build positive links between job creation,
income generation, access to essential products and services, ecosystem sustainability, and individual and
institutional capacity development. And they call for more integrated approaches to addressing health, food,
water, and energy access and security. Few of these challenges can be tackled without the active engagement
of the private sector and other non-state actors. There is everything to play for. A number of transformative
shifts are underway in the global development landscape. These make it possible perhaps for the first time
to experiment with a wide variety of different business models and new collaborative approaches aimed at
achieving systemic change.
EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 5

The report offers four key messages:
1. Inclusive business and markets have a vital role to play in alleviating poverty and achieving other
development goals.
2. Proactive leadership from the private sector is essential, especially from large corporations, high-
impact commercial and social entrepreneurs and private financiers.
3. Other development actors can catalyze and enhance the contribution of the private sector – in
particular, governments, bilateral and multilateral donors, philanthropic foundations, academic
and research institutions, and non-governmental organizations.
4. New models of collaboration are required to scale and sustain impact. These range from firm-level
partnerships to business leadership coalitions and systemic multi-stakeholder alliances.
Each of these four messages are explored in more detail in Parts One, Two, Three and Four
respectively. In almost all cases, they embody communities of practice that are rapidly evolving and
becoming increasingly complex and sophisticated. Most are the subject of other in-depth research
studies and reports, some of which are noted in the endnotes and references. Rather than provide
detailed analysis of each topic or community of practice, this report aims instead to identify key
trends, map the broad landscape of activity and explore evolving linkages between different
development actors and sectors. It aims to offer an systemic overview of the evolving ecosystem of
private sector actors, market-based solutions and cross-sector partnerships that are contributing to
international development goals. Part Five of the report offers recommendations for increasing the
quantity and quality of private sector resources for development.
PART ONE: Inclusive business and markets have a vital role to play in alleviating poverty and
achieving other development goals
The role of the private sector

Part One of the report outlines the growing importance of the private sector in development and
identifies the following five key trends that are driving this process:
• The complexity and interdependence of global development challenges
• The search for new approaches by governments
• The rising prominence of non-state actors in development
• Growing recognition of the need to more directly listen to, learn from and engage with the poor
themselves in finding solutions
• The transformative impact of scientific research and innovative new technologies.
Defining inclusive business and markets

The report draws on research by the United Nations Development Programme, World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, Harvard Kennedy School, International Business Leaders
Forum and others to define inclusive business as: “Business models that include the poor as
producers, employees and consumers in an economically viable manner. They have an explicit focus
on creating both business value and development impact.”3
6 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

Drawing on work by the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School and
the International Finance Corporation, the report makes the following case for building more
inclusive markets and business models:
“Inclusive business is interesting for companies because it can offer new opportunities
for innovation, growth, and competitiveness, and facilitate better risk management and
stakeholder engagement at the same time as achieving positive social and development
impact. It is interesting for bilateral and multilateral donors, foundations,
governments, and civil society organizations because it has the potential to drive
development impact in self-sustaining, self-multiplying ways that do not require
continuous infusions of aid or grant funding. And it is interesting for the poor because
it brings greater access, choice, and opportunity in their lives and futures.”4
The report provides a brief overview of the role of markets. Inclusive business models and value
chains don’t happen in a vacuum. Private sector players must have the capacity and incentives to
develop and operate inclusive business models. Similarly, the poor must have the capacity and
incentives to participate in them. And both sides must be able to protect their rights in the
transaction. Enabling environments are therefore required. Such enabling environments are
increasingly labeled “inclusive markets” or “inclusive market systems” and include rules, supporting
functions, and the institutions behind them.5 They require a strong state with effective and
accountable political, social and economic institutions and infrastructure. In addition to the essential
role of government, public donors, philanthropic foundations, academic institutions and other civil
society organizations all play a vital role in building these enabling environments.
Pathways out of poverty

The report then focuses on how people lift themselves and their families out of poverty in large part
by participating in markets as producers, employees and consumers: earning income; gaining more
affordable and reliable access to essential goods and services and to productivity enhancing inputs;
building assets; and being able to exercise choice and voice in determining their futures. Regardless
of whether these markets are local, national, regional or global or whether they are in mega-cities or
rural villages, if they are efficient and inclusive they can play a crucial role in expanding the
opportunity and access that are essential to alleviating poverty.
The challenges of building inclusive business and markets

Part One of the report concludes with a overview of some of the barriers to inclusive business and
markets. It notes that markets matter, but in far too many situations around the globe they are
inefficient, inequitable and inaccessible. They fail to work for the poor. Several billion people
continue to live in extreme poverty because of a combination of organizational, market development
and governance barriers. These barriers include lack of relevant market information about the poor,
and lack of knowledge, skills, capacity, finance and infrastructure on the part of both the poor and
the private sector actors interested in serving them, including large corporations. They also include
legal and regulatory obstacles, lack of accountability, and weak administrative and institutional
capacity on the part of governments.

These barriers increase the real and perceived risks and costs, and limit the incentives for private
sector actors to build inclusive business models and markets. This is turn makes it difficult and costly,
if not impossible, for the poor to access formal markets as producers, employees and consumers.
None of the barriers is insurmountable. But overcoming them requires creativity, technology, long-
term commitment and a combination of competition and collaboration. Such approaches necessitate
political and social interventions, as well as economic solutions. They require leadership and new
modes of engagement from all major development actors and private sector leaders.
PART TWO: Proactive leadership from the private sector is essential, especially from large
corporations, high-impact commercial and social entrepreneurs and private financiers
Part Two of the report explores the leadership role of the private sector. It focuses on three groups of
private sector actor – both individuals and institutions - that play an especially important role in
alleviating poverty and are essential components of any private sector ecosystem that will support
more inclusive markets. These three groups are:
• Large Corporations
• High-Impact Entrepreneurs
• Private Financiers.
These private actors are important from both a catalytic and innovation perspective as well as in
terms of scaling, replicating and sustaining positive impact. In all three cases there have been
fundamental shifts over the past decade in how their roles in development are both understood and
implemented. These shifts include the growing awareness of social entrepreneurship and fast growth
entrepreneurs as key drivers of development; the increased mainstreaming of corporate social
responsibility, corporate accountability and base of the pyramid, creative capitalism or inclusive
business models into core business strategies and risk management; the growth in venture
philanthropy; the evolution of socially responsible investment and impact investing; and greater
integration of social and environmental risks into financial analysis.
Large Corporations
The report focuses on three key modalities of engagement where large companies can have a
meaningful impact in supporting development and poverty alleviation:6
• Leveraging core business operations and value chains
• Enhancing corporate philanthropy, volunteering and community social investment
• Participating in public policy dialogue, advocacy and institution building.
Leveraging core business operations and value chains:

By far and away the most sustained contribution that any company can make to economic growth
and poverty alleviation is through carrying out its core business activities and investments in a
productive, responsible and inclusive manner. The report argues that companies should first consider
ways to better measure and optimize the development impacts and multipliers that arise through
existing business operations. These include local job creation, production of safe and reliable goods
and services, generation of investment income and taxes, investment in training and human capital
development, local enterprise development, technology transfer, sharing of global business standards
and practices, and building of physical and institutional infrastructure.

Second, large companies can actively promote responsible business standards and accountability.
In addition to complying with national and international law and regulations, companies can
systemically identify, minimize and account for any negative impacts on development that may arise
from their core business operations. They can do this by supporting voluntary principles, codes and
standards in areas such as human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption, they can spread
good practices in these areas along their global supply chains, engage more transparently and
systematically with key stakeholders, and report publicly on the company’s environmental, social and
governance performance.
Third, large companies can innovate to serve the poor through their commercial business models
by explicitly and intentionally harness their core competencies and assets in ways that directly include
or serve the poor and/or address environmental and other sustainability challenges while also generating
a profit. The report looks at emerging good practices in the following areas: developing direct business
linkages with small and micro-enterprises along corporate supply, distribution and retail chains; gearing
product development and delivery to meet essential consumption needs; sharing intermediary
platforms and networks to expand the scale and reach of inclusive business models; investing in pro-
poor science and technology research; converging solutions to poverty alleviation and climate change;
and harnessing consumer spending in wealthy markets through initiatives such as fair trade, cause-
related marketing and consumer awareness campaigns.
Enhancing corporate philanthropy, volunteering and community social investment:

In addition to what companies can contribute through their mainstream business activities and value
chains, they can also harness their core competencies and assets in non-commercial yet strategically
aligned ways through a variety of philanthropic, employee volunteering and community engagement
activities. While such initiatives rarely achieve the scale that a commercial model can reach, some of
the examples profiled in the report have served millions of people and spanned over a hundred
countries illustrating the potential for scale and impact through strategic philanthropy.
The report focuses on examples of how companies can leverage the impact of their philanthropic
activities in the following areas: aligning core competencies with specific development goals;
mobilizing skilled volunteers for development projects; crowd-sourcing solutions through online
platforms; seed-funding innovation and entrepreneurship; strengthening the capacity of local leaders
and institutions; connecting humanitarian relief with long-term recovery and resilience; funding
research and public awareness for development.
Participating in public policy dialogue, advocacy and institution building:

Corporations, especially the largest players in an economy also have political influence and voice.
While there is a long tradition of individual and collective corporate lobbying around direct business
interests, a small vanguard of companies is starting to advocate for better business climates not only
for their own business or industry, but also for addressing key development and sustainability issues.
The report reviews some of the models that companies are using in the following areas: tackling
corruption and promoting good governance; strengthening public institutions and administrative
capacity; contributing to national development plans and poverty alleviation strategies; and
advocating for pro-development policy reforms in both donor countries and developing countries.

High-Impact Entrepreneurs
Throughout history, entrepreneurship has been one of the driving forces of innovation, wealth creation
and social transformation in every successful economy. Yet, until relatively recently, targeted recognition
of and support for ‘high-impact’ entrepreneurs and the systems that nurture them has been missing in
most international development programs and developing country poverty alleviation strategies.
These ‘high-impact’ entrepreneurs are individual ‘change-agents’ and innovators who are either
commercial or social entrepreneurs and who either lead their own enterprises or play leadership roles
within larger corporations and networks. They share the ability to grow enterprises and create value,
spur innovation in products, services, technologies and business models, and cross traditional
boundaries. In many cases they play a vital intermediation role between the poor and the formal
markets. The leaders among them aim for and help to achieve systemic transformation.
The report focuses on the following three groups of high-impact entrepreneurs who have a
particularly important role to play in driving poverty alleviation and more sustainable development:
• Local ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs: These include established entrepreneurs as well as high-
potential start-ups that have created commercially viable for-profit enterprises, but also have a
commitment to support development goals. The report briefly reviews the growing focus on
supporting women entrepreneurs and youth entrepreneurs.7
• Social entrepreneurs: These are entrepreneurs who have an explicit social or environmental
mission and who use innovative, often market-based approaches to achieve impact and scale.
They assume a variety of legal and operational models from enterprising nonprofit entities that
have a self-financing component to for-profit social businesses and hybrid models.8
• Social intrapreneurs: These are individuals working within large companies or development
institutions who are catalyzing, starting and/or scaling inclusive business models, innovative new
approaches and partnerships to support poverty alleviation.9
Private Financiers
The third group the report focuses on is private financiers – institutional investors, banks, insurance
companies, private equity firms, angel investors and for-profit and non-profit financial
intermediaries. A key trend driving private financing for development is the evolving field of what is
variously termed impact investing, sustainability banking, socially responsible investment or blended
value capital – the allocation of capital in a manner that explicitly aims to generate social and/or
environmental benefits in addition to financial returns.10 The report focuses on four categories of
financial services and intermediation where private financiers can play an important role in
alleviating poverty and supporting other development goals:
• Delivering microfinance services to the poor: This includes savings, loans, insurance and money
transfers. The transformational convergence between information technologies and financial
intermediation is facilitating new approaches that offer scalable, market-based solutions to deliver
these products and services to the poor.
• Investing in small and growing businesses: The report provides an overview of recent
developments and innovations in helping small and growing businesses to improve access to
growth capital and technical assistance.

• Scaling emerging market champions: The report illustrates some examples of how private equity
firms and other investors are enabling domestic business champions in developing countries to
scale and in some cases to become regional and global players and outlines some of the key trends
in this area.
• Leveraging additional private finance for development: The report looks at some of the other
ways in which private finance is being mobilizing for development through models that make it
easier for individual investors and donors to get engaged; through improving the environmental,
social and governance performance of private financial institutions that are operating in
developing countries; and through new models to mobilize private funds for financing global
public goods such as global health and climate mitigation and adaptation.
PART THREE: Other development actors can catalyze and greatly enhance the contribution of
the private sector to development – in particular, governments, bilateral and multilateral
donors, philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations and academic and
research institutions
Part Three of the report looks at the roles of other development actors in helping to overcome barriers
to inclusive business and markets with a focus the following areas of engagement:
• Working directly with the poor to enhance their capacity and voice as producers, employees and
consumers
• Working directly with private sector companies, entrepreneurs and financiers to start and scale
inclusive business models
• Convening and coordinating private enterprises and other development actors to achieve scale
• Improving the broader enabling environment for more inclusive private sector development.
PART FOUR: New models of collaboration are required to scale and sustain impact. These
range from firm-level partnerships to business leadership coalitions and systemic multi-
stakeholder alliances
Part Four of the report briefly reviews the dynamic interaction between private sector competition
and collaboration as drivers for achieving scale and impact in tackling development challenges. It
then focuses on different models of collaboration with a particular focus on multi-stakeholder
initiatives where groups of companies work collectively with each other and where groups of
companies work with other development actors.
The report provides examples of multi-stakeholder alliances in the following key areas:
• Making value chains more inclusive and sustainable – sector-based alliances that aim to make
value chains more inclusive and sustainable in key sectors, with a focus on three types of value
chain that are especially significant in tackling poverty – food and agriculture; health; and
financial services for the poor.
• Implementing national and regional development priorities – geographically focused alliances
such as clusters and corridors that aim to catalyze private investment and growth and to support
integrated approaches to development in particular locations – local, national and regional.

• Enhancing the effectiveness of humanitarian and social programs – alliances that aim to ensure
that philanthropic dollars, product donations and social investments are leveraged effectively.
• Improving mutual accountability and transparency – usually industry-focused global alliances aimed
at improving corporate accountability for social and environmental impacts in developing countries.
• Advocating for policy reform – cross-sector alliances between corporate leaders and non-
governmental organizations can be effective in advocating for policy reform and encouraging
targeted policy innovations both within donor governments and in developing country
governments.
If effective, these systemic multi-stakeholder alliances can enable their participants to aggregate their
resources, market power or political voice to achieve greater leverage, legitimacy and impact than any
one actor or sector working alone. They are not a panacea and they are not easy to establish or sustain.
Yet they represent a crucial area of innovation in both business and development.
PART FIVE: Recommendations for joint action

The report concludes with recommendations for collaborative action to help start and scale more
inclusive and sustainable business models. As outlined in the summary box, the recommendations
focus on the following six areas:
• Assessing and promoting empirical evidence
• Building capacity and knowledge
• Creating innovative financing instruments and mechanisms
• Establishing or strengthening market intermediaries and platforms
• Supporting multi-stakeholder alliances
• Advocating jointly for policy innovation.
The report concludes that market-based solutions are not a panacea. In some cases they are neither
relevant nor appropriate. Yet, there is growing evidence that inclusive business and markets can play a
crucial role in poverty alleviation. They can unleash the immense potential of scientific, technological
and process innovation to tackle social and environmental problems. They can increase the cost
effectiveness of each development dollar spent and enhance the sustainability of certain development
interventions, allowing governments, foundations and non-governmental organizations to exit where
appropriate. And through harnessing competitive market forces and/or collaboration they can accelerate
the scaling of successful development solutions.
Collaborative efforts and multi-stakeholder alliances between the private, public and civil society sectors
can be especially important in helping to make these market-based solutions more inclusive. There are
enough emerging examples of the potential of these collaborative models to warrant ongoing analysis,
investment and support by all key development and private sector actors. Many of these models offer
fundamentally new approaches to business and development. In doing so, they also offer some of our
greatest opportunities yet of enabling several billion people to lift themselves out of poverty.

SUMMARY OF KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The report offers four key messages: The report makes recommendations in the following six areas where collaborative
leadership, or at a minimum more coordinated interventions, will be especially
1) Inclusive business and markets have a important:
vital role to play in alleviating poverty Assess and promote empirical Establish or strengthen market
and achieving other development goals.
2) Proactive leadership from the private

1 evidence More collaborative research
efforts are needed to: improve market
research and information about the poor
4 intermediaries and platforms In many
successful examples of making markets
work for the poor there are intermediary
sector is essential, especially from large as economic actors; understand and organizations or networks that play a vital role
corporations, high-impact commercial disseminate the lessons of starting and in some or all of the following: identifying
and social entrepreneurs, and private scaling inclusive business models in and brokering partnerships; mobilizing and
different industries; measure the financial, allocating resources; managing communications
financiers.
social and environmental performance and conflict resolution; monitoring
3) Other development actors can catalyze of these models; and assess the overall performance; spreading lessons, good
and greatly enhance the contribution ‘development footprint’ or multipliers practices and market information; and
of large corporations. ensuring a joint advocacy voice. These
of the private sector – in particular
intermediaries range from producer
governments, bilateral and multilateral Build capacity and knowledge
donors, philanthropic foundations,
academic and research institutions, and
non-governmental organizations.
2 Collaborative efforts are required to
build skills, capacity and knowledge
both within the corporate sector and for
associations, microfinance intermediaries,
small enterprise support centers, and
community-based organizations, to business
leadership coalitions and online networks
the poor as producers, employees and
and databases. Their roles need to be better
4) New models of collaboration are consumers. They can be especially helpful
understood and supported.
required to scale and sustain impact. in enabling low-income communities to be
better organized to participate in formal Support multi-stakeholder alliances
These range from firm-level
partnerships to business leadership
coalitions and systemic multi-
markets and value chains on a collective
basis.
Create innovative financial

5 Alliances that bring together large
numbers of actors can drive systemic
change and transformation. They can help
stakeholder alliances.
3 instruments Blended value or hybrid
financing is often required to fund
inclusive business models. This combines
to make specific value chains more inclusive
and sustainable, implement national or
regional development priorities, enhance
the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance,
different types and sources of capital with
and improve mutual accountability for
different investment horizons and
development outcomes. They are an evolving
performance requirements – what is
model that warrants ongoing assessment and
increasingly termed ‘impact investing’.
support by both the private sector and other
Interesting collaborative models are
development actors.
emerging in the following areas and need
to be pursued: challenge, innovation or Advocate jointly for policy innovation
replication funds; joint capacity-building
facilities for intermediary organizations; and
global funds and public-private partnerships
6 Governments in developing countries
can create incentives or requirements for
large companies to develop inclusive business
especially in the areas of health, food models and to make it easier for social
security, education and climate change. enterprises and new investment vehicles to
operate. In donor countries governments can
Individual companies can also create employ a variety of incentives and tools to
internal innovation or social venture funds. encourage their own private sectors to get
Philanthropic foundations can make more more directly engaged in global development
effective use of their balance sheets through through a combination of trade, investment
program related investing. Investors can and global philanthropy and volunteering
establish targeted investment vehicles and programs.
public sector donors their own dedicated
facilities to fund inclusive business models.

PART ONE
The Role of Inclusive Business and
Markets in Poverty Alleviation
The following section outlines the importance of inclusive business and markets for the poor
and some of the challenges of building such markets and engaging private enterprises.
I. THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

II. DEFINING INCLUSIVE BUSINESS AND MARKETS
III. PATHWAYS OUT OF POVERTY
IV.THE CHALLENGES OF BUILDING INCLUSIVE BUSINESS AND MARKETS

“ Large companies are a vital part of the private economy, but the poor are an equally important part.
They are often entrepreneurs themselves – frequently of necessity, operating informally, trapped in
subscale enterprises. We endorse the view that market-oriented business ecosystems comprise many
forms of private enterprise coexisting in a symbiotic relationship. The ecosystem generally includes
multinational corporations, large domestic companies, cooperatives, small and medium enterprises
and micro-enterprises, with formal and informal players. It thus encompasses the farmer in the field as
much as the multinational company.
Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor

Report of the United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development
2004
Poverty reduction and sustainable development remain core global priorities. A quarter of the
population of developing countries still lives on less than $1.25 a day. One billion people lack clean
drinking water; 1.6 billion, electricity; and 3 billion, inadequate sanitation. A quarter of all developing-
country children are malnourished. Addressing these needs must remain the priorities both of
developing countries and of development aid – recognizing that development will get harder, not
easier, with climate change.
World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change

The World Bank
2009

Over the past two decades consensus has grown within the development community that markets and
market-based solutions, led or supported by the private sector, have vital roles to play in increasing
opportunities for people in the developing world to lift themselves out of poverty. This emerging
consensus is unlikely to be reversed.
A number of transformative shifts are underway in the global development landscape. These make it
both imperative and possible, perhaps for the first time, to experiment with a variety of different
business models, development interventions and new collaborative approaches aimed at achieving
systemic change. Several trends are especially worthy of note and relevant to the role of markets and
the private sector.
1. Trends in global development

(i) The complexity and interdependence of development challenges
The global financial crisis, volatility in food, fuel and other commodity prices, fundamental
demographic shifts, ongoing conflict and state fragility in some countries and the early impacts of
climate change in others, combine to make poverty alleviation an economic and security imperative,
as well as a humanitarian and moral one. These challenges can no longer be tackled in isolation to
each other. They force us to think more systemically about how to build positive links between job
creation, income generation, access to essential products and services, ecosystem sustainability, and
individual and institutional capacity development. There is also growing recognition of the inter-
relationship between energy, food, water, health, and climate change.
Tackling these issues in a more integrated manner requires new resources, skills and competencies.
No one government or indeed sector has sufficient resources and capacity to address them alone.
New types of cooperation between governments, civil society organizations and the private sector are
needed. In some cases these alliances will be market-oriented and in others they will draw on the
philanthropic resources or political influence of private enterprises. Some will involve new financing
or operating models, while others will result in totally new institutions. There will also be a need for
more performance-driven approaches and greater accountability for development outcomes on the
part of both public and private actors.
(ii) The search for new approaches by governments

Good governance is more essential than ever. Governments must take the lead in addressing the
interdependent imperatives of economic renewal, job creation and poverty alleviation, climate
change and low-carbon growth, and political stability and security. Yet, while government leadership
is necessary, it is not sufficient. Both domestically and globally governments are looking for new ways
to leverage public finances and to achieve greater synergy and effectiveness in tackling the complex
mix of national and global challenges. Few of these challenges can be tackled without the active
engagement of the private sector and other non-state actors.
In terms of global development, there is a growing emphasis on ‘country ownership’ of development

solutions, recognizing the essential foundations of rule of law, accountability and transparency,
effective institutions and strong leadership within developing country governments. Traditional

Box 1: donor governments are increasingly focused on aid effectiveness,
MILLENNIUM strengthening the links between aid, trade and investment, and improving
DEVELOPMENT global governance. New donors from emerging or re-emerging economic
GOALS powers such as China, India, Turkey, South Korea, Brazil and parts of the
Middle East are driving a substantial increase in south-south cooperation
ERADICATE EXTREME with a focus on infrastructure, private sector development and economic
1 POVERTY & HUNGER growth. Sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds are also
ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL
becoming influential investors in some developing countries. In almost
2 PRIMARY EDUCATION every case, these public sector entities are exploring ways to work with the
private sector, attract resources from the private sector, invest in the private
PROMOTE GENDER
3 EQUALITY AND
EMPOWER WOMEN
sector and/or support private sector development more broadly.
The Millennium Declaration in 2000 led to an unprecedented global

REDUCE CHILD commitment by world leaders to meet eight quantitative and time-bound
4 MORTALITY Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. These are summarized
IMPROVE MATERNAL in Box 1. The MDGs provided for the first time a common framework and
5 HEALTH set of globally agreed – and measurable – targets against which to assess
progress on poverty alleviation. Although created by governments and for
COMBAT HIV/AIDS,
6 MALARIA AND OTHER
DISEASES
governments, they have been a useful platform for engaging non-state
actors, including companies in the development agenda, along with the
United Nations Global Compact (see Appendix 1).
ENSURE
7 ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon states, “The MDGs have sparked a
remarkable, global mobilization. Rarely have so many organizations – from
DEVELOP A GLOBAL
8 PARTNERSHIP FOR
DEVELOPMENT
the global to the grassroots – agreed on a common agenda. Rarely have so
many individuals – citizens and CEOs, philanthropists and political leaders
– found such common ground. We must realize the great potential of this
global movement.”1
Measurable progress has been made on achieving the MDGs, but it has been uneven. Major gaps still
exist in realizing specific MDGs or meeting them in specific countries and population groups. These
gaps are due to a combination of inadequate resources, the global food and financial crises, the
evolving impact of climate change, lack of focus and accountability, and in some cases conflict and
fragile states. As 2015 approaches, governments are calling more explicitly on the private sector to
play an active partnership role in meeting the MDGs. In 2010, a group of bilateral development
agencies signed a joint ‘Bilateral Donors’ Statement in Support of Private Sector Partnerships for
Development’, which outlines their commitment to work with the private sector to meet the MDGs
and summarizes specific areas for action.2 (See Appendix 2).
Over the coming decade governments will have to mobilize billions of additional dollars for climate
mitigation and adaptation needs in developing countries, over and above existing development goals.
This will mean that harnessing markets and private sector capital, expertise and technology
innovation will become even more important.

(iii) The rising prominence of non-state actors
Non-state actors are spearheading a transformation in commercial business models and nonprofit
service delivery to serve the poor. Many are based within developing countries. Others are driving
the growth in cross-border private resource flows that are going to developing countries. These non-
state actors are being enabled by a combination of market liberalization, new technologies and new
sources of finance. They include corporations, small, medium and micro-enterprises, private
financiers, philanthropic foundations, faith-based networks, social entrepreneurs, non-governmental
organizations, high-profile individuals, the general public, and diasporas sending remittances to their
home countries and communities.
These non-state actors are injecting a strong dose of dynamism, diversity and innovation into the
development community. They are leveraging new technologies and developing innovative new financial
instruments and capital allocation strategies to reach the poor and to invest in green growth. They are
cooperating with each other and with government entities to create new development models and
institutions. Some are demanding new approaches to accountability and transparency for development
outcomes. Others, especially large corporations, are the targets of efforts to improve accountability.
The activities of these non-state actors range in scale from multi-million dollar transnational
initiatives to millions of low budget community-based efforts, and from multi-stakeholder coalitions
to individual citizen action. Their motivations range from philanthropic contributions to the
generation of profit. And from responding to immediate humanitarian needs and stakeholder
expectations to investing in long-term development.3
In terms of cross-border capital flows, private actors are now mobilizing more financial and in-kind
resources for global development than donor governments. The Hudson Institute estimates that,
“Seventy-five percent of all DAC donors’ [OECD’s Development Assistance Committee consisting
of 23 donor countries] total economic engagement with the developing world is through private
financial flows – philanthropy, remittances and private capital investment.”4
From the perspective of the business sector, developing countries are becoming an important source
of new market and investment opportunities for many private firms and industry sectors. According
to UNCTAD, half of global Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows are now going to developing
and transition economies. While the global economic crisis resulted in large declines in both FDI and
portfolio investments into developing countries, The World Investment Report 2010 notes: “FDI
inflows to developing and transition economies declined by 27 percent to US$548 billion in 2009,
following six years of uninterrupted growth. While their FDI contracted, this grouping appeared
more resilient to the crisis than developed countries, as their decline was smaller than that for
developed countries (44 percent). Their share in global FDI flows kept rising: for the first time ever,
developing and transition economies are now absorbing half of global FDI flows.”5
South-south private capital flows between developing countries are also on the rise. An important
trend in the past decade has been the number of corporations from developing countries that are
growing dramatically in their domestic markets and driving greater south-south and regional
investment. UNCTAD estimates that there were 82,000 transnational corporations (TNCs)

worldwide in 2008. Some 28 percent of these TNCs came from developing and transition
economies, compared to less than 10 percent in 1992.6 UNCTAD notes that other rankings, such as
those of the Financial Times and Fortune magazine, point to an even larger percentage of developing
and transition economy TNCs entering the global stage. They are especially active in sectors such as
agriculture, infrastructure, mobile telecommunications, banking, retail, and natural resources. All of
these sectors have important implications for poverty alleviation, potentially positive or negative
depending on how investments projects are implemented.
Another set of trends over the past decade has been the growing momentum in fields such as
corporate social responsibility, responsible investment, inclusive business, microfinance, social
entrepreneurship, venture philanthropy and impact investing. These emerging concepts and fields of
practice have changed the way that many private enterprises understand and address development
issues. They have also changed the manner in which private enterprises are perceived by and interact
with other development players, both governments and other non-state organizations. On the one
hand, they have increased the risks and costs associated with a company having, or being perceived
to have, a negative impact on development. On the other hand, they have created new opportunities
for private enterprises that can deliver solutions that align business value with development impact.
(iv) Growing recognition of the need to more directly listen to, learn from and
engage with the poor themselves in finding solutions
Until recently, remarkably little empirical research had been undertaken to understand the poor as
economic actors and to consult them at scale about their needs, aspirations, capacities, constraints,
and resource management strategies. Today, much more is known about how they manage their very
limited budgets and assets within the difficult contexts in which they live. More proactive and
systematic initiatives are being undertaken to directly engage them as producers, employees,
consumers and active participants in the design, implementation and monitoring of development
interventions. This is needed not only at the community and project level but also at the governance
and policy level to enable them to enter formal markets. There is also a growing focus on improving
legal rights and empowerment for the poor. This has been influenced by the work of the UN
Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, which highlighted the following four areas in its final
report in 2008: Access to justice and rule of law; property rights; labor rights; business rights (legal
mechanisms to empower informal businesses).7 Renewed efforts are also being made to support low-
income producers, employees and consumers to organize or aggregate in order to gain greater
economic capacity and clout, as well as a stronger political voice.
There is also growing recognition of the development benefits of investing in the economic
empowerment of girls and women. As Isabel Coleman from the Council on Foreign Relations
outlines, “Over the last several decades, it has become accepted wisdom that improving the status of
women is one of the most critical levers of international development. When women are educated
and can earn and control income, a number of good results follow: infant mortality declines, child
health and nutrition improve, agricultural productivity rises, population growth slows, economies
expand, and cycles of poverty are broken. But the challenges remain dauntingly large. In the Middle
East, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, large and persistent gender gaps in access to

education, health care, technology, and income – plus a lack of basic rights and pervasive violence
against women – keep women from being fully productive members of society.”8
(v) The transformative impact of scientific research and innovative new

technologies
Innovation, especially emerging technologies – from information and communications technology to
life sciences, biotechnology, nanotechnology and clean technology – is fundamentally changing the
economics of what is viable and scalable in tackling poverty. The ability of the poor to integrate into
formal markets and the growing reach and influence of non-state actors has been underpinned by
and is also driving unprecedented mobile communications capacity and other enabling technologies
and applications in the fields of finance, healthcare, agriculture, water, energy, climate adaptation,
education and disaster response.
Innovations range from tiny mobile phone kiosks in remote rural communities to large-scale
investments in more climate resilient infrastructure in rapidly urbanizing locations. They include
more nuanced and integrated approaches to harnessing and combining different types of technology.
These technologies range from traditional, conventional and intermediate technologies to the ‘high-
tech’ new platforms based on advanced sciences. This more integrated approach reflects a move away
from the mindset that technology for the poor always needs to be basic. It recognizes that basic or
traditional technologies are most effective in certain cases, but also opens up the immense potential
of applying world class, high tech solutions to poverty alleviation.9
The private sector is often essential in developing and scaling new technologies. In many cases,
however, market failures and regulatory gaps make it necessary for governments and other non-state
actors to work with the private sector in discovering, developing and delivering technologies that
directly serve the poor and help to solve development challenges. In addition to new models of
collaboration between private and public actors on specific technologies and value chains, there is
also renewed focus on improving the broader enabling environment for science and technology
research and development within developing countries.
In summary, the complexity and interdependence of global challenges, the search for new solutions
by governments, the rising prominence of non-state actors, improved understanding of the poor as
economic actors, and the transformative impact of science and technology all underpin the growing
interest in market-based solutions and the role of the private sector in development. New models of
development are being explored that harness the power of markets and that mobilize the resources,
expertise, networks and ingenuity of private corporations, entrepreneurs and financiers. A central
challenge is to make markets and private enterprises work more effectively for the poor by ensuring
they are not only efficient and competitive, but also more inclusive and collaborative.

2. Key private sector actors
The private sector covers a wide range of diverse actors from smallholder farmers and micro-
enterprises, to small and medium-size firms and large domestic and multinational corporations. It
ranges from firms and financiers driven by the motive to maximize profits to social businesses, social
enterprises and impact investors that employ market-based approaches with explicit social and/or
environmental objectives. And it includes business associations, enterprise networks, producer
cooperatives and business leadership coalitions.
There is growing recognition of the important role that business plays in tackling poverty and
creating wealth in developing countries and low-income households and communities. The World
Bank concluded in its seminal World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for
Everyone:
“Private firms are at the heart of the development process. Driven by the quest for
profits, firms of all types – from farmers and micro-entrepreneurs to local
manufacturing companies and multinational enterprises – invest in new ideas and new
facilities that strengthen the foundation of economic growth and prosperity. They
provide more than 90 percent of jobs – creating opportunities for people to apply their
talents and improve their situations. They provide the goods and services needed to
sustain life and improve living standards. They are also the main source of tax revenues,
contributing to public funding for health, education and other services. Firms are thus
central actors in the quest for growth and poverty reduction.”10
Over the past decade a number of commissions on global development have called for increased
private sector development and business leadership as a major priority. They include the 2009 report
of The Africa Commission, initiated by the Danish Government, the 2009 Transatlantic Taskforce on
Development, led by the German Marshall Fund, the 2007 HELP Commission Report on Foreign
Assistance Reform in the United States, the 2005 Commission for Africa report supported by the United
Kingdom, and the United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development, which reported
in 2004.11 Indeed, there are few governments and development agencies today that do not espouse
the importance of private sector development.
Small and medium-size enterprises, employing less than 250 people are the main drivers of job
creation and growth, accounting for over 90 percent of businesses worldwide.12 In many developing
countries, due to well-documented market failures and governance gaps, up to 80 percent of these
enterprises operate in the informal economy.13 As such, they are often unable to benefit from the
opportunities and protection that the law provides, and they have minimal economic resources,
bargaining power or political voice to influence policy and market outcomes. One of the most
important actions that governments, donors, larger private sector actors and nonprofit organizations
can take is to enable these enterprises to grow and to enter the formal economy. In addition to the
important focus on micro-enterprise that has gathered momentum over the past decade, there is a
vital need to catalyze the so-called ‘missing middle’ of small and medium-sized firms that operate
between micro-enterprises and large companies. The group that is essential to building a middle class.

This report focuses on large corporations, high-impact entrepreneurs and private financiers as three
groups of private sector actor that can play an essential catalytic and scaling role in poverty alleviation
and development. It also reviews the role of business associations and business leadership coalitions.
In the case of large corporations, there is increased understanding in both the development
community and the business sector of the important development role played by a company’s core
business operations. Corporate philanthropy and community engagement can play a valuable catalytic
and humanitarian role, but the greatest and most sustainable impact that companies can have on
poverty alleviation is through leveraging core business models, competencies and value chains.
In their 1996 report Business as Partners in Development, the International Business Leaders Forum,
World Bank and UNDP stated, “The principal contribution of business to development is through
the efficient and ethical pursuit of its core business activities. It can however maximize the beneficial
spin-offs and multipliers of these activities – especially through promoting local economic
participation and sharing core competencies and business practices with host countries and
communities.”14 Today, such an approach is needed more than ever.
Clearly not all private sector development is beneficial to the poor. Some is exploitative and
detrimental and needs to be strongly regulated or prohibited. Much fails to have a substantial or
sustained effect that enables people to lift themselves out of poverty. Research on the development
benefits of FDI shows a mixed record, with marked variations between different industry sectors,
home countries and host country governance environments. Private sector projects that do directly
serve the poor are often small-scale in reach and impact, and primarily philanthropic in nature. As
outlined in Part Two of the report, much can be done by companies to address these challenges by
optimizing positive development multipliers from their regular business operations, minimizing
negative impacts and proactively innovating to include the poor.
Foreign and domestic corporations that operate in sectors and value chains that are essential to
economic growth and poverty alleviation – either in terms of directly supporting it or potentially
undermining it – have an especially important role to play. These include companies in infrastructure,
energy, water and sanitation, oil, gas and mining, agriculture and forestry, healthcare and nutrition,
financial services, information and communications technology, professional services, and tourism.
The explicit creation of inclusive business models can result in a more direct and sustained impact on
poverty by intentionally including the poor in formal value chains. Such approaches can help low-
income producers, employees and consumers to expand their access to employment and livelihood
opportunities and to affordable and reliable products and services. In turn, this can enable them to
build their capacity, their assets and their resilience – all of which are essential pathways out of poverty.
In recent years a diverse group of development practitioners, donors, business leaders, social
entrepreneurs, investors, foundations and academics has recognized this potential. They are exploring
a range of approaches to ensure that private sector development is explicitly pro-poor, either engaging
directly with the poor in beneficial ways, or ensuring that it does not exacerbate poverty for those

living at the base of economic pyramid. Working with a pioneering group of large corporations,
smaller commercial and social enterprises, and private financial institutions, these leaders are
spearheading a growing movement to better understand and leverage the role of business in global
development. They are starting and in some cases scaling innovative new business models that
intentionally and explicitly include the poor as producers, customers and suppliers. And they are
developing new technologies to drive low-carbon growth and greater efficiency in the use of essential
resources. These include water, energy, biodiversity and ecosystems services, all of which are often
vital to supporting sustained livelihoods for the rural poor.
Such efforts aim to achieve a more immediate impact on poverty than the ‘trickle-down’ effects of
more traditional private sector development initiatives. Many of them directly leverage scientific,
technological, financial, product or process innovation to tackle poverty. They harness core private
sector competencies, business models and value chains to explicitly expand access to goods, services
and livelihood opportunities for the poor and to respect their human rights. They also look at ways
to improve the resilience of low-income households and communities and their ability to cope with
economic and environmental shocks.
These approaches are variously described as sustainable business, corporate social responsibility, base-
of-the pyramid models, creative capitalism, shared value, social enterprise, social business, impact
investing, market-based solutions and inclusive business. Regardless of the different terms used, they
all share the common goal of harnessing the resources and core competencies of private enterprise in
a manner that simultaneously creates both business value and development impact.
This report primarily uses the terms inclusive business and inclusive markets. It focuses on how these
approaches apply to and are led by large corporations, high-impact entrepreneurs (both commercial
and social entrepreneurs), and private financiers. It looks at different models of private sector
engagement both through competitive individual business models, value chains and business-to-
business linkages, and through collaboration with other companies and development actors from
government and civil society.

II. DEFINING INCLUSIVE BUSINESS AND
INCLUSIVE MARKETS
1. Inclusive business
The term “inclusive business” has been developed and promoted by, among others, the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP).
WBCSD is a leadership group of some 200 major international companies drawn from over 35
countries and 20 industrial sectors, with a network of nearly 60 national and regional business
councils reaching hundreds of additional private enterprises, many of them in developing countries.
Its members reach an estimated 50 percent of the world’s population every day with a product or a
service, and have a combined turnover of some US$ 6 trillion. WBCSD defines inclusive business as
follows:
“An inclusive business is one which seeks to contribute towards poverty alleviation
by including lower-income communities within its value chain while not losing
sight of the ultimate goal of business, which is to generate profits.”15
UNDP’s Growing Inclusive Markets initiative brings together some of the leading business networks,
development agencies, academics and social enterprise intermediaries that are active in the field of
business and development. UNDP also serves as the operational arm of the UN system with offices
in over 100 countries. It is one of the core UN partners of the United Nations Global Compact,
which over the past decade has become the largest corporate citizenship network in the world with
over 6,000 participating companies, over two thirds of which are from developing countries and with
a variety of national and local Global Compact networks in some 50 countries. UNDP defines
inclusive business as follows:
“Inclusive business models include the poor on the demand side as clients and
customers and on the supply side as employees, producers and business owners at
various points in the value chain. They build bridges between business and the
poor for mutual benefit.”16
In their 2010 report Scaling Up Inclusive Business, the International Finance Corporate (IFC) and
Harvard Kennedy School argue that, “Inclusive business is interesting for companies because it can
offer new opportunities for innovation, growth, and competitiveness at the same time as positive
social and development impact. It is interesting for bilateral and multilateral donors, foundations,
governments, and civil society organizations because it has the potential to drive development impact
in self-sustaining, self-multiplying ways that do not require continuous infusions of grant funding.
And it is interesting for the poor because it brings greater access, choice, and opportunity in their
lives and futures.”17
Dalberg Global Development Advisers and Monitor Inclusive Markets Institute both highlight the
importance of individual enterprises (both large corporations and smaller commercial and social
enterprises) as well as value chains, clusters or inter-firm linkages as being essential components of
most inclusive business models.18

BOX 2: A framework for inclusive business and markets
SUPPORTING FUNCTIONS
and the institutions that fulfil them
Information
Infrastructure
TS
Market Players
RKE
Coordination Skills & capacity

Governments Private enterprises
E MA
Trade unions Non-profits
INCLUSIVE BUSINESS Related

R&D
INCLUSIV
Poor as consumers services

PRODUCTS
& SERVICES
MONEY
Private Sector People (incl

players poor people)
MONEY
LABOR,
PRODUCTS
Standards & SERVICES
Poor as producers
and employees
Informal rules
Business membership organizations & norms
Informal networks
Regulations
Laws
RULES
and the institutions that make and
enforce them
Source: Adapted from DFID and SDC (2009). “A Synthesis of the Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) Approach.” Page 28.

II. DEFINING INCLUSIVE BUSINESS AND
INCLUSIVE MARKETS
2. Inclusive markets
Inclusive business models and value chains don’t happen in a vacuum. Private sector players must
have the capacity and incentives to develop and operate inclusive business models. Similarly, the poor
must have the capacity and incentives to participate in them. And both sides must be able to protect
their rights in the transaction. Enabling environments are therefore required. Such enabling
environments are increasingly labeled “inclusive markets” or “inclusive market systems”.
The UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC) have supported the development of an initiative called Making Markets
Work for the Poor (M4P). This initiative has supported academic and field-based research, sector and
country challenge funds, and the creation of a number of intermediary institutions to build and
strengthen inclusive markets in Asia and Africa.
DFID and SDC make the following comments about inclusive markets:
“Economic growth (the most important contributor to poverty reduction) and
expanded access are critical factors in developing competitive and inclusive economies.
These, in turn, require: Markets for goods, services and commodities that operate
effectively for everyone but especially the poor as consumers, producers or employees;
and basic services – for example such as education, health and water – that can build
people’s capacities to escape poverty. Markets and basic services are traditionally
regarded as very different. The first is seen as being commercial and the domain of
private providers and the second primarily the domain of government.
…However, recent trends and major changes in economic thinking have allowed a
more nuanced and realistic view to emerge, which recognizes that they have common
characteristics. Both are multi-functional; they require a mixture of different functions
to be undertaken such as regulation, information and delivery. Both are multi-player;
they require a range of public and private players. In both, appropriate incentives and
capacities are central to success. The term market system describes these shared features
of markets and basic services and provides a common lens through which both can be
viewed.”19
Thus, according to DFID and SDC, “markets operating in an inclusive way offer the poor the things
they need – jobs, opportunities, goods, services – to increase their incomes.” Inclusive business models
and value chains are one ingredient, but equally critical are the systemic factors that make inclusive
business possible. These include rules, supporting functions, and the institutions behind them.
Rules influence the behavior of market participants, including private sector players and the poor.
They can help provide incentives for inclusive business and shape inclusive business outcomes such
that real value is created for all. As DFID and SDC emphasize, rules can take a variety of forms,
ranging from formal (regulations) to informal (social and cultural norms). They can be established
and enforced by a variety of players, from governments (laws) to private sector players themselves
(industry standards).20 Particularly important rules for creating inclusive markets include business

entry and exit requirements, property rights regimes, tax rates and incentive structures, labor laws,
and international trade rules.
Supporting functions build the capacity of market participants – again including both private sector
players and the poor – to engage in inclusive business. Supporting functions can include public goods
(such as security) and basic services (such as education, healthcare, water and sanitation), which
DFID defines as having an element of “public good” to them in that their consumption benefits both
the individual and the economy and society of which he is a part.21 Public goods are generally the
responsibilities of governments and public donors to provide, while basic services can also be
provided through public-private partnership, philanthropy, or business. Some inclusive business
models provide basic services – fulfilling support functions that help create the market conditions
other inclusive business models need to succeed (at the same time as they meet basic development
needs directly).
Effective and accountable institutions are needed to make and enforce rules as well as fulfill
supporting functions. Relevant institutions include government ministries, courts, legislative bodies,
chambers of commerce, credit bureaus, rating agencies, consumer advocacy groups, political parties,
civil society and grassroots organizations, producer associations, development organizations and
donors. Crucially, in order to create conducive market conditions not just for business but for
inclusive business, those institutions must represent the specific needs and interests of the poor. This
often requires special effort to seek out and listen to their voices and understand their needs,
aspirations and constraints. Civil society organizations can play critical roles organizing and building
the capacity of the poor to represent themselves vis-à-vis these institutions.

III. PATHWAYS OUT OF POVERTY
Having defined inclusive business and inclusive markets, why and how do they matter for the poor?
Most development experts now agree that individual and household poverty is much more than a
lack of adequate assets and income, although these are essential foundations for people being able to
lift themselves out of poverty. It is the result of a combination of inter-dependent and often
reinforcing economic, social, political, environmental and spatial factors and processes. In most cases
individual and household poverty includes some combination of the following:22
• Lack of assets in the form of human capital (such as education, skills and health), financial capital
(such as savings and access to credit), physical capital (such as land, housing, infrastructure and
equipment), natural capital (such as water, soil, biodiversity and other ecosystem services), and
social capital (networks and relationships that can offer reciprocity and support).
• Lack of affordable and reliable access to products and services that meet essential needs such
as water and sanitation, food, energy, health, education, housing, financial management, and
transport.
• Lack of economic integration into local, regional and global markets needed to find
employment, create an enterprise or gain affordable and equitable access to markets.
• Lack of reliable information and capacity to interpret and judge different options in terms of
products, technologies and alternatives for consumption and employment.
• Lack of legal rights and grievance mechanisms in particular access to justice and the rule of law,
property rights, labor rights, and business rights, identified by the UN’s Commission on Legal
Empowerment of the Poor as being the four crucial pillars in national and international efforts to
give the poor both protection and opportunity.
• Lack of voice and participation in local or national political processes and decision-making that
determine how policies and projects are designed and implemented and how they are made more
transparent, responsive and accountable to the needs of the poor.
• Lack of ability to organize and aggregate as either producers, employees or consumers to take
collective action that can increase bargaining power, increase ability to influence political and
market outcomes, create economies of scale and enable more efficient connections to markets.
• Lack of household security and resilience due to insufficient social safety nets, insurance, social
networks etc. to manage vulnerability from exposure to violence, conflict, natural disasters, crop
failure and economic shocks.
Any efforts to alleviate poverty at scale and on a more sustained basis must address these challenges and
do so in a more integrated and systemic manner. Building inclusive business models and markets that
include the poor more fairly and effectively as producers, entrepreneurs, employees and consumers is an
important approach to tackling a number of these challenges, although certainly not the only one.
People lift themselves and their families out of poverty in large part by participating in markets as
producers, employees and consumers: earning income; gaining affordable access to essential goods
and services and to productivity enhancing inputs; building assets; and being able to exercise choice
and voice in determining their future. Regardless of whether these markets are local, national,
regional or global or whether they are in mega-cities or rural villages, if they are efficient and inclusive
they can play a crucial role in expanding the opportunity and access that are essential to alleviating
poverty.

The poor need to be respected as economic actors and rational decision-makers who make the best
decisions they can about how to manage their very limited budgets and assets within the contexts in
which they live. They need to be empowered as producers, employees, and consumers able to access
what they want and need on an affordable and reliable basis, not viewed as passive beneficiaries
waiting for public sector handouts, philanthropic donations or corporate benevolence. They need to
be proactively engaged as participants and decision-makers in the design, implementation and
monitoring of development interventions. They need legal empowerment. They need support to
organize or aggregate in order to gain greater economic capacity and clout, as well as a stronger
political voice and social capital. Even in situations of humanitarian crisis, the poor need access to
economic opportunity, not only social safety nets and charity as important as these are.
In short, as economist Hernando de Soto has stated, “The poor are not the problem, but the
solution.”23 And as the Acumen Fund argues, “Poor people seek dignity, not dependence. Traditional
charity often meets immediate needs but too often fails to enable people to solve their own problems
over the long term. Market-based approaches have the potential to grow when charitable dollars run
out, and they must be a part of the solution to the big problem of poverty.”24
1. Understanding the poor as producers, employees and consumers

Until recently, remarkably little empirical market research and analysis has been undertaken to consult
the poor directly and more systematically about their needs, aspirations, capacities, constraints, ability
to pay and resource management strategies as producers, employees, and consumers. As UNDP’s
Growing Inclusive Markets initiative has commented, “Businesses know too little about the poor – what
poor consumers prefer, what they can afford and what products and capabilities they have to offer as
employees, producers and business owners.”25 One could add to this that governments and donors also
know too little about the poor as economic actors.
Some progress has been made in recent years to address this gap, building on many years experience
in anthropological studies and participatory development approaches at the level of local
communities and individual development projects. While a number of groundbreaking studies have
been undertaken over the past decade, more work is needed in this area – especially research that can
be shared in the public domain.
Seminal work focused on better understanding the poor as producers, employees and consumers
includes: the World Bank’s Voices of the Poor and Moving out of Poverty studies; the work of the Jameel
Poverty Action Lab at MIT; the initial research undertaken by C.K. Prahalad, Stu Hart, and Allen
Hammond on framing the ‘Base of the Pyramid’ agenda and ongoing work through their respective
academic institutions and think tanks in assessing market opportunities at the Base of the Pyramid;
the IFC and World Resources Institute’s The Next Four Billion study (focused on market
opportunities at the base of economic pyramid in the food, energy, health, housing, transportation,
ICT and water sectors); the Portfolios of the Poor research (focused on financial management strategies
of people living on less than US$2 a day); heat map research undertaken by UNDP’s Growing
Inclusive Markets initiative (focused on market opportunities in the areas of providing access to water,

credit, electricity and telephone service); the World Economic Forum and Boston Consulting Group
reports on The Next Billions (which focused on strategies to enhance food value chains and empower
the poor); Harvard Business School’s book Business Solutions for the Global Poor; and Monitor’s report
Emerging Markets, Emerging Models (focused on market-based solutions mainly in India) and their
ongoing work in Africa.26
A number of these studies combine insights into understanding the poor as economic actors, as well
as identifying specific strategies for developing inclusive business models and market-based solutions
for meeting these needs. Despite obvious differences across cultures, countries and sectors, common
themes and messages resonate through many of these studies. All point to the poor having significant
unmet needs, lacking good access to markets to sell their labor, products and produce, and being
negatively impacted by a ‘poverty penalty’ – “paying higher prices for basic goods and services than
do wealthier consumers, either in cash or in the effort they must expend to obtain them – and they
often receive lower quality as well.”27 They also point to self-employment or business and wage
income as the key paths out of poverty.
In 2000, for example, the World Bank released a seminal study, ‘Voices of the Poor’ – the first of its
kind and scale based on interviews with some 60,000 people in 60 countries. The study consisted of
two parts: a review of participatory poverty studies in 50 countries involving about 40,000 people
and a new comparative study in 1999 in 23 countries engaging about 20,000 people. It found that,
“next to illness and injury, the scope for entrepreneurial activity and the availability of jobs is the most
important factor determining the fate of poor people – for better or for worse.”28
Deepa Narayan, lead author of Voices of the Poor and a 2009 follow-up study, Moving Out of Poverty,
observes:
“We find little evidence that poor people are poor because of laziness or disinterest in
work and savings. Even in very poor and conflict-prone areas, poor people seldom seem
apathetic. Instead they take initiatives often pursuing many small ventures
simultaneously to survive and get ahead.”29
At the same time, Narayan points out, “Individual hard work and belief in self can take people far,
but it cannot make up for lack of economic opportunity and blocked access to opportunity in the
communities where poor people live.”30
The Bank’s Moving Out of Poverty study states:

“In country after country, when we asked movers (defined as households that were poor
in 1995 but had moved out of poverty by 2005) to name the top three reasons for their
move out of poverty, the answers most frequently emphasized were people’s own
initiative in finding jobs and starting new businesses.”31
The study concluded, “…the two overarching concepts that emerge are initiative and opportunity.
The interaction between these two largely structures the movement out of poverty.”32

Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day sheds valuable light on the poor as
rational economic actors and market participants, willing to pay for quality and reliability. Released
in 2009 and based on a series of yearlong ‘financial diaries’ written in collaboration with about 300
poor households in rural villages and urban slums in Bangladesh, India and South Africa, the reports
authors comment:
“…we were struck by two thoughts that changed our perspective on world poverty, and
on the potential for markets to respond to the needs of poor households. First, we came
to see that money management is, for the poor, a fundamental and well-understood
part of everyday life. It is a key factor in determining the level of success that poor
households enjoy in improving their own lives. Managing money well is not necessarily
more important than being healthy or well educated or wealthy, but it is often
fundamental to achieving these broader aims. Second, we saw that at almost every turn
poor households are frustrated by the poor quality – above all the low reliability – of
the instruments that they use to manage their meager incomes. This made us realize
that if poor households enjoyed assured access to a handful of better financial tools, [in
particular, day-to-day money management; building-long term savings; and general-
purpose loans], their chances of improving their lives would surely be much higher.”33
More in-depth market research is required to better understand the needs, aspirations, capacities,
constraints, and resource management strategies of the poor. It is an areas that warrants increased
investment and engagement from both the development and the business community. The business
community, for example, has extensive expertise and tools when it comes to understanding,
segmenting and working with consumers, suppliers and employees in more developed economies and
market segments. These tools could be adapted and applied to new and emerging segments further
down the income pyramid, with both the technical support and in some cases co-financing of the
development community, drawing on extensive lessons from participatory approaches and appraisals
in the development community.
2. Including the poor as producers, employees and consumers

Inclusive business and markets can help people to lift themselves out of poverty in three main ways:
(i) Including the poor as producers

One key pathway to enabling the poor to generate income, create livelihoods and build assets is
through self-employment or entrepreneurial opportunities. A valuable role can be played by value
chain linkage initiatives that integrate the poor more fairly as producers, suppliers, distributors,
retailers, franchisees, and business customers into local, regional and global value chains. The
following three approaches are worthy of note:
• Buying from small and micro enterprises, farmers and other natural resource producers –
sourcing, sub-contracting, and procuring raw materials, goods and services from the poor. For
example, agribusiness out-grower schemes, forestry product initiatives, and local content or
procurement initiatives in the extractive, tourism and manufacturing industries. In short,
ensuring access to markets for raw materials, goods and services produced by the poor.

• Distributing through small and micro enterprises and agro-dealers – forward business linkages
aimed at accessing hard-to-reach or low-income farmers, consumers and end-use markets through
small and micro distribution, retail and franchisee networks, such as those being utilized by
consumer goods and agriculture services companies.
• Selling to small and micro-enterprises owned by the poor and to farmers and other natural
resource producers – forward linkages aimed at providing reliable, affordable and accessible
productive inputs to support small and micro-enterprises, farmers and other low-income
producers to increase the productivity, quality, reliability and scale of their business activities and
hence their incomes and assets. Most important from the perspective of poverty alleviation is the
provision of productive inputs, such as fertilizer and seeds to small scale farmers, but there are
many examples of other key productivity input such as business finance and business
development services, information technology, electricity, and so on.
(ii) Including the poor as employees

Not everyone is an entrepreneur or wants to be self-employed. Paid employment in local or
multinational firms and value chains can enable people to generate income through wages and
salaries. Three aspects of including the poor as employees that are crucial to their ability to lift
themselves out of poverty are: workforce development or improving employability; the quantity of
jobs available and rate of pay; and the quality of these jobs, especially in terms of labor rights,
occupational health and safety and opportunities for personal development.
Workforce development and training: This requires a range of activities from investments in skills
development and vocational training, to efforts to match these activities to evolving market needs and
employment opportunities. There are opportunities for governments and public and private training
institutes to work more effectively with major private sector employers and industry associations to
improve both the quality and market relevance of workforce development programs.
Quantity of work and wage rates: In its 2004 report Unleashing Entrepreneurship, the United Nations
Commission on the Private Sector and Development stated, “… for output growth to contribute to
poverty alleviation, it must translate into incomes of the poor. For wage labourers and salaried workers,
the quantity of employment and the rate of pay are crucial.”34 Even when people are employed they
often remain poor. As the International Labour Organisation (ILO) observes, “nearly half of the world’s
2.8 billion workers are unable to earn enough to lift themselves and their family members above the
US$2-a-day poverty line.” 35
Quality of work: Equally, many of the employed poor, even those working in the formal sector and
supply chains of major corporations, work under appalling conditions and face threats to their
personal health or safety. As such, another important factor in poverty alleviation is the quality of
employment. The implementation of fundamental labor principles and rights at work, for example,
are essential aspects of harnessing markets to alleviate poverty through employment as they help to
improve the quality and safety of working conditions, ensure fairer wages and empower workers. The
availability of workplace capability building and skills training is also an important aspect of

improving the quality of employment. The ILO, which is the only United Nations agency that is
governed on a tripartite basis with representatives of governments, employers and workers, has
developed the framework of ‘Decent Work’, which it describes as: “the aspirations of people in their
working lives – their aspirations for opportunity and income; rights, voice and recognition; family
stability and personal development; and fairness and gender equality.”36
A dedicated focus on both the quantity and quality of employment opportunities can help to create
the right balance between labor productivity and protection and between the economic contributions
made by the poor as paid employees and the economic opportunities they gain in return.
(iii) Including the poor as consumers

Inclusive business and markets can also play vital role in scaling and sustaining the development and
delivery of essential goods and services needed by the poor as consumers.
The poor, especially the rural poor, often lack reliable, convenient and/or affordable access to many
of the goods and services that are essential for meeting their basic needs – even the most basic survival
needs – improving their quality of life, enhancing their personal productivity, increasing their
household savings and other assets, and decreasing their vulnerability and strengthening their
resilience to deal with crisis. This includes access to food and nutrition, clean water and sanitation,
shelter, healthcare, energy, education, training, savings, credit and risk management financial services,
information, and transportation.
Two crucial aspects of more effectively including the poor as consumers, which are particularly
important in terms of enabling them to lift themselves out poverty are:
• Developing new products and services that directly target the needs of the poor
• Delivering existing goods and services more accessibly, affordably and reliably
Developing new products and services that directly target the needs of the poor: Innovation and
research and development in new technologies, processes and products can play a vital role in
improving development outcomes for the poor. In recent years some of the greatest and most
celebrated successes in poverty alleviation have been as a result of new information technologies,
innovation in the life-sciences and biotechnology in areas such as health, nutrition and agriculture,
and emerging clean or low-carbon technologies that have directly targeted unmet consumption needs
of the poor in ways that are affordable, scalable and sustainable. There remains enormous untapped
potential in this pathway out of poverty and a combination of public-private partnerships and
inclusive business and markets are needed to reach this potential.
Delivering existing goods and services more widely, accessibly, affordably and reliably: As
highlighted in almost every study looking at meeting the significant unmet consumption needs of
the poor, in far too many cases they pay a ‘poverty penalty’ – higher prices and costs for lower quality
and reliability.37 Even in the case of the most essential goods and services such as life-saving health
interventions and food security, governments may be unable or in some cases unwilling to provide
these to their citizens in a manner that is reliable, affordable and accessible. The poor often pay a

relatively large amount to access these services from formal and informal private sector providers or
must rely on charitable support from nonprofit and humanitarian relief organizations, which is
difficult to scale and sustain beyond periods of major humanitarian crisis. Research on healthcare in
sub-Saharan Africa by McKinsey and the IFC, for example, has shown that, “In spite of billions of
dollars in international aid dispensed, an astonishing 50 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa’s total health
expenditure is financed by out-of-pocket payments from its largely impoverished population.”38
Ongoing efforts are needed by governments and donors to improve market incentives and regulatory
environments that enable both for-profit and non-profit private sector actors to develop and deliver
products and services that respond to the significant unmet basic consumption needs of the poor.
Concerted efforts are also needed to strengthen public institutions and service delivery systems –
especially in the case of health, food security, energy, water and sanitation, and education. Partnering,
on both a commercial and pre-competitive basis with large corporations in the healthcare, food and
beverage, utilities, education, and information and communications technology sectors can play a
vital role helping to improve the public sector’s own capacity and capability to deliver these essential
goods and services.
At the same time, there are untapped opportunities to explore inclusive business models and market-
based solutions – either through large companies, or small commercial and social enterprises, for
directly helping to approve access, affordability and reliability. Engaging low-income consumers
directly to undertake local market research and community consultations and to provide direct input
into product and service delivery design is often a crucial factor in determining the success of these
models. Initiatives such as Cornell University’s ‘Base of the Pyramid’ learning laboratory and William
Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan have undertaken useful work in developing
protocols and toolkits in this area.
Market-based solutions led or supported by the private sector may not necessarily be the best
approach, and at all times accountability is essential. Yet, they should be explored more systematically
as a viable option that can both meet the needs of the poor and meet the profit and other motivations
of private enterprises.
Over time, efficient and inclusive markets also enable the poor to accumulate assets – the physical,
financial, natural, social and human capital that provides people and their communities with a
foundation on which to build longer-term wealth and resilience and to shift from a harsh battle for
daily survival to more sustained security and prosperity.
The quotes in Box 3 offer a snapshot from a few research studies that highlight the importance of
markets for the poor and the need to make them more inclusive.

BOX 3: Summarizing why markets matter for the poor
“
[There is] strong evidence that engaging the xpanding the role of markets is one of he value of including in functioning
poor as customers and suppliers presents an
exciting – and significant – opportunity to
E six pathways to success in developing-
country agriculture. While implementation
T markets the billions of people that are
now shut out of them can hardly be
establish new paradigms to bring genuine and results of market reforms have been overestimated. Such value will accrue to
social change in economically sustainable mixed, there are examples where these business, to the poor and to society at large.
ways. reforms and efficient supply chains have, Businesses can generate profits and create
Emerging Markets, Emerging Models: “played an important role in improving the the potential for long-term growth by
Market-based Solutions to the production incentives for farmers, increasing developing new markets, innovating with
Challenges of Global Poverty incomes from farming, and improving food new technologies, products, services and
Monitor Group, 2009 security.” processes; expanding the labor pool; and
Findings of a study of more than 300 market- MillionsFed: Proven Success in strengthening the supply chain. Poor people
based initiatives, mostly in India Agricultural Development can enter value chains at various points,
International Food Policy Research Institute, from producing the raw materials to
2009 consuming the end products. They benefit
ddressing the unmet needs of the Findings of a study of 20 proven successes, from better access to goods and services
A Base of the Pyramid (BOP) is essential to
raising welfare, productivity, and income –
drawn from more than 250 candidate case
studies
that meet basic needs and increase
productivity. They can also improve their
and to enabling BOP households to find their incomes and escape poverty using their own
own route out of poverty. Engaging the BOP means. Opportunities for creating mutual
in the formal economy must be a critical part arkets matter for the poor because value exist in many sectors, from agriculture
M
”
of any wealth-generating and inclusive poor people rely on formal and to manufacturing, from telecommunications
growth strategy. And eliminating BOP informal markets to sell their labor and to finance.
penalties will increase effective income for products, to finance investments, and to Creating Value for All: Strategies for
the BOP. Moreover, to the extent that unmet insure against risks. Well-functioning Doing Business with the Poor
needs, informality traps, and BOP penalties markets are important in generating growth Growing Inclusive Markets initiative, UNDP,
arise from inefficient or monopolistic and expanding opportunities for poor 2008
markets or from lack of attention and people. That is why market-friendly reforms Findings from a survey of over 400 inclusive
investment, addressing these barriers may have been promoted by international donors business models and 50 case studies
also create significant market opportunities and by developing country governments,
for businesses. especially those democratically elected.
The Next Four Billion: Market Size and But to develop markets and the institutions
Business Strategy at the Base of the that support them is difficult and takes time.
Pyramid …And even when markets work, societies
International Finance Corporation and World have to help poor people overcome the
Resources Institute, 2007 obstacles that prevent them from freely
Analysis of survey data from national and fairly participating in markets.
household surveys in 110 countries and an …The potential of reforms to improve
additional standardized set of surveys in 36 access to markets for poor people can be
countries on incomes, expenditures and access seen from examples in three areas: lifting the
to services. heavy hand of regulation, especially on the
small businesses that often provide the poor
with employment; promoting core labor
standards; and improving access to financial
markets for the poor.
World Development Report 2000-2001:
Attacking Poverty
The World Bank
Drawing on the findings of the Voices of the
Poor study that surveyed over 60,000 people in
some 60 countries

... these barriers increase the real and perceived risks and costs of building inclusive business models and markets
from the perspective of private entrepreneurs, companies and financiers, and they limit the incentives for these
IV. THE CHALLENGES OF BUILDING INCLUSIVE
private sector actors to intentionally engage the poor as producers, employees and consumers.
BUSINESS AND MARKETS

Markets matter. Yet, in far too many situations around the globe they are inefficient, inequitable and
inaccessible. They fail to work for the poor. In a world where the collaborative efforts of scientists,
entrepreneurs, financiers and governments have sent people into space, cracked the human genome
and led to the discovery and commercialization of a vast array of life-enhancing technologies, it is
unacceptable that there are still over 2 billion people who live in conditions of abject poverty struggling
to survive on less than $2 a day.
As outlined previously, the poor lack not only economic choice and assets, but all too often also
political voice and the capacity to organize collectively in order to increase bargaining power. In many
countries they are disproportionately young people and children under the age of 25 and/or women
and minority groups. Their circumstances have been further undermined in recent years by the
combination of global economic crisis, food and fuel price hikes, ongoing conflict and weak
governance in some countries and the early impacts of climate change in others.
Beyond the avoidable loss of life that results from such circumstances, perhaps the greatest tragedy of
this situation is that the creative and intellectual potential of much of the world’s population remains
untapped and unable to contribute towards global prosperity and wellbeing. As former US President
Bill Clinton has commented:
“…all over the world, intelligence and energy are evenly distributed, but opportunity,
investment and effective organizations are not. As a result billions of people are denied
the chance to live their lives to the fullest, and millions die needlessly every year.”39
In short, several billion men, women and children continue to live in extreme poverty often through
little fault of their own, but because of a combination of organizational, market and governance
barriers. These barriers make it difficult for the poor to enter formal markets as producers and
employees, and to access affordable and reliable products and services as consumers. At the same
time, many of the same broad barriers make it difficult for private sector enterprises to build inclusive
business models and markets that include the poor as producers, employees or consumers.
The combination of these barriers, their specific manifestation and their materiality differ for
different countries, industries, markets and market segments, but they include the following:
• Organizational barriers: These relate mostly to companies and other private sector actors
wanting to build inclusive business models. They include obstacles such as inadequate
organizational structure and capacity; lack of leadership vision or support for new approaches;
traditional mindsets and culture; inadequate skills, competencies and knowledge of relevant staff;
lack of dedicated staff time and resources; and lack of metrics, evaluation approaches, and
inappropriate performance rewards or lack of internal incentives for social innovation and risk-
taking.
• Market barriers: These relate to both the companies and other private sector actors trying to
build inclusive business models and to the poor trying to enter formal markets as producers,
employees and consumers. They include challenges such as lack of access to appropriate and
affordable finance (both business finance and consumer finance); lack of relevant market

information, knowledge and price signals; misperceptions of risks and lack of risk management
options; inadequate institutional and physical infrastructure; lack of access to relevant technology;
and lack of a supportive business or market enabling environment (including laws and regulations
covering
• Governance Barriers: These relate to both private sector actors trying to build inclusive business
models and to the poor trying to enter formal markets. They include bad governance,
characterized by corruption, conflict, cronyism and lack of political rights, which make it difficult
even for the largest companies to operate but often penalize the poor to a far greater extent. Weak
governance is another barrier, characterized by poor administrative capacity and weak public
institutions. Other public policies and regulations do not serve the poor because they are either
unfair, uncertain or uncoordinated.
Given the range and extent of these organizational, market and governance failures the poor find it
difficult to enter formal markets. For example:
• The poor as producers face numerous, and well documented barriers to entering the formal
economy as entrepreneurs, farmers and small or micro business owners. These include
inhospitable macro environments at both the national and global level, lack of institutional and
physical infrastructure, weak rule of law, limited access to legal rights and a level playing field, and
lack of access to financing, skills, knowledge, technology and market information.
• The poor as potential employees often lack access to the education, training, workforce
development services and labor market information that is needed to prepare for and find decent
work. Once in work, even in formal sector jobs, they often lack knowledge of their labor rights,
opportunities for personal development and training, and capability to organize in order to
improve both their productivity and their protection.
• The poor as consumers have to manage both low and fluctuating incomes and cash flows,
exacerbated by lack of access to consumer finance such as credit, savings and insurance products.
Many are illiterate and don’t have sufficient information or knowledge about the products and
purchasing options available to them. They are often physically far removed from convenient
outlets to purchase or receive essential products and services.
In summary, these barriers increase the real and perceived risks and costs of building inclusive
business models and markets from the perspective of private entrepreneurs, companies and
financiers, and they limit the incentives for these private sector actors to intentionally engage the poor
as producers, employees and consumers. This in turns makes it difficult and costly, if not impossible,
for the poor to access formal markets as producers, employees and consumers.
Clearly, organizational, market and governance barriers exist in most industries and countries,
developed as well as developing. The Ford Foundation’s eight-year Corporate Involvement Initiative,
for example, which aimed to leverage American business and markets for low-income people

primarily in the United States identified many of the same barriers as those outlined in this report.40
Not surprisingly, however, such barriers are particularly challenging in developing economies where
institutions are often less developed, information is inadequate, other market signals and incentives
are unclear or non-existent, capital is limited and expensive, transaction costs are high, and risks,
both real and perceived, tend to be higher. In such situations markets don’t work well in the first
place, let alone for the poor, making it particularly challenging to build more inclusive business
models and markets that directly include the poor. This is especially the case in many low-income
urban and rural communities – the ‘base of the pyramid’ markets in these countries.
The IFC, Harvard Kennedy School and International Business Leaders Forum conclude in their
2008 report, Supporting Entrepreneurship at the Base of the Pyramid through Business Linkages, “At the
Base of the Pyramid (BoP), market systems are broken. They cannot be taken for granted, as they
often are at the top of the pyramid. Companies have to think proactively about the systems in which
their BoP suppliers, distributors, and customers are embedded and often take action to make them
work better. As Monitor Institute puts it, they have to ‘organize the entire value chain end-to-end.’”41
That is a significant undertaking that is unlikely to make sense for many companies on their own,
without support and coordination from other companies, governments, foundations, investors and
Former USAID Administrator Henrietta Holsman Fore notes, “Poverty is a problem in itself, but it
is also a symptom. It is a symptom of broken relationships. Ending poverty through sustainable
economic growth requires investment in technologies, capital and markets. It also requires stronger
relationships between governments and governed. Governmental reforms to regulation that support
private sector activity have greater success when the reforms come out of a dialogue between the
government and the private sector, between management and labor, between business and its
stakeholders.” 42
None of these barriers are insurmountable, but overcoming them requires creativity, collaboration,
and long-term commitment. Such approaches require political and social interventions, as well as
economic solutions. They require capacity building and concerted efforts at field-building and clear
incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship. And they call for leadership from all development
actors, most notably governments, bilateral and multilateral donors, development finance
institutions, philanthropic foundations, academic institutions and think tanks, non-governmental
organizations, and key private sector actors, such as large corporations, high-impact commercial and
social entrepreneurs, and private financiers.
Part Two of the report focuses on the leadership role of key private sector actors in overcoming these
barriers and in identifying opportunities for implementing innovative technologies, business models
and value chain approaches in the context of low-income markets. Part Three outlines some of the
ways in which other development actors can enhance and support the private sector contribution and
help to make markets work better for the poor.

PART TWO
Mobilizing Private Sector Leadership
There are many ways to segment the private sector – by industry, by firm size, by role played within
specific value chains, and so forth. Regardless of segmentation, large corporations, ‘high-impact’
entrepreneurs and private financiers are three groups of private sector actor that play an essential
catalytic, innovation and scaling role in building more inclusive business models and creating local
wealth in developing countries. The following chapter illustrates ten broad ways in which these
private sector actors can play a leadership role. While private enterprises are at the heart of each of
these modalities of engagement, their effectiveness, scale and sustainability can often be
enhanced through interventions by other development actors and by new models of collaborative
action as outlined in Parts Three and Four.
I. LARGE CORPORATIONS
1. Leveraging core business operations and value chains
2. Enhancing corporate philanthropy, volunteering and social investment
3. Participating in public policy and advocacy
II. ‘HIGH-IMPACT’ ENTREPRENEURS

1. Targeting local ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs
2. Scaling social entrepreneurs
3. Empowering social intrapreneurs
III. PRIVATE FINANCIERS

1. Delivering microfinance services to the poor
2. Funding small and growing businesses
3. Investing in emerging corporate ‘champions’
4. Leveraging additional private finance for development

“ Business is a powerful and unique instrument of development. As Adam Smith and Montesquieu understood,
the ordinary conduct of commerce – of turning a profit – creates not only economic value, but social value as
well. Without business, progress is not possible. It is also clear, however, that progress remains elusive in much
of the world. And as the global population continues to grow, and competition for resources intensifies, the
basic challenge of development will continue to increase. Against this backdrop, the 2015 deadline for
achieving the Millennium Development Goals somehow seems both overly optimistic and not nearly
ambitious enough. …To be sure, one of the essential first conditions for development – free trade and open
markets – has always required a level of cooperation between businesses and governments. Even so, a
generation ago, economic opportunity, health care, environmental protections, and other basic issues of
global development almost surely would have been considered matters for governments to address alone.
No longer. These issues are now the shared responsibility of government, civil society and business.
And in each of these sectors, it requires leaders to come forward and shoulder the responsibility to
ensure that action is taken and progress sustained.
Neville Isdell
Chairman, International Business Leaders Forum
Making Change, IBLF Annual Review
2008
…A new imperative for business, best described as “global corporate citizenship,” must be recognized.
It expresses the conviction that companies not only must be engaged with their stakeholders but are
themselves stakeholders alongside governments and civil society. International business leaders must fully
commit to sustainable development and address paramount global challenges, including climate change, the
provision of public health care, energy conservation, and the management of resources, particularly water.
Because these global issues increasingly impact business, not to engage with them can hurt the bottom line.
Because global citizenship is in a corporation’s enlightened self-interest, it is sustainable.”
Klaus Schwab
Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum
Foreign Affairs
January/February 2008, Volume 87

The impact of large domestic and foreign corporations on poverty alleviation and development varies
widely. It is driven by factors such as the company’s industry sector, its size, business model, ownership
structure, values and leadership. It is strongly influenced by local contextual and situational conditions,
especially the capacity of other public and private actors. And it depends on the type of development
interventions needed – whether increasing access to jobs, markets, technology, energy, water, health,
housing and education, strengthening local institutions and infrastructure or improving accountability
and public capacity.
The motivations and drivers for corporate engagement in these activities also vary across industry
sectors and on a company-by-company basis. In most cases they include some combination of
harnessing business opportunities to create new value, managing risk to protect existing value, and
adhering to corporate culture and values. Some key business drivers and motivations are summarized
in Box 1.
Regardless of this diversity, over the past decade the following trends have been gathering momentum
in determining how leading corporations manage their role in development and in society more
generally:
• Engaging the core business: There has been a fundamental shift beyond traditional corporate
philanthropy and compliance to more strategic approaches that integrate social, environmental
and human rights issues into the core operations of the business. These are being integrated from
both a risk management and accountability perspective, and from a business opportunity and
innovation perspective. This is a shift that has long been advocated, but is now manifesting in a
meaningful way in many leading corporations and extending along their entire value chains.
• Increasing non-financial reporting and accountability: A shift is also occurring towards

reporting publicly on environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance in addition to
financial results. Corporations are also engaging more systematically with a greater number and
variety of stakeholders using mechanisms that range from stakeholder advisory and review panels
to new social media.
• Making philanthropy more strategic: Companies are moving towards more performance-driven
approaches to their philanthropic and volunteering activities. This shift aims to achieve greater
impact for philanthropic dollars and hours spent by harnessing core corporate competencies and
aligning philanthropy, volunteering and community engagement more clearly with the company’s
corporate strategy and competitive context.
• Setting voluntary industry standards: While legal compliance remains essential and a challenge
in many countries, and sometimes because of this challenge, leading companies are working
collectively to establish voluntary industry standards in areas such as anti-corruption, human and
labor rights, and environmental impact.

• Building collaborative alliances: Leading companies are engaging not only in project-based and
more transactional partnerships with business partners and non-traditional partners such as
NGOs and development agencies, but are also engaging in more complex industry-wide or multi-
stakeholder alliances aimed at achieving broader systemic impact and transformation and tackling
complex problems. These will be explored in more detail in Part Four.
These trends all have important implications for the way that corporations engage in poverty
alleviation and development. Almost all large companies – whether domestic or foreign – have the
potential to make a contribution to poverty alleviation, or at a minimum to avoid causing or
exacerbating poverty, through the following three areas of business action:1
1. Core business operations and value chains
2. Corporate philanthropy, volunteering and social investment
3. Public policy dialogue and advocacy
The following section offers brief examples of how some major domestic and foreign companies
operating across a variety of industries and countries are taking practical action in each of these areas
to build more inclusive business models and to proactively support poverty alleviation and
development.

BOX 1: The case for corporate engagement in poverty alleviation and development
Driving Developing economies are an increasingly important source of new business opportunity and innovation. More than 75
innovation, percent of the world’s population lives in these countries, many are rich in natural resources, and over the past decade these
new business markets have started to account for a growing percentage of the world economy, currently an estimated 40 percent
opportunities adjusting for power purchasing parity. They offer companies opportunities to reach new customer segments and to develop
and revenue new products, services, technologies and business models that profitably serve untapped markets and solve development
growth and environmental challenges. In addition to reaching base of the pyramid markets, there is growing opportunity and
incentives to invest in low-carbon growth and resilience. In some cases there is an immediate commercially viable business
opportunity in these new markets, but often partnerships with governments, donors, social enterprises and impact investors
can help to speed innovation and impact.
Managing risks Developing countries often pose high costs and risks for business. These may stem from weak governance, inadequate
and costs infrastructure, health and education systems, poor working conditions and human rights challenges, corruption, political
instability, insecurity, water scarcity and environmental degradation, and high staff turnover and low productivity due to
infectious and tropical diseases in certain locations. These can increase operating costs, raw material costs, hiring, training
and personnel expenses, security costs, insurance needs and the cost of capital. They can also create a variety of
operational, financial, political, regulatory and reputation risks. The companies that proactively identify and manage
these challenges can improve their management of risk and reputation, reduce their costs and enhance their resource
efficiency. This usually requires them to play a more proactive role in working with government, engaging with local
communities and activist organizations, improving supply chain management and going beyond traditional business
boundaries to solve problems.
Improving Most corporations benefit from operating in stable and secure environments. They benefit from having access to a
the enabling healthy and competent workforce, consumers who can afford their goods and services, and local investors. They benefit
environment from open, rules-based and predictable regulatory and financial systems, and a non-corrupt and well-governed economy.
So, in addition to directly managing risks along their own supply chains, many companies see value in engaging in
broader efforts often collectively with other companies or in partnership with the public sector to improve the enabling
environment.
Responding to In a number of cases both developed and developing country governments are implementing policies and regulations
regulation requiring large corporations to meet higher social and environmental standards and /or to serve specific low-income
markets. In addition, public sector procurement policies are increasingly factoring these requirements into tender
processes. International financial institutions, export-import banks and other public sector providers of finance for private
sector entities are doing likewise.
Recruiting, The best talent is increasingly motivated to work for companies that offer not only good career prospects and financial
motivating, opportunities, but also have a good reputation and are seen as active corporate citizens, both within the local
retaining and communities where they are hiring and on a global basis depending on the industry. This can have implications for
developing employee moral, motivation and in some cases efficiency. It can also be important from a talent management and
employees leadership development perspective. Giving people opportunities to address development challenges, work across
geographic, sector or functional boundaries, and use their core competencies on a volunteer basis, can help to retain the
best talent. It can also help to develop the kind of cross-boundary leadership skills and creative thinking that are
necessary for individual and institutional success in the complex, knowledge-based global economy.
Improving Good public relations and reputation are important corporate assets, especially for companies with valuable consumer
reputation and brands. If engagement in poverty alleviation and development projects can help to enhance these brands, or at a
brand equity minimum protect them, it is an investment well worth making for these companies.
A moral and There are particular situations, such as responding to a humanitarian crisis, where a company’s values and that of its
humanitarian employees are the major motivator for active engagement – with no intent to gain business benefit or manage business
imperative risks. For companies operating in countries with high levels of poverty this moral ‘citizenship’ or humanitarian imperative
is often a daily reality of operating there.

BOX 2: The corporate contribution to development
LEVERAGING CORE BUSINESS

OPERATIONS AND VALUE CHAINS
PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC POLICY DIALOGUE,
Optimize the development impact of
ADVOCACY AND INSTITUTION BUILDING existing business operations
• Tackle corruption and promote good governance • Create decent jobs
• Strengthen public institutions and administrative capacity • Produce safe and reliable products
• Contribute to national development plans and poverty and services
alleviation strategies • Generate local investment, income
and taxes
• Advocate for pro-development policy reform • Invest in human capital and
workforce development
• Support local enterprise
development
• Transfer technology
• Implement global standards
and business practices
• Build institutional and physical
infrastructure
Promote responsible business

standards and accountability
• Comply with national and
international laws and regulations
CORE BUSINESS OPERATIONS
• Support voluntary principles,
AND VALUE CHAINS
codes and standards
• Spread international good practices
along supply chains
• Engage systematically with
CO
key stakeholders
G
PO
IN
R
RA ER • Report publicly on environmental,

TE TE
PH UN
IL A N
T H R O PY A N D VOL social and governance (ESG)
PO performance
LIC
Y DI CY
ALOGUE OC A
AN D A DV
Innovate to serve the poor through
commercial business models
• Develop direct business linkages
ENHANCING CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY, with small and micro-enterprises
VOLUNTEERING AND COMMUNITY SOCIAL INVESTMENT • Gear product development and
delivery to meet essential
• Align core competencies with specific development goals: consumption needs
• Mobilize skilled volunteers for development projects • Share intermediary platforms and
• Crowd-source solutions through online platforms networks to expand reach
• Invest in pro-poor science and
• Seed-fund innovation and entrepreneurship
technology research
• Strengthen the capacity of local leaders and institutions • Converge solutions to poverty
• Connect humanitarian relief with long-term recovery alleviation and climate change
and resilience • Harness consumer spending in
• Fund research, public awareness and advocacy wealthy markets
for development
Source: Adapted from Nelson, Jane. Business as Partners in Development: Building wealth for countries, companies and communities. New York: The World Bank, UNDP
and IBLF, 1996; Nelson, Jane. Building Partnerships: Cooperation between the United Nations system and the private sector. New York: United Nations, 2000.

1. Leveraging core business operations and value chains
Far and away the greatest, most sustained contribution that companies make to poverty alleviation
and development is to invest and to carry out their core business operations in a profitable, inclusive
and responsible manner.
In the vast majority of cases local private sector development, sometimes supported by foreign direct
investment and portfolio flows, is the foundation of economic growth and wealth creation in
developing countries and communities. Both directly and indirectly, private enterprise usually results
in beneficial development multipliers and serves as a positive driver of social progress as well as
economic opportunity. There is not always a ‘trickle-down’ effect, however, in terms of alleviating
poverty and including the poor more directly in formal markets. Leading companies are going a step
further to proactively and systematically optimize the positive development multipliers and minimize
negative impacts from their core business operations and value chains, while also looking for ways to
innovate that explicitly include the poor as producers, employees and consumers in these operations.
Core business operations include the company’s corporate governance and its investments, activities
and relationships in the workplace, the marketplace, along its value chain and through its wider
business ecosystem. Leveraging the company’s core business operations and value chains offers the
best opportunity to create a mutually reinforcing combination of shareholder value and social value
for the company and the countries and communities in which it operates – what Michael Porter and
Mark Kramer have called ‘shared value’.2
Three important dimensions to consider when looking at opportunities to leverage core business
operations to create business value and development impact are as follows:
i) Optimize the development impact of existing business operations – understanding, managing

and wherever possible enhancing the positive multiplier effects or ‘development footprint’ of the
company’s existing business operations and minimizing negative impacts.
ii) Promote responsible business standards and accountability – complying with national laws;
supporting voluntary industry standards; spreading international norms, standards and good
practices along global supply chains in areas such as corporate governance, ethics, anti-corruption,
product safety, quality management, environment, labor and human rights; managing carbon and
water footprints; undertaking social and environmental impact assessments for new projects and
investment; reporting publicly on non-financial performance; and engaging proactively with
stakeholders around key development challenges.
iii) Innovate to directly serve the poor through commercial business models – explicitly
mobilizing corporate resources, assets and networks to create livelihood opportunities through
employment and entrepreneurship, and to develop and deliver essential goods and services for the
poor as producers, employees and consumers. This modality of engagement lies at the core of the
concept of inclusive business and inclusive markets.

(i) Optimize the development impact of existing business operations
Directly and indirectly, every company has an impact on development through its regular, day-to-day
business activities and the multiplier effects they engender. Box 2 summarizes eight development
multipliers that are relevant for large companies in most industry sectors.
Remarkably few companies measure, understand or tell a holistic story about their contributions to
and impacts on development through their existing day-to-day business operations. As the Overseas
Development Institute (ODI) noted in a 2009 paper, “We know surprisingly little about the impact
of companies, particularly any specific company, on people and economies in developing countries.”3
South African development expert, Ann Bernstein, states in her book, The Case for Business in
Developing Countries, “Examining the remarkable contribution of successful companies to
innovation, wealth creation, employment, training and numerous other societal benefits helps to
underline the vital importance of private firms, which are at the heart of the development process. In
addition to these visible and slightly better known – although much too little talked about – aspects
of corporate social contribution, [there is] a further dimension, that of a company’s indirect impact
or ‘invisible corporate citizenship’. This phenomenon concerns the unintended, unexpected positive
spin-offs from successful companies. Through their everyday activities, business have a revolutionary
impact on people and places, inadvertently acting as ‘beachheads’ for democracy, human rights, the
rule of law, greater opportunities for women and other disadvantaged sections of particular
societies.”4
Clearly, the development impact of doing everyday business can also be negative for host countries
and communities. Even well intended interventions and investments by large companies can
exacerbate poverty and increase environmental degradation, human rights abuses or conflict,
especially in the case of large-scale infrastructure projects and/or in politically or environmentally
fragile locations where governance is weak. Much has been written, for example, about the ‘resource-
curse’ in weakly governed countries or regions that are rich in natural resources, but where the
exploitation of these resources has undermined rather than enhanced the development prospects of
citizens.5 Likewise, there has been extensive analysis of abusive working conditions, both real and
perceived, along the global supply chains of certain multinational manufacturing and agribusiness
companies.6
Understanding the development impacts and contributions of its existing business activities, both
positive and negative, should be the first step for any corporation interested in more effectively
leveraging its core business operations and value chains to support poverty alleviation and
development. Every industry and every large corporation can identify and assess the key types of
positive multipliers and the most material risks along its value chain, what can be termed as the
company’s ‘development footprint’. Doing so gives the company the data and the insight needed to
manage its ‘development footprint’ more deliberately in the future – both to avoid risks and
unintended negative consequences and to optimize the benefits for host countries and communities.

BOX 3: Potential development multipliers from ‘everyday’ core business operations
CREATING JOBS: GENERATING SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTING GLOBAL
1 Companies can support

national and local
employment generation by:
3 INVESTMENT, INCOME
AND TAXES:
Companies can inject cash into
5 ENTERPRISE
DEVELOPMENT AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
7 STANDARDS AND
BUSINESS PRACTICES:
Companies can play a vital role
creating jobs at all levels of local, regional and national Companies can support local in implementing internationally
operations and management economies and increase capital business development and accepted standards and
for local employees; supporting investment by: paying local entrepreneurship through business practices along their
indirect local job creation along taxes and royalties to host backward and forward business supply chains and through
local and global value chains; governments; wages to local linkages along their value strengthening national and
proactively employing women employees; timely payments to chains especially with medium, local institutions in areas such
and minorities where possible; suppliers; grants, donations or small and micro-enterprises as: corporate governance;
aiming to minimize the social investments to local and accompanied by support in ethics and anti-corruption;
economic and social costs community initiatives; terms of financing, business quality management, process
associated with corporate reinvesting back in the local development services and efficiencies and logistics
restructuring, down-sizing and business for future growth; skills development. systems; health, safety,
other major change. earning foreign exchange. environment and product
safety; gender and ethnic
TRANSFERRING diversity; and labor and
2
PRODUCING PRODUCTS
AND SERVICES:
All companies produce
INVESTING IN HUMAN
4
CAPITAL AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT:
TECHNOLOGY:
6
Companies can transfer
valuable technologies and
human rights.
goods and services for end-use Companies can support human technical skills to local business BUILDING PHYSICAL
or intermediary customers.
They can ensure more
beneficial local impacts by:
capital development through: partners and host countries.
training and skills development This can include: locating
for direct employees; training research and development
8 AND INSTITUTIONAL
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Large companies operating
investing in product quality and and skills development for joint facilities in developing individually or collectively
safety; adapting existing brands venture partners, local countries; implementing can play a valuable role in
or developing new brands that contractors and suppliers, technologies for cleaner contributing to the building
meet local needs, tastes and and other local entities and safer production and and maintenance of both
cultures; ensuring affordability in the company’s ecosystem; distribution; researching physical infrastructure
and access in the case of basic implementing occupational and carrying out due diligence (transportation, communications,
or essential goods and services; health and safety programs for on potential negative energy, irrigation, water and
understanding and managing employees and contractors; consequences of new sanitation, housing etc) and
the full product-life cycle from tackling specific disease burdens technologies; supporting institutional infrastructure
sourcing to manufacturing, or risks such as HIV/AIDS, local technology innovation. (legal, financial and accounting
marketing, distribution and malaria, TB, road safety through systems, local chambers of
product end-use and disposal, workplace-based programs; commerce etc).
and encouraging reduction, investing in research, training
recycling and reuse of key and education in local schools
nonrenewable materials. and universities.
Sources: Nelson, Jane. Economic Multipliers: Revisiting the core responsibility and contribution of business to development. International Business Leaders Forum, 2003.
Nelson, Jane. Business as Partners in Development: Creating Wealth for countries, companies and communities. IBLF, the World Bank and UNDP, 1996. Page 96.

This is starting to happen. Academics, business networks, NGOs, and companies themselves are
developing a variety of measurement and reporting tools to better assess corporate impact on poverty
and development. This is partly a response to growing stakeholder demand – from campaigners,
shareholder activists, local communities, host governments and donor agencies. And it is partly
organic, driven by companies themselves in order to improve the quality of data and decision-making
around increasingly complex development issues relevant to risk management and business success.
Measurement tools vary in methodology, scope, and objectives. Methodologically, some tools use
company data, country statistics, and sophisticated econometric models to calculate results. Other
tools incorporate primary data collection at the local level. With regard to scope, some measurement
tools are macro level, focusing for example on a company’s contribution to national GDP or
employment statistics, while others focus on value chains or specific interventions along value chains.
Still others focus on particular sets of indicators, in accordance with corporate performance goals or
commonly accepted frameworks such as the UN Global Compact’s Ten Principles (in the areas of
environment, human rights, labor and anti-corruption) or the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). Finally, the objectives for which a particular tool is suited depend on the nature of the data
it generates. A given tool may be most appropriate for communication, for opportunity
identification and decision-making, or for comparison and compliance, or a combination of the
three.7
Four initiatives focused on measuring and better understanding and managing a company’s
development impact are profiled below. The first and second are being led by the corporate sector,
the third is being developed by a development NGO, and the fourth by an academic institution.
Box 4 captures some ‘headline’ findings from two publicly released ‘development footprint’ studies
of Unilever and SABMiller.
The International Council of Mining and Metals has developed a toolkit to enable mining
companies and their stakeholders to analyze the social and economic contribution of the mining
sector. To-date it is one of the most comprehensive and ambitious undertakings of its kind and has
been extensively field-tested and negotiated over a period of some 8 years. While developed by and
for the mining sector, this toolkit is likely to have relevance and applicability to other large
corporations with a physical presence or operations in developing countries.8
Entitled, “Mining: Partnerships for Development”, the toolkit builds on an earlier community
development framework that was developed by ICMM in cooperation with the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Bank Group. The pilot toolkit
was launched in 2005 and has been extensively tested by mining companies and development experts
in a variety of locations and circumstances. The toolkit also draws on research findings and
consultations undertaken through a multi-year and externally peer-reviewed ‘Resource Endowment
Initiative’. This initiative focused on addressing some of the key challenges associated with the so-
called ‘resource curse’ of extractive industries in developing countries and made practical
recommendations for the mining sector, governments, donors and communities on ways to optimize

BOX 4: Examples of two development footprint studies
“Exploring the Links between “Exploring the Links between International Business and Poverty Reduction:
International Business and Poverty A Case Study of Unilever in Indonesia”
Reduction: A Case Study of Unilever in This study was conducted by the development approximately 90 additional jobs were
Indonesia” and “The Socio-Economic NGO Oxfam and Unilever, with support from created along the value chain, resulting in
Impact of Nile Breweries in Uganda” both international offices and on-the- the full-time equivalent of some 300,000
are two development footprint ground engagement and people earning a living from Unilever’s
studies that have been publicly learning through their operations. An estimated 1.8 million small
local country offices. The businesses and street vendors were identified
released by the companies and
study looked at Unilever in the company’s distribution and retail
researchers involved.
Indonesia’s entire business operations, accounting for over half the
They look at different
and value chain and found direct and indirect jobs created. The company
companies in different countries that for every direct job generated US$633 million in gross margins
and different industries, created within the company, along the value chain in 2003.
and were conducted by
different actors using “The Socio-Economic Impact of Nile Breweries in Uganda”
different methodologies.
This study was conducted by a Breweries provides comprehensive benefits,
But they both show just
business school professor, Ethan including medical care covering access
how significant the
Kapstein from Insead, together to HIV/AIDS prevention, counseling and
economic multipliers and
with two consultants on treatment among other services, a private
impacts of a company’s
behalf of SABMiller, the pension scheme and extensive training for
day-to-day operations can be. parent company of Nile workers – equal to nearly 1 percent of
Breweries. The study looked at the turnover in 2007. Spending on corporate
company’s broad economic, social, and social investment amounts to nearly
environmental impacts in Uganda and found 1 percent of pre-tax profits.
that in 2007 for every job created within
the company, an additional 100 jobs were NB’S DIRECT 0R ‘FIRST-ROUND’ IMPACT
created directly and indirectly through The effects of NB’s operations in terms of the
number of jobs it creates, its investments in
the value chain, mostly for workers
plant and equipment, its turnover, and taxes
in the distribution and retail sector. paid, and its economic effects on its distributors
Local smallholder farmers also benefited and retailers.
through livelihoods and income generation +

as a result of the company’s commitment to
NB’S INDIRECT 0R ‘SECOND-ROUND’
use locally produced sorghum and barley for IMPACT
its beer production. The company generated The effects of NB’s expenditures on its suppliers
and its suppliers’ suppliers.
US$92 million in value added in 2007. The
direct, indirect and induced effects of the +
company’s operations on government tax NB’S INDUCED 0R ‘THIRD-ROUND’ IMPACT
The effects generated by the consumption
revenues totaled some US$ 55 million,
decisions of NB, its suppliers’, and its suppliers’
making it the fourth largest tax payer in suppliers’ employees.
Uganda, and as the researchers commented,
“a fact made all the more significant when =
one considers that much of the country’s
NB’S TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT
economic activity remains in the informal or ON THE UGANDAN ECONOMY
non-taxpaying sector.” As an employer, Nile
Sources: Clay, Jason (2005). Exploring the Links between International Business and Poverty Reduction: A Case Study of Unilever in Indonesia. London: Oxfam GB, Novib Oxfam
Netherlands, and Unilever. Kapstein, Ethan, René Kim, and Willem Ruster (2009). The Socio-Economic Impact of Nile Breweries in Uganda and Cervecería Hondureña in Honduras.

the positive development multipliers and mitigate negative impacts from mining activities. In-
country consultations and projects were also undertaken in Chile, Ghana, Peru and Tanzania to test
different approaches and models.
The resulting toolkit proposes a detailed eight stage process, which is designed to be both
comprehensive and contextual in terms of covering macro/ country level and local/ project-level
conditions and impacts, but also modular so that different stages can be developed independently of
each other. The toolkit also provides a variety of practical measurement tools, partnership tools and
process tools (such as how to organize workshops and community consultations). The eight stage
process is summarized below:
Stage One: Description of country context (economic performance, political stability, governance,
dependence on mining, poverty and human development indicators)
Stage Two: Profile of mining operations and social and economic performance across six priority themes – mining
and poverty reduction; mining and economic development (revenue management); mining and
economic development (regional development planning); mining and economic development (local
content); mining and social investment; and mining and dispute resolution.
Stage Three: Measuring economic and social outcomes at the national level
Stage Four: Assessing proximate influences that shape outcomes at the national level
(quality of governance and macroeconomic management)
Stage Five: Detailed assessment of project level impacts (employment, procurement,
training, social and infrastructure provision, net impact)
Stage Six: Macroeconomic impacts and full lifecycle approach (production, gross domestic product,
government revenues, balance of payments, employment).
Stage Seven: Assessing the broader impact of mining on governance, institutions and policies
Stage Eight: Presenting and disseminating findings
Source: ICMM
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Measuring Impact Framework was
developed primarily for decision-making purposes over the course of two years’ consultation with
companies and other stakeholders. It is flexible in scope, customizable to the company’s business
issues and decision-making needs, and any number of measurement methodologies may be applied
within the framework to generate and analyze data. The Framework consists of four steps:
• set boundaries;
• measure direct and indirect impacts;
• assess contribution to development; and
• prioritize management response.9
The framework was developed in collaboration with over 20 WBCSD member companies from a
variety of industry sectors. It was reviewed by 15 external experts and co-branded by the
International Finance Corporation (IFC). At least 15 companies from a variety of industry sectors
have used the Framework since it was released in 2008 and several have shared their experience
publicly via case studies on WBCSD’s website.10

Oxfam’s Poverty Footprint methodology offers another tool for measuring a company’s
development impact. The Poverty Footprint can be applied at different levels of analysis, from the
value chain for a particular product to the entire operation of a company in a given country. To
enhance the credibility of the findings, the tool stipulates that the research be done by an
independent third party jointly supported by the company and a development NGO. Five major
research areas are covered:
• Macro economy;
• Institutions and policy;
• Product development and marketing;
• Value chain analysis; and
• Social implications of environmental practices.11
The Base of the Pyramid (BOP) Impact Assessment Framework developed by the University of
Michigan’s Ted London offers a third tool. In contrast with WBCSD’s Measuring Impact Framework,
which is flexible in scope, and Oxfam’s Poverty Footprint, which is usually applied at the national,
regional, or value chain level, the BOP Impact Assessment Framework is designed to capture the
impact of a particular initiative or intervention – usually a specific business model offering goods,
services, or livelihoods to those at the base of the pyramid, as the tool’s name implies. The tool covers
the impact of the business on local consumers, producers, and communities along three key
dimensions: their economics, their capabilities, and their relationships.12
Companies are often wary of the time and cost involved in measuring their development footprints.
Certainly these are important considerations when selecting measurement tools – but they should
not deter the exercise of better understanding and evaluating the company’s development impacts.
Many tools are flexible in terms of scope and methodology and can accommodate different budgets
and time horizons. Even more fundamentally, many tools go beyond communications and
compliance, generating information that can inform corporate decision-making and influence the
bottom-line. As Ted London stresses, in this sense, “measurement should be considered an
investment in learning and continuous improvement – not a cost center”.13

(ii) Promote responsible business standards and accountability
Once corporations understand their ‘development footprint’ – and the main areas where their core
business operations make a contribution or pose a risk to development – they can take action to
leverage these operations in a way that creates greater business value and development impact, over
and above the positive multipliers that result from their existing operations.
One crucial set of actions is the implementation of policies and practices to minimize negative
development impacts and to proactively manage the company’s non-financial performance and
accountability to owners and other stakeholders. In particular, companies must ensure that their
business operations and value chains do not exacerbate poverty directly or cause corruption, human
rights, labor or environmental abuses that undermine opportunity or security for the poor.
Large corporations increasingly recognize the following five components of responsible business
performance and accountability as being an essential foundation to ensuring and sustaining a positive
development impact:
• Comply with national and international laws and regulations
• Support voluntary industry principles, codes and standards
• Spread international good practices along supply chains
• Engage systematically with key stakeholders
• Report publicly on environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.
All these aspects of promoting responsible business standards and accountability have been covered
extensively in numerous other reports, case studies and initiatives.14 The following provides a very
brief overview and a few illustrative examples.
■ Comply with national and international laws and regulations

Adhering to national and international laws and regulations is the minimum standard of corporate
responsibility in developed and developing countries alike. But just because it is a basic obligation
does not mean it is an easy one. Laws and regulations vary markedly both between and within
countries. For companies operating in over 100 countries and often thousands of legal jurisdictions
if one takes into account regional, state and municipal laws, remaining compliant on a raft of
corporate governance, labor, health and safety, human rights and environmental laws is a substantial
undertaking.
Legal compliance can be especially challenging in countries characterized by weak governance, in

particular fragile and conflict-affected states, but also where governments lack either the
administrative capacity or the political will to monitor compliance at the factory or farm level. In
such cases the poor are often particularly vulnerable to abuses and lack of access to judicial and other
grievance mechanisms. Global companies, especially those with a large physical footprint in such
situations such as extractive, infrastructure, agribusiness, forestry and large-scale manufacturing
companies, are increasingly under the spotlight to demonstrate that they are not directly responsible
for or complicit with abuses of human rights, poor labor, health and safety standards, corruption or
environmental damage. To address this challenge of ensuring they and their business partners are

legally compliant, some companies are taking action beyond their own business operations to
proactively work with governments and other development actors, both on an individual basis and
collectively, to help strengthen national legal institutions, regulatory capacity and rule of law.
■ Support voluntary industry principles, codes and standards

Legal compliance alone does not ensure that the company has a positive impact either on society in
general or the poor in particular, especially in situations of weak governance. As a result, many
leading companies have moved “beyond legal compliance” to implement voluntary principles,
standards, and codes of conduct together with corresponding internal monitoring and evaluation,
auditing, and public reporting processes. Most of these companies now have their own internal
policies, management procedures and performance targets in the areas of human rights, labor
standards, environment, health and safety, and anti-corruption measures.
Many of the same companies are also engaged with collective industry-wide voluntary mechanisms
or multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve non-governmental organizations and government
entities. Some of these voluntary mechanisms have originated outside the business community,
promulgated for example by the United Nations, governments or NGOs. UN agencies, the OECD
and international standard setting bodies, such as ISO have been instrumental in establishing
industry guidelines and standards. Other initiatives have been developed by multi-stakeholder
coalitions that include business from the outset in designing, implementing and governing the
initiative. A number have been established by trade and industry associations themselves with
adherence a requirement of membership, such as Responsible Care in the chemical industry and the
CARE process for labor standards developed by the International Council of Toy Industries.15
This is an area that has undergone substantial change in the past decade. Voluntary mechanisms now
cover a wide range of issues ranging from environmental performance to human rights and labor
standards to the payment of taxes and more. They include almost every major industry sector. A few
of these voluntary multi-stakeholder initiatives are briefly profiled in Part Four of the report in the
section focused on collaborative models to improve mutual accountability and transparency.
■ Spread international good practices along supply chains

One of the most effective ways that large companies can promote responsible business standards at
scale is by spreading international good practices along their supply chains. Many multinationals now
make adherence to selected standards or performance targets a requirement not only for the
company’s own subsidiary operations and country managers in developing countries, but also of
contractual agreements that the company undertakes with other business partners. These include, for
example, procurement, distribution, franchising and retail agreements. When it comes to greening
supply chains or spreading good corporate governance, labor and human rights standards, the
positive multiplier effect of multinational corporate supply chains can be substantial reaching
thousands of other large, medium and small-sized companies many of them in developing countries.

Responsible supply chain management usually includes the following components:
• Implementation of corporate policies and supplier codes of conduct, outlining the company’s
requirements for supplier performance and reporting in areas such as product quality and safety,
human rights, labor standards, environmental impact, and ethics and anti-corruption measures;
• Materiality analysis to identify and prioritize the issues that have the highest impact on or
potential risk for the business and for development
• Environmental, social and human rights impact assessments and/or footprint analysis for new
projects, investments and business relationships
• Internal and third part monitoring and auditing of supplier performance with clear processes for
continuous improvement, remediation and termination of contracts
• Investment in supplier and worker capacity building
• Establishment of grievance mechanisms
• Public reporting of supply chain issues and performance.
Companies in many sectors are recognizing that setting and auditing performance standards is
necessary but not sufficient to ensure workers, local communities and the environment benefit from
supply chain initiatives. The provision of capacity building and economic incentives are equally
important. As a result, a number of companies combine requirements for social, environmental,
ethical and human rights standards with capacity building, technical assistance and the provision of
management tools for their suppliers and other contractual partners in developing countries,
especially for smaller companies and agricultural suppliers. In recent years there has been a significant
shift in this direction. This integrated approach can help the multinational company to manage
reputation and other risks, and in many cases to cut costs, drive operating efficiencies and improve
performance. At the same time it can build the local awareness and capabilities that help to embed
good practice in developing countries.
The transfer of international good practices along supply chains has been important in the areas of
labor standards and human rights. Companies in a variety of industries that source from factories and
manufacturing plants in developing countries have worked both individually and collectively with
their business partners to improve the safety and quality of working conditions for low-income
factory employees, many of them young women. Others, such as those in the extractive,
infrastructure and agricultural sectors have also implemented labor and human rights policies that
must be adhered to by their suppliers.
Carbon and energy management is another area of growing importance. Strategies include activities
such as energy efficiency measures, reducing, recycling and reusing other natural resources and waste,
carbon footprinting and greenhouse gas inventories, and the purchase of renewable energy and
emission reduction credits or carbon offset programs. In some cases, as outlined in the section on the
convergence between poverty and climate change, offset programs by companies in developed
countries can help to support local economic and community development projects and the creation
of livelihood opportunities in developing countries.

Water scarcity and inequality poses a growing threat to poverty alleviation in many low-income
communities. In recent years activists have shone a spotlight on large companies or their supply chain
partners that are using water or perceived to be using water in a manner that undermines the water
security and economic viability of local communities and low-income producers and consumers.
Driven by the need to manage reputation and other risks and to ensure sustainability of water
supplies for their own business operations, many companies beyond those in the water sector have
started to implement processes to improve water resource management. They are doing so not only
in their own operations, but also along their supply chains and within the broader communities and
watersheds in which they and their business partners operate. As with carbon and energy
management, such approaches can help to transfer global management processes and technologies to
developing countries. In certain cases, they can also help to improve the water security of low-income
communities in these countries.
Leading companies are also starting their share their expertise beyond their own supply chains. The
Global Water Tool is one example. It was launched in 2007 by the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, with the goal of helping companies map their water use, assess levels of
risk along their global operations and supply chains, and improve communication with internal and
external stakeholders. Developed by an advisory board of 22 corporations led by CH2M HILL, by
early 2010 this water tool was being used by an estimated 300 companies around the world,
spreading good practices to many more enterprises along their supply chains.16
Initiatives such as the World Economic Forum’s ‘Water Initiative’ and the UN Global Compact’s
‘CEO Water Mandate’ also provide useful platforms and action frameworks for companies from both
developed and developing economies, including guidance on how to address water scarcity challenges
in host communities and local watersheds. The ‘CEO Water Mandate’ provides a strategic framework
and regular workshops and policy briefs to assist companies in developing an integrated approach to
water resource management in the following six areas:17
• Direct operations
• Supply chain and watershed management
• Collective action
• Public policy
• Community engagement
• Transparency.
Box 5 provides vignettes of two long-standing supply chain initiatives being implemented by
individual companies – Gap Inc. and Starbucks. The first focuses on improving working conditions
in factories in developing countries and the second on improving economic, social and
environmental conditions for smallholder farmers. These are just two examples among several
thousand increasingly sophisticated ‘responsible supply chain initiatives’ that are being implemented
by individual companies operating in developing countries. Part Four of the report looks at some of
the industry-wide collaborative initiatives that aim to achieve more systemic impact in making global
value chains work better for the poor.

BOX 5: Spreading responsible standards along individual corporate supply chains
Improving working conditions in apparel factories: Gap Inc.
any of the world’s major footwear, by a Code of Vendor Conduct in 1996 (up-
M apparel and toy brands contract the
manufacturing of their products to factories
dated in 2008). It has built a specialized team
of vendor compliance officers (VCOs), who
located in developing countries. The jobs over the past decade have been trained not
provided in these factories can offer a vital only to undertake factory monitoring and
pathway out of poverty for millions of young rating, but also to develop remediation plans
people. At the same time, labor standards and implement capacity-building efforts that
may be well below international norms and enable factory managers and workers to
national requirements. Over the past fifteen improve their management skills and
years, spurred by a variety of activist systems. In 2008, the company’s VCOs
campaigns focused on publicizing monitored factories in more than 50
‘sweatshop’ working conditions in some of countries.
these factories, leading industry brands have
embarked on both individual and collective The company has been recognized as a
efforts to improve the safety, quality and leader in publicly setting performance targets
fairness of factory-working conditions along and reporting on the success and challenges
their supply chains. of its program against these targets. It has
also been a leader in establishing some of the
The complex and multi-faceted nature of multi-stakeholder initiatives in the apparel
the challenge means that no one brand or sector. In addition, Gap Inc. has started to
company can tackle the challenge alone. explore ways to improve working conditions
A number of multi-stakeholder initiatives even further along its supply chain on the
have been established over the past decade, farms that supply the cotton for its products.
a few of which are outlined in Part Four
of the report. At the same time, individual At the consumer end of its value chain,
companies can still achieve a great deal Gap Inc. has engaged in a variety of efforts,
through their own policies and processes and including the Product [RED] initiative to raise
the multiplier effect of their own supply consumer awareness and additional funds for
chain. global development projects.
Gap Inc. provides one of a number of

examples of how an individual company is
managing this issue along its supply chain,
increasingly in partnership with others.
Gap Inc. is one of the world’s largest specialty
retailers, with over 3,000 stores and some of
the most recognized apparel brands in
the world. The company’s products are
manufactured in factories in many
developing countries including in Asia, Africa,
and Latin America. In 1992 the company
developed its first vendor guidelines followed

BOX 5: Spreading responsible standards along individual corporate supply chains continued
Promoting responsibly grown coffee: Starbucks C.A.F.E Practices
here is now widespread agreement that ● Economic accountability (requirement): The company has provided more than
T increasing the productivity, incomes and
environmental sustainability of smallholder
Suppliers must submit evidence of
payments made throughout the coffee
$15 million in loan capital for specialized
small enterprise financial institutions such as
farmers in developing countries offers one of supply chain to demonstrate how much of Verde Ventures, Root Capital, and the Calvert
the most important and scalable pathways the price Starbucks pays for green Foundation to on-lend to farmers, enabling
out of poverty. In addition to improving (unroasted) coffee gets to the farmer. them to meet their working capital
access to and affordability of essential ● Social responsibility (evaluated by third- requirements for the growing season and to
productivity inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, party verifiers): Measures in place that sell their crops at the best time to get the right
water, credit and agricultural extension concern safe, fair and human working price. The company plans to increase its farmer
services, enabling these farmers to access conditions. These include protecting loan guarantees to US$20 million by 2015 and
markets and to integrate into commercial the rights of workers and providing to also provide farmers with incentives to
value chains in the case of certain agricultural adequate living conditions. Compliance reduce the environmental impact of coffee
commodities is essential to achieving this with the indicators for minimum-wage production. In Costa Rica and Rwanda,
goal. At the same time, there is the need to requirements and addressing child Starbucks has also established Farmer Support
ensure safe and fair working conditions, to labor/forced labor and discrimination is Centers to provide local farmers with expertise
minimize environmental degradation along mandatory. and resources to improve their productivity
agricultural supply chains and to ensure as ● Environmental leadership (evaluated by and incomes and to implement responsible
much economic value as possible gets passed third-party verifiers): Measures in place to social and environmental practices.
through to the farmers, the majority of whom manage waste, protect water quality,
are women in many developing countries. conserve water and energy, preserve In addition, Starbucks has been purchasing
Over the past two decades most major global biodiversity and reduce agrochemical use. Fair Trade certified™ coffee since 2000 and is
corporations in the food and beverage sector today the largest purchaser of such coffee in
have implemented internal management In fiscal 2009, Starbucks purchased 367 the world. This commitment has helped to
systems aimed at achieving these objectives. million pounds of coffee. Eighty-one percent raise awareness of global development among
A growing number have also become of that coffee came from suppliers that have consumers and to grow the market for Fair
engaged with the fair trade or ethical trade been approved by the company’s C.A.F.E Trade certified coffee in the United States,
movement and joined collaborative multi- Practices. The company has thousands of while also enabling farmers and farmer
stakeholder initiatives to achieve more smallholder coffee farmers along its supply cooperatives to invest in their farms and
systemic impact in the commodity value chain in countries as diverse as Colombia, communities and in local environmental
chains that are especially important to Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Rwanda protection. Also at the consumer end of the
poverty alleviation. and Ethiopia. Conservation International and value chain, Starbucks has joined Gap Inc. and
other NGO and development partners work other companies in the Product [RED]
Starbucks provides one longstanding with farmers on-the-ground, aligning their initiative, and is undertaking a variety of other
example. Over the past decade, working in production practices with Starbucks’ consumer engagement efforts to raise public
partnership with Conservation International, requirements. Farmers are scored, and the awareness on global development issues.
the company has developed Coffee and company commits to purchase from those
Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E) Practices. These are a that score the highest. While the commitment While these supply chain management
comprehensive set of measurable to purchase has been the most critical success and consumer engagement activities are
performance standards that require the factor for this supply chain model that having a direct impact on strengthening
company’s suppliers to meet standards in the integrates smallholder farmers into global farmers and their communities, they are also
following areas: markets, Starbucks has also made other helping the company to stabilize access to a
● Product quality (requirement): All coffee investments to support these farmers and premium crop, ensure traceability, improve its
must meet Starbucks standards of high their communities. overall social and environmental impact, and
quality. build brand reputation and consumer loyalty.
Sources: Company and NGO partner websites and materials

■ Report publicly on environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance
Public disclosure of non-financial performance has become a key component of efforts by companies
and their stakeholders to promote corporate accountability and transparency. In 1992 there were less
than 50 publicly available reports covering a limited range of mostly philanthropic and
environmental issues. Today, according to the Global Reporting Initiative and corporateregister.com
there are some 4,000 major companies producing such reports annually. KPMG estimates that 80
percent of the companies listed in the Global Fortune 250 issued public corporate responsibility
reports in 2008.18 Most of these reports now cover a broad range of environmental, social and
governance (ESG) issues. Several trends have helped to improve the credibility, content and
comparability of company ESG reports.
A growing number of companies provide independent, third party verification or assurance of the
information and performance metrics contained in their reports. Traditional accounting firms as well
as niche assurance organizations are offering this service. A few companies have also established
mechanisms to obtain systematic stakeholder reviews on their reporting, as illustrated in the Nike
example in Box 6.
Linked to their overall efforts to improve global supply chain management and to leverage corporate
resources as effectively as possible, companies have also started to focus on materiality. This involves
identifying, managing, measuring, and then reporting on the issues that are most material or relevant
as risks or opportunities to their business, to their industry sector, to the locations in which they
operate and to the stakeholders with whom they engage. This has underpinned the use of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) and frameworks for more consistent publicly reporting on specific
goals or targets and progress made against achieving these. It has also encouraged greater corporate
transparency around issues or projects that are challenging for the business or that have had negative
impacts on its surrounding environment or communities.
Although corporate responsibility reports still vary widely in terms of quality and content, there is
now some standardization and comparability. This is due mainly to the platform provided by the
Global Reporting Initiative. GRI is a multi-stakeholder organization that has developed a common
framework for ESG reporting as well as industry specific supplements. Some 1,400 companies
officially report against the GRI guidelines, and it is likely that many more refer to them. More
specifically, the Carbon Disclosure Project, which is supported by major investors, has provided a
common platform and impetus for corporations to report publicly on their carbon emissions. Other
multi-stakeholder initiatives that have been established to improve accountability in specific industry
sectors require public reporting of company performance on selected social or environmental issues.
A few are profiled in Part Four of the report.
Public reporting on corporate performance in developing countries has also increased. Companies
with challenging operations or supply chain issues have led the way, often under pressure from
activists, the media and in a few cases investors. Leading companies in the extractive and construction
sector, for example, have increased transparency on payments made to governments. Major
healthcare companies are reporting and being benchmarked on access to essential medicines that they

produce. Some retailers are undertaking extensive analysis to ensure greater traceability of key
products. This can mean tracking thousands of different products and suppliers across diverse
industry sectors to better understand their impacts on the environment, on working conditions and
on local livelihoods in developing countries.
Companies are also starting to assess and report publicly on the broader economic development
impact of their business operations in developing countries. Some are producing country specific
reports in key markets. Companies that participate in the UN Global Compact report annually
against their Compact’s ten principles on human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption.
A small number of companies have issued public reports on their performance against the
Millennium Development Goals.
As investors and regulators gain greater awareness of key non-financial risks and opportunities faced
by different industry sectors, it is likely that the demand for mandatory public disclosure will
increase. This is already happening in some countries and stock exchanges. It is also happening in
relation to certain issues. Examples include the European Union’s Directive on Transparency and the
2009 King Report on Governance for South Africa, with an up-dated King III Code for South
African listed companies. A 2010 survey of voluntary and mandatory approaches to sustainability
reporting in 30 countries, found the following: “A total of 142 country standards and/or lawa wit
some form of sustainability-related reporting requirement or guidance, approximately 65 percent of
these standards can be classified as mandatory and 35 percent as voluntary.”19 The survey also
identified a total of 16 standards with some form of reporting requirement at the global or regional
level and a total if 14 major assurance standards.
A small vanguard of companies has started to develop a more integrated approach to their financial
and non-financial reporting. This gradual trend towards integrated reporting goes beyond combining
the annual financial and ESG reports to a more holistic approach for assessing and reporting on
corporate performance. It reflects efforts by leading companies to embed corporate responsibility
issues into their mainstream business operations and to achieve greater alignment between their
corporate strategies and their social and environmental activities, including in developing countries.
Another trend is the growing use of the Internet and Web 2.0 platforms to increase the real-time
nature and flexibility corporate reporting and to enable greater stakeholder engagement and feedback
on company programs and performance. A 2010 report by the Global Reporting Initiative and
Volans, in collaboration with Dow, Novo Nordisk and SAP, stated, “The new social technologies,
media and networks promise – or threaten, depending on your viewpoint – to transform the
reporting landscape. They will simultaneously accelerate and deepen market conversations between
business and its current stakeholders, and potentially, bring totally new people and interests into the
conversation – with dramatically more powerful information and intelligence resources at their
disposal.”20 While still in their early stages, such platforms are likely to increase in use. They will drive
further accountability and transparency and also make it easier to customize corporate reporting and
stakeholder engagement, including for business operations and stakeholders in developing countries.

BOX 6: Examples of development-focused stakeholder engagement mechanisms
These three models illustrate different approaches to engaging stakeholders – to improve the accountability of the company for its
impacts, and at the same time to obtain information that helps the company improve its performance.
Independent reviews of corporate Independent stakeholder feedback on Locally negotiated frameworks for
performance and reporting: community engagement strategies: company-community relationships:
Nike’s Corporate Responsibility Report Newmont’s Community Engagement Chevron’s Global Memoranda of
Review Committee Advisory Panel Understanding in Nigeria
Nike’s Corporate Responsibility Report Newmont strives to engage local In the Niger Delta, Chevron has signed
Review Committee is a group of external stakeholders in all the communities where Global Memoranda of Understanding
experts who review and provide feedback it operates. In 2007, the company took the (GMOUs) with eight Regional Development
on the company’s social, environmental, added step of setting up an independent Councils representing the needs and
and development performance and Advisory Panel to review its community interests of clusters of communities
performance management systems. engagement approaches around the world. organized along ethnic and traditional
They receive no compensation from the Comprised of seven experts from different affiliations. These agreements, intended
company and serve in their individual, disciplines and organizational backgrounds, as frameworks for more equitable and
rather than organizational, capacities so this panel oversaw a review involving accountable company-community
as preserve the independence of their 300 internal and external stakeholder relationships, outline a system for providing
feedback. For Nike, labor conditions in interviews, analysis of corporate policies community development support that
developing world factories are a major and procedures, and country-level studies addresses a range of topics from employment
source of development impact. The of the company’s relationships. While to contracting opportunities to managing
Committee has been able not only to acknowledging areas of good practice, the conflict. They also provide for Chevron
identify performance shortfalls, but also to panel publicly highlighted areas where funding both for the councils’ own
suggest ways of improving – for example Newmont’s community engagement operations and for community projects they
identifying and addressing the root causes practices needed to improve. In particular, select and manage themselves. While the
of labor violations by suppliers. The the panel recommended that the company GMOU approach is still evolving, and with
Committee has also helped the company strengthen its dispute resolution 85 communities involved will take a long
anticipate future challenges before they capabilities and develop policies and time to take root, the company believes it
materialize – for instance the way a shift to programs that could better guide behavior. has already transformed the attitudes of
lean manufacturing might impact labor Chevron personnel and council leaders –
conditions, jobs, and economic and social creating levels of trust and cooperation that
well-being in surrounding communities. neither side had experienced before.
Finally, the Committee has urged
transparency with respect to sensitive
issues where a lack of information could
produce misunderstanding – such as the
company’s position on Chinese labor
legislation and its approach to dialoging
with the government.
Sources: Corporate reports and third-party stakeholder reviews

■ Engage systematically with key stakeholders
At the same time as they are complying with laws and voluntary standards, many companies are
actively engaging with stakeholders to improve accountability and transparency. While laws and
voluntary standards codify generally held expectations for corporate behavior, those expectations are
changing all the time, and many companies find it useful to set up “real-time” mechanisms of
stakeholder engagement in order to stay ahead of the curve. Such mechanisms can help companies
identify and prevent problems that laws and voluntary standards did not anticipate. They are also
proving critical to resolving disputes before they escalate to formal arbitration or the courts. These
mechanisms range from active community affairs officers to stakeholder dialogues, to the
establishment of stakeholder panels and grievance or dispute resolution mechanisms. A few examples
of companies implementing stakeholder engagement mechanisms that are relevant to their
performance in developing countries are given in Box 6.
Spectrum of stakeholder engagement mechanisms
Ad hoc stakeholder engagement Formal external stakeholder body
• Irregular interaction • Identification of key • Targeted focus groups • Stakeholder oversight or

• No systematic mapping stakeholders on material issues assurance body
of stakeholders • Hosting site visits to • Joint task forces and • Grievance mechanism(s)
• Responsive rather than company facilities fact-finding groups • Consultation body(ies)
proactive • Investing in regular and • Written agreements for key issues or projects
structured dialogues with communities • Advisory panel for
• Supporting community • Co-design of processes strategy or reporting
projects and products processes
• All of the above may be broad-ranging covering the full range of corporate responsibility strategy or focused on a
single priority issue, process or project

(iii) Innovate to serve the poor through commercial business models
Optimizing positive development contributions, minimizing negative impacts and promoting responsible
business standards provide an important foundation for corporate leadership for development. In
addition, there is growing potential in many companies and industry sectors to leverage core business
operations and value chains even further to achieve positive development impact while also creating
value for the business. One of the most exciting frontiers for corporations interested in poverty
alleviation and development – one with significant potential for sustained impact at a large scale – is
innovating to serve the poor through commercial business models.
Around the world, a new generation of business leaders is experimenting to find profitable ways of
bringing critical goods, services, and livelihoods within reach for people living in poverty. They are
developing economically viable ways to deliver food, water, housing, healthcare, education,
information, financial services and other enabling products and technologies to low-income
consumers and producers enabling them to improve their quality of life, expand their economic
opportunities, earn income and grow and safeguard assets. They are empowering people as
consumers, employees and producers, offering the dignity that comes with the ability to choose. And
they are making or expect to make money in the process, enabling them to sustain and scale their
models over time.
Of significance importance for development and poverty alleviation is the fact that such innovation
is being driven not only by well-known western-based multinational corporations, but increasingly
also by emerging market companies and social enterprises in developing countries themselves and by
the local subsidiaries and R&D centers of western players operating in these countries.
BOX 7: Examples of networks and initiatives that are studying and promoting value chain
linkages between large corporations and local small and micro enterprises in developing
countries
There are many initiatives in the academic, development and corporate communities to study and promote
innovative models for large corporations to do business with local small and micro enterprises in developing
countries. These include, among others:
• UNDP’s Growing Inclusive Markets Initiative • The Social Enterprise Knowledge Network
• The WBCSD-SNV Inclusive Business Alliance • The Global Social Benefit Incubator at WRI and
• The International Finance Corporation’s Inclusive Santa Clara
Business unit • Ashoka’s Full Economic Citizenship Initiative
• The IBLF’s Inclusive Business Initiative • The Inter-American Development Bank’s
• The University of Michigan’s William Davidson Opportunities for the Majority initiative
Institute • The UK Department for International Development
• Enterprise Solutions for Poverty (DfID’s) Business Innovation Facility
• Cornell University’s Center for Sustainable Global
Enterprise

As The Economist argues in “The World Turned Upside Down”, a 2010 report on innovation in
emerging markets:
“The emerging world, long a source of cheap labor, now rivals the rich countries for
business innovation. …Developing countries are becoming hotbeds of business
innovation in much the same way as Japan did from the 1950s onwards. They are coming
up with new products and services that are dramatically cheaper than their western
equivalents: US$3,000 cars, $300 computers and $30 mobile phones that provide
nationwide service for just 2 cents a minute. They are reinventing systems of production
and distribution, and they are experimenting with entirely new business models. All the
elements of modern business, from supply chain management to recruitment and
retention, are being rejigged or reinvented in one emerging market after another.”21
Whether driven by private enterprises in developed or emerging markets, such innovation has the
potential to have profound consequences for poverty alleviation and development, and is already
doing so in certain sectors and markets. This emerging pro-poor manifestation of corporate
innovation and leadership is gaining interest among a wide range of private sector, donor and NGO
actors. A variety of terms are being used to describe it – such as ‘inclusive business’, ‘base of the
pyramid business’, ‘market-based solutions’, ‘creating shared value’, ‘social business’ and ‘creative
capitalism’, among others. This is an emerging field with enormous potential for creative new
approaches by companies and their development partners.
There is no one-way to go. In some companies innovative new approaches to tackling development
challenges are being driven by existing business units as a core strategy to grow new markets. In
others, corporate foundations or social venture models are seeding such innovative new approaches
before they become mainstreamed back into the core business. In some cases, dedicated business
units, incubators and profit-centers have been created to spearhead pro-poor business models,
sometimes with different performance criteria and personnel policies to the rest of the company’s
business. Nontraditional corporate alliances with social entrepreneurs, foundations, donors and non-
governmental organizations are also spurring such innovation and new business models. Individual
intrapreneurs within companies, such as those profiled in the section on ‘high-impact entrepreneurs’,
play a vital leadership role in many companies although these new approaches nearly always require
senior executive support to move forward in a commercially viable manner.
The following approaches offer great potential in harnessing commercial business models and
innovation to expand opportunity and access for the poor:
• Build direct business linkages with small and micro enterprises;
• Gear product development and delivery to meet essential consumption needs;
• Share intermediary platforms and networks to expand reach;
• Invest in pro-poor science and technology research;
• Converge solutions to poverty alleviation and climate change; and
• Harness consumer spending in wealthy markets.

■ Build direct business linkages with small and micro enterprises
A number of large companies operating in developing countries are directly including or looking at
ways to include small and micro enterprises in their corporate value chains. Such business linkages
can not only meet the direct supply, distribution and retail needs of the large companies, but at the
same time help to increase local employment, enhance local skills, standards, and capacity, facilitate
access to finance, and provide opportunities for further growth and wealth creation.22 As outlined in
Part One, large companies can:
• Buy from small and micro enterprises: Companies can source, sub-contract, and procure goods
and services through, for example, agribusiness out-grower schemes and local content initiatives
in the extractive, forestry, manufacturing and tourism industries.
• Distribute through small and micro enterprises and agro-dealers: Companies can serve
physically hard-to-reach or economically untapped low-income markets through local small and
micro distribution and retail networks, like those being utilized by a number of consumer goods
and agricultural input companies.
• Sell to small and micro enterprises: Companies can offer productivity-enhancing and growth-
enhancing business products and services such as credit, insurance, market information, business
development and training services, and information and communications technologies.
The diagram in Box 8, illustrates a small number of the business linkage initiatives that are being
implemented by large companies in a variety of business sectors and developing markets.
As various studies and dialogue have stressed, doing business with small and micro enterprises in
developing countries can be much harder than in developed countries due to systemic challenges in
the operating environment.23 For example, such enterprises may find it difficult or impossible to get
access to finance for working capital or growth. They may lack the knowledge and skills to meet the
safety, quality, and other standards large firms require. The regulatory environments in their
countries may limit their abilities or incentives to incorporate formally or to grow to a scale that
would interest a large firm. Other aspects of the investment climate, such as inadequate physical
infrastructure and tax policy, affect small and micro enterprises and their large firm partners alike.
As a result, for value chain linkages to work, large companies must often do more than buy from,
distribute through, or sell to small and micro enterprises – they must find ways to address the
systemic challenges their would-be business partners face. These include facilitating access to finance;
paying or partnering to provide business skills; supporting environment, health, and safety
compliance training; and engaging in public policy dialogue with government to promote a business
enabling environment conducive to small and micro enterprise growth. A few of the networks and
initiatives that are undertaking research, capacity building, financing and field-building activities
aimed at better understanding, starting and scaling business linkages between large corporations and
local small and micro-enterprises are highlighted in Box 7.

BOX 8: Business linkage opportunities between large companies and small and micro-enterprises
SOURCING, SUB-CONTRACTING and

PROCURING FROM SMALL ENTERPRISES
LOCAL CONTENT PROGRAMMES (Sourcing day- SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY

to-day operational products and services for large- and FISHERY INITIATIVES
scale projects, mines, factories, tourism activities) 100,000s of small outgrowers along
AngloAmerican’s Zimele programme; BHP Billiton; commodity supply chains – Aracruz
Chevron; Conservation Corporation; ExxonMobil; Celulose; CadburySchweppes; Chiquita;
Marriott; Orient Express Hotels; RioTinto; Taj Group Green Mountain Coffee; Mars; Mumias
Sugar; Nestlé; SABMiller; San Miguel; SC
Johnson; Starbucks; Unilever
PROVISION OF RAW MATERIALS or

ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPONENTS FOR MANUFACTURERS
(credit, equity, insurance, savings, Apparel and textiles sub-contracting;
transfers etc.) engineering and auto parts; electronic
ABN Amro; ABSA Bank; Access Bank; components; toys and sporting goods
Allianz; Barclays; Citigroup; Deustche
Bank; EcoBank; Equity Bank; HSBC;
ICICI; MunichRe; Standard Bank;
Standard Chartered; SwissRe
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTING CONSUMER
Ayala; Bharti Airtel; Cisco GOODS TO LOW-INCOME or
Systems; Ericsson; IBM; Infosys; REMOTE COMMUNITIES
Intel; Hewlett Packard; KenCall; Avon; Coca-Cola; Proctor & Gamble;
Microsoft; MTN; SAP; Vodafone; Unilever
Zain;
ACCESS TO UTILITIES
(electricity, water, ACCESS TO SMALL-SCALE
waste management) AGRICULTURAL INPUTS and
ABB; BP; Eskom; EDF; SMALL MANUFACTURING/
General Electric; RWE; CONSTRUCTION
Shell; Suez TECHNOLOGIES
Cargill; Caterpillar; Cemex;
DuPont; Honda; Monsanto FRANCHISING OR
LEASING AGREEMENTS
ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION
Small retail outlets; community
and LOGISTICS
information technology centres;
Baja Auto; local bus companies;
restaurants; service stations
Fed-Ex; DHL; UPS
SELLING AFFORDABLE PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTING or FRANCHISING

AND SERVICES TO SMALL THROUGH SMALL ENTERPRISES
ENTERPRISES
Source: Nelson, Jane. Building Linkages for Competitive and Responsible Entrepreneurship. UNIDO and Harvard Kennedy School, 2007.

Since 2007, the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School has partnered
with FSG Social Impact Advisers, the International Business Leaders Forum, the Overseas
Development Institute, the World Resources Institute, the Global Challenge Network, and the IFC,
among others, to produce a series of publications on business linkage models. These have included
sector studies of such models in the food and beverage, extractive, financial services, utilities,
information and communications technologies, healthcare and tourism sectors. An illustrative
selection of these business linkage examples from different industry sectors and countries are provided
below.
Buying from local small and micro enterprises
ECOM, is a commodity trader that provides smallholder coffee growers in its Central American
supply chain with seasonal and selective medium-term financing for inputs and capital
improvements, as well as technical assistance to increase yields, improve quality, and become certified
under one of the labels the company markets (Rainforest Alliance, Starbucks 4C, and Nespresso
AAA). The participation of a high-value coffee buyer like Nespresso is critical to the model, as it sends
a strong signal to farmers about the company’s intention to purchase high-quality, sustainable coffee
at premium prices – influencing their decisions to invest in the necessary improvement programs and
allowing ECOM to work with them to plan in advance the quantities that are required. By June
2009, ECOM had purchased nearly half a million bags of certified coffee in the three years since the
model was established, representing premiums of $3,692,000 paid to smallholder farmers.24
SABMiller, one of the world’s leading brewers, procures agricultural commodities from smallholder
farmers in a number of countries in which it operates. It has found that this strategy helps shorten
and simplify the supply chain, enhance availability, reduce pricing risk, and sometimes, obtain excise
tax breaks. In India, SABMiller is working with Cargill, its primary maltster, and other partners to
support the development of a high-quality local barley malt industry to supply its 10 breweries.
Previously, smallholder farmers were uninterested in growing barley, because most of what was
produced was feed grade and could not command a good price. SABMiller and Cargill are working
with farmers to improve the quality of barley crops by offering certified seeds, agricultural skills
training, and other support through Sanjhi Unnati (SU) Centers located in growing districts. Farmers
then have the option of selling their produce back to Cargill at those same centers. Since the program
was initiated in 2005, the number of farmers participating has increased from 1,574 in 2005-2006
to 6,024 in 2007-2008. Yields and quality have improved, and greater consistency in quality has
enabled SABMiller to increase brewing efficiencies.25
Newmont Ghana Gold operates a mine in Ahafo, a rural area approximately 180 miles northwest of
the capital city of Accra. In order to reduce supply costs and enhance its social license to operate,
Newmont set up a dedicated unit within the supply chain department to work with local suppliers
– informing local businesses about its standards, establishing customized local procurement
procedures, and obtaining internal “buy-in” within the company for local procurement. The
company has also set up the Ahafo Linkages Program jointly with IFC to provide management and
technical skills training to local businesses in and outside of its supply chain. A key challenge has been

to change the dominant local view of contracts as entitlements to contracts as the results of
competitive bidding processes. The program is also working to diversify local economic activity,
historically concentrated in subsistence farming, and to strengthen a local business association. In
2006, Newmont began with 25 local micro, small, and medium enterprise suppliers. As a result of
the company’s linkage efforts, by 2007 it had increased this figure to 52, and as of the first quarter
of 2008, it had reached 88.26
Starwood Hotels & Resorts operates the luxury tourist resort Henequen Haciendas in Mexico’s
rural Yucatan Peninsula. Starwood sources approximately 90 percent of its fresh fruits, vegetables,
and herbs and 100 percent of poultry and pork locally. In addition, the company has sought to
develop and include local cultural products and services in its value proposition to guests. For
example, the resort’s spa facilities work with local cooperatives of masseuses, and its gift shops stock
jewelry, sisal weavings, and embroidery from local micro-enterprise development workshops.
Starwood organizes guest tours of several workshops, including wood and stone carving workshops,
as well. The workshops now support nearly 200 women and are being turned into cooperatives to
enable them to grow and diversify their markets beyond the company.27
Distributing through local small and micro enterprises
Coca-Cola Sabco is a key bottler for The Coca-Cola Company in southern and eastern Africa and Asia,
with 25 plants employing over 9,700 people across 12 countries. Many of Sabco’s territories are
characterized by highly dense, low-income urban settlements with narrow, unpaved, and unmaintained
roads and high numbers of very small-scale retail outlets. In this context, where classic distribution
models are not effective or efficient, Sabco developed an alternative, the Manual Distribution Center
(MDC) model. MDCs are independently-owned, low-cost operations run by local entrepreneurs. An
MDC usually consists of a small central warehousing facility with a manageable coverage area and
defined customer base (typically 150 retail outlets). These outlets are low volume with high service
frequency requirements and limited cash flows, which necessitates fast turnaround of stock.
Distribution is kept manual to accommodate small drop sizes and physical infrastructure constraints,
and to keep costs at a minimum. Today CCS has over 2,200 MDCs operating in East Africa, some 30
percent of which are owned by women, directly employing more than 11,000 people.28
Tribanco is a financial institution established in Brazil by Grupo Martins, the largest wholesaler and
distributor in Latin America. Tribanco serves hundreds of thousands of micro, small and medium
retailers in Martins’ distribution chain, and millions of those retailers’ customers. At any given time,
Tribanco is financing approximately 150,000 retailers in the short-term for purchases made from
Martins, and each year 15,000 of those retailers borrow larger amounts over longer periods for store
improvements such as lighting, displays, and technology. In addition, 9,000 retailers participate in
Tricard, Tribanco’s private label credit card program, offering cards to 4.04 million of their shoppers.
Shop owners decide who gets credit and help encourage repayment; while they are not responsible for
non-payment, they receive lower transaction fees for lower non-payment rates. 40 percent of Tricard
holders earn less than $280 a month, and 71 percent earn less than $450 a month. For many, this is their
first credit card, enabling them to build credit histories and access greater financial services in the future.29

Nestlé is reaching base of the pyramid consumers in Brazilian favelas through a network of micro-
distributors and direct sales agents. Nestlé’s typical distribution model is to ship one full truck of one
product, which does not work well in the favelas, where streets are narrow and drop sizes are small.
With the Nestlé Até Você model, distributors and micro-distributors buy products and assemble the
assortments that micro retailers need. In addition, they assemble pre-packaged kits for direct sale to
families in their homes. Their direct sales agents are women from the local communities who have
lived there for at least five years and built up relationships of trust. Recruiting typically happens in
person or by word of mouth. For example, Nestlé has recruited men selling drinks, candy, and flowers
at traffic lights and turned them into micro-distributors. Many of its direct sales ladies previously sold
Yakult, a drinkable yogurt, also going door-to-door. Others are recruited in popular spots such as local
churches and schools.30
Selling to local small and micro enterprises
Smart Communications, a mobile network operator in the Philippines, provides its Smart Money
mobile phone-based money transfer service to more than 7 million Smart Money users nationwide.
Smart has relied on the ubiquitous sari sari stores, the very small, local retail shops that dominate the
Philippine landscape, to sell prepaid airtime for many years. Many customers use Smart Money for
these transactions. Recently, a partnership between Smart and the Hapinoy chain of sari sari stores
has enabled store owners to use Smart Money in their B2B transactions as well. Microventures, an
NGO, helps the Hapinoy stores to aggregate their orders and negotiate bulk pricing from
wholesalers, including Nestlé and Unilever. The stores get further discounts for paying in Smart
Money, which is the equivalent of cash. The combined discounts have enabled Hapinoy stores to
offer more competitive prices to their customers, and some stores have increased their revenues as
much as three times. In addition, the ability to use Smart Money instead of cash increases safety and
reduces the risks of theft and loss, both for store owners and for delivery personnel.31
Hariyali Kisan Bazaar is the rural retail arm of DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd (DSCL), an Indian
agribusiness and chemical products corporation. Hariyali Kisan Bazaar (HKB) is focused on
increasing rural incomes by improving agricultural practices, with the strategic intent to create long-
term relationships with farmers. HKB bridges gaps in technical know-how and access to finance, and
brings efficiency, consistency, and transparency to rural retail and agricultural produce markets. The
products and services available through HKB include quality agricultural inputs and complimentary
extension services, farm fuels, automotive products, construction material, telecommunications
services, consumer durables, apparel, and food. HKB’s unique selling proposition is affordability and
accessibility to rural consumers. DSCL has over 300 HKBs in operation and plans to expand
coverage nationwide. The company intends to cover two million farming households in over 20,000
villages and bring 20 million acres of cultivable land under HKB’s service in the coming years. There
are also plans underway to increase HKB’s value proposition by forging alliances with service
providers in social sectors like education and health care.32

■ Gear product development and delivery to meet essential consumption needs
Large companies are finding opportunities to do business not only with small and micro enterprises,
but also with low-income individuals and households – offering affordable, convenient products and
services that meet essential consumption needs like food, housing, healthcare, water, and electricity.
Serving low-income consumers can be just as challenging as forging value chain linkages with small and
micro enterprises, and for some of the same, systemic reasons. Isolated, rural villagers may be unfamiliar
with the value proposition behind a particular offer. Consumers without bank accounts or credit
histories may not be able to finance bigger ticket items. Poor roads may add so much to distribution
costs as to put the product out of reach for low-income consumers. And these systemic challenges are
above and beyond already significant operational challenges involved, ranging from changing mindsets
within the corporation to accessing internal venture funding to identifying and recruiting staff with the
ability to optimize business performance and development impact at the same time.
As the World Economic Forum summarizes, “companies often find it difficult to access [the poor] as
a consumer market, since they generally have low and fluctuating incomes and are often located at
the end of informal and inefficient market chains. In addition, there is little information available on
their behavior and preferences, and marketing strategies devised for higher-income markets are often
ineffective in creating or strengthening consumer demand.”33
Organizations in this field have begun to identify patterns in the strategies and models large
companies are using to overcome these challenges to serving low-income consumer markets.34
• One strategy cited throughout the literature is to design appropriate products and processes – like
packaging and payment plans that align with the cash flows of the poor. Sachet sizing and pre-
paid calling are two of the most common examples.
• Another is to engage the poor in consumer research and co-creation, as DuPont and S.C. Johnson
have done with the Base of the Pyramid Protocol.35
• Still another is to invest in consumer education and education-related marketing, sometimes
partnering with local NGOs to help shift deeply ingrained perceptions and behaviors.
• Para-skilling, described by Monitor Inclusive Markets, is an additional business strategy for
reducing delivery cost. Para-skilling involves breaking complex services down into simple,
standardized tasks that do not require specialized skills.36
So far, companies in the consumer products, telecommunications, and financial services sectors have
had the most success reaching low-income consumers at significant scale. Companies in some of the
sectors of most basic need – such as health care, clean water, and energy – are further behind for a
variety of reasons ranging from infrastructure requirements and capital costs to policy and ideology.
There are nevertheless a number of pioneering examples. And large firms will have much to learn
from the innovation and experimentation of smaller firms and social enterprises in these sectors.
Three illustrative examples, from a growing number, are summarized in Box 9.

BOX 9: Product development and delivery to meet essential consumption needs
Nutrition Energy Water

China’s Shijiazhuang Zhenji Brew Group, In Morocco, electricity company LYDEC Manila Water Company, a concessionaire
a soy manufacturer, has worked with the devised a model to bring unserved in eastern Manila in the Philippines,
Chinese Center for Disease Control (CDC) households in Casablanca onto the grid has established a model offering low-
and the Global Alliance for Improved as formal, legal customers. The model income households access to clean
Nutrition (GAIN) to make and market an relies on community representatives water through the piped water system.
iron-fortified soy sauce. The CDC who monitor collective meters for The company’s approach was to identify
contributed the fortification formula and entire city blocks, approximately or create cooperatives in neighborhoods
manufacturing technology, and Zhenji 20 households apiece. Those targeted for new connections, to take
contributed its manufacturing and representatives then bill households responsibility for metering, billing, and
distribution capacity. They shared the according to their individual meters. payment. Then the company installed
responsibility for marketing. CDC Initial connections were financed by the one “mother meter” per neighborhood
implemented a national consumer company at $5.50 per household per and one sub-meters per 4-5 households.
education campaign, while Zhenji month over three years. The model also Cooperatives leaders read the mother
targeted retailers and healthcare involves a peer-based accountability meters and settle bills with individual
professionals. As a result of their efforts, mechanism in which if one household households according to the sub-meters.
sales increased from 1,500 to 20,000 doesn’t pay, the whole block loses This model has reduced maintenance
tons per year in just two years, reaching power. This system enabled LYDEC to and administration costs sufficiently
$5 million. Even more importantly, rates electrify 30,000 or 75 percent of the to enable more than 140,000 new
of anemia in some provinces fell from 20 slum households in Casablanca in connections serving more than 860,000
percent to 8 percent. five years. individuals.
Source: World Economic Forum (2009). “The Next Source: Aron, Jean-Elie, Olivier Kayser, Laurent Source: UNDP (2008). “Creating Value for All:
Billions: Business Strategies to Enhance Food Value Liautaud, and Aileen Nowlan (2009). “Access to Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor.”
Chains and Empower the Poor.” Geneva: World Energy for the Base of the Pyramid.” Paris and New York: UNDP.
Economic Forum. Washington, DC: Hystra and Ashoka. Pages 23-24.
■ Share intermediary platforms and networks to expand reach

As experimentation on inclusive business models accelerates, attention is turning toward the need to
move beyond pilot projects and address the challenge of achieving scale. How can inclusive business
models reach vast numbers of low-income suppliers, distributors, retailers and/or consumers in an
economically viable manner while keeping costs down and quality and reliability robust?
In their 2010 report, Scaling Up Inclusive Business, the IFC and Harvard Kennedy School studied
14 cases of companies with existing inclusive business models in the IFC’s own investment portfolio.
These were deemed to be commercially viable and scalable, and had already passed IFC’s due
diligence processes and received funding. They included companies from a variety of countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa and from sectors such as agribusiness, education, electricity,
healthcare, financial services, telecommunications, water and wholesale distribution. The authors
concluded:
“In inclusive business, scale is important for business reasons (to compensate for low margins and
reach commercial viability) and development reasons (to match the scale of the need on a sustained
basis). In many of the cases studied, the potential for scale comes from features such as:

• A “whole pyramid” orientation, in which higher-paying customers enable the company to cross-
subsidize or to recoup the cost of up-front investments and expand service to low-paying
customers at a low marginal costs;
• Networks that provide cost-effective access to large numbers of suppliers, distributors, retailers
and/or consumers; and
• Collaboration and technology, which increase efficiency and expand reach.”37
Work by the Inter-American Development Bank’s Opportunities for the Majority initiative, UNDP’s
Growing Inclusive Markets initiative, World Resources Institute, Monitor Inclusive Markets, FSG,
Ashoka, TechnoServe and Dalberg Global Development Advisers, among others, all point to the
potential of building or leveraging existing intermediary platforms and networks. These platforms
and networks can be commercial, governmental, social, informal and even virtual. They can involve
a company building its own network, business-to-business (B2B) alliances between companies from
different sectors, public-private partnerships, corporate relationships with nonprofit organizations,
cooperatives and community-based networks, and the use of information technology platforms and
applications.
The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) has identified six platforms to gain scale in base-of-
the-pyramid (BoP) markets. Francisco Mejia and Manuel Bueno from IADB define a platform as
follows:
“A platform is the public or private distribution and/or sales network that has been built
to cater to low-income markets and, as a by-product of its operations, generates
potentially useful information for additional market-based offering. As such, it offers
two very useful characteristics for incoming firms with a pre-defined business model
wishing to gain scale rapidly: accessibility to and information about BoP customers.
Accessibility is a variable that may be measured using two different parameters:
capillarity and reach. Capillarity refers to the density of the network in a particular area.
…Reach, on the other hand, is related with the number of different regions the
platform may have a presence.”38
The six platforms identified by Mejia and Bueno focus on reaching the poor as consumers. Each has
benefits and challenges, but all offer potential for scaling inclusive business models. They can be
summarized as follows:39
• Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs: Public policy programs that transfer cash or in-
kind services to low-income families in exchange for them complying with certain conditions
such as sending their children to school or ensuring they have vaccinations. In Latin America,
they have benefited an estimated 60 million low-income people. IADB suggests that the provision
of household financial services, and products and services linked to education, health and
nutrition could be well accommodated in these platforms, especially if combined with mobile
phone offerings.
• Utilities companies: These are public or private companies that offer electricity, gas and water
services to low-income markets, with extensive reach in rapidly urbanizing areas of many developing

countries. The IADB team argue that these represent potentially one of the most flexible platforms
for utility companies themselves, or other firms, to offer a range of household products such as
financial services, education, health, nutrition and information technology products.
• Mobile phones: It is estimated that mobile networks now cover more than 80 percent of the
world’s population and more than 4 billion people have a mobile phone. As the IADB team and
many others have noted, these virtual platforms offer enormous potential for bundling a wide
variety of services based on the transmission of voice and data, ranging from mobile banking, to
important information in areas such as health, education, agriculture, and small business.
• Mass consumer goods channels: Companies in consumer goods industries such as food and
beverage, garments, household products and cosmetics often have extensive local distribution and
sales networks. In many cases women are vitally important and trusted intermediaries, both as
sales agents and also as the customer making the decisions on household purchases. These
networks can be harnessed to provide financial services or other products and services related to
the original product offer. Mejia and Bueno point out that these networks can also be valuable
platforms for educational purposes as they usually based on face-to-face contact and mutual trust
– so they can be used to educate consumers about public health, nutrition, financial literacy and
so on.
• Construction companies: Housing is a major investment and usually carried out on an

incremental basis because low-income households lack access to housing finance and legal land
tenure. Cement and construction companies have worked with local hardware stores and sales
agents to offer a variety of financial and education services to low-income households, with
potential to expand the offer to other products such as furniture and energy appliances.
• Microfinance institutions (MFIs): Microfinance institutions now serve an estimated 150

million customers. Mejia and Bueno comment that they have the advantage of often reaching
poorer areas, with flexible approaches that are able to adapt services to changing socio-economic
needs, risk management systems that are customized to deal with informality and in a growing
number of cases financially sustainable business models that have been tried and tested. ‘Second
generation’ MFIs are already working with other companies, NGOs and donors to offer
productivity-enhancing services to smallholder farmers and to small and micro-enterprises
beyond finance. They are also exploring options for health, nutrition and education services and
household products.
Monitor Inclusive Markets have identified similar intermediary platforms and networks in their
research on market-based solutions in India and Africa.40 In their Pan-African Inclusive Business
Models project, for example, they are studying:
• Consumer facing models and supply chain models enabled by mobile technology in the health
and agricultural sector. These include mobile-enabled solutions for the provision of crop
insurance, farming advice and information, agricultural market price information and trading,
health worker diagnosis support, health monitoring systems and patient reminder services.

• Last-mile energy and water infrastructure models that either extend access to existing utilities and
infrastructure (such as municipal water systems and electricity grids) or that establish ‘micro-grids’
around scaled-down infrastructure assets, so-called distributed models.
• Models to leverage informal distribution and sales channels (both non-store channels such as
street markets, hawkers, door-to-door agents, NGOs, religious groups, cooperatives and susu
collectors, and stores such as informal retailers, distribution agents, agro-dealers, hardware stores,
and chemists). The project is looking in particular at models best equipped to deliver socially
beneficial products and services such as health products, efficient cook stoves, clean drinking
water, solar lighting and banking services.
• Intermediary models in agriculture that aim to serve the production and marketing interests of
smallholder farmers. The research project will focus on aggregators such as farmer cooperatives
and agro-dealers that sell inputs to farmers and buy farmers’ outputs. The research has also
identified contract farming and direct procurement by large agribusiness companies and by
parastatals as other intermediary models that could be enhanced to better serve smallholder
farmers and expand their economic opportunity and access.
Allen Hammond, who together with Professor’s C.K. Prahalad and Stu Hart coined the term ‘Base-
of-the-Pyramid’, calls for a sector-wide strategy that aims to transform crucial economic sectors such
as healthcare, energy, housing and rural connectivity. He comments, “How do you meet the unmet
needs of four billion people? Convincing a dozen multinational companies to take this market
seriously isn’t enough. Doubling or quadrupling the capacity of the organizations that mentor social
enterprises and BoP-serving small and medium enterprise won’t do it either. Even investing hundreds
of millions of dollars on individual enterprises in this sector doesn’t guarantee success. I think the
goal has to be to transform whole sectors in ways that catalyze mainstream investment in BoP
economic activity and unleash market forces. To get there, I think we need a more systemic approach.
…the way to create a deal flow and unleash a rising tide of investment is to focus not on individual
entrepreneurs, not on individual companies, but on economic sectors.”41
Such an approach requires collaborative efforts that bring together an ecosystem of anchor
companies, suppliers, investors, governments, local enterprises, and so on. Ideally some of which
have global reach and value chains that can help to replicate transformative business models in other
locations once they have been tried and tested.
There is a need for both individual company inclusive business models and these more collaborative
approaches that range from shared intermediary platforms and networks in a specific location to
sector-wide collaborative ecosystems. Some of these are profiled in Part Four.

■ Invest in pro-poor science and technology research
Scientific research and the application of innovative technologies to meet the needs of the poor offer
one of our greatest opportunities for alleviating poverty. In their 2010 report, Science and Innovation
for Development, Professors Gordon Conway and Jeff Waage make the case:
“Science underpins improvements in human welfare, through technologies which it
develops for health, food production, engineering and communication. Science is also
important in solving problems created by human activity, such as environmental
degradation and climate change. Science allows us to move forward through
incremental improvements in technology, adapted for particular needs and situations.
But it also sometimes allows us to leap forward, through fundamental scientific
discoveries that entirely change our set of tools for human improvement, and create
new platforms for technology, such as the genetic revolution and the consequent
development of biotechnologies for improving health and agriculture.”42
Conway and Waage outline the need for what they describe as ‘science innovation systems’ – where
basic research undertaken by universities and advanced laboratories generates new understanding
that leads to translational research, capable of applying this fundamental understanding to
products, processes and systems that we want to improve. This is usually led by government
laboratories and public-private partnerships (PPPs). This in turn leads to applied research which
results in product development and use, often led by private laboratories and entrepreneurs.
Governments are essential at every stage of the process, both as direct actors and as enablers,
creating policies and regulations, protecting intellectual property rights and providing public
finance in certain cases. So is the private sector. Conway and Waage state, “Private enterprise plays
a key role in successful innovation – without business investment and marketing, inventions such
as penicillin, computers and mobile phones would not exist today.”43
Private industry invests billions of dollars annually in research and development (R&D) in
healthcare, energy, food and nutrition, information and communications, environmental
protection, and engineering, construction and infrastructure. Yet, not surprisingly, most private
investments in R&D occur in and benefit the citizens of developed economies where there are
robust ‘science innovation systems’ and viable markets in place that can offer a sound return on
private risk-taking and investment. As Bill Gates has noted, “Society under-invests in innovation in
general but particularly in two important areas. One area is innovations that would mostly benefit
poor people – there is too little investment here because the poor can’t generate a market demand.
The second area is sectors like education or preventative health services, where there isn’t an agreed-
upon measure of excellence to tell the market how to pick the best ideas.”44
This imbalance is captured by the widely-cited statistic on health R&D: “Only 10 percent of the
global spend on health research examines issues affecting the poorest (90 percent) of the world’s
population.”45 Although global spending on ‘neglected diseases’ (HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria and other
tropical diseases) has increased markedly over the past decade, much of it comes from public and
philanthropic sources. In 2007, for example, of the US$2.5 billion that was spent on R&D for
neglected diseases, about 70 percent of the funding came from public sector institutions, 21 percent
from philanthropic sources, and only about 9 percent from the private sector.46

Agricultural research that benefits smallholder farmers and targets staple food crops in developing
countries has also been neglected in the past two decades. Public and philanthropic funds to support
such research are on the rise, spurred in large part by the global food crisis and growing awareness of
the impacts of climate change, but private engagement remains low. According to CropLife
International, fifteen of the major agribusiness companies spent an estimated US$5 billion on
agricultural research in 2008, but, “this is largely to produce technologies for subsidized, commercial
agriculture producers in developed countries.”47 In contrast, the 15 research centers in the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) consortium have annual
funding of only about US$500 million, almost entirely sourced from governments and philanthropic
foundations.48
Large research-based companies are gradually getting more engaged in R&D for development
through a variety of commercial investments, corporate philanthropy, social investments and public-
private partnership models. In many cases they are supported by public and private donor funding
and so-called ‘pull mechanisms’, such as challenge funds, prizes, advanced market commitments and
other innovative financing mechanisms, which stimulate market demand for certain technologies
and products.49 Social enterprises are also playing a role in re-packaging conventional technologies,
improving traditional technologies and developing new business models to deliver them in
appropriate and economically viable ways to low-income producers and consumers. These
interventions, together with the emergence of ‘impact investing’ and social venture capital
mechanisms have started to improve the quantity and quality of scientific research and technology
innovation targeted to serve the poor.
At the same time, new platform technologies such as mobile telephony, the Internet, diverse software
applications, cloud computing, nanotechnology and biotechnology are creating leapfrog
opportunities to skip earlier generation technologies, many of which were more costly and less
efficient and effective in reaching the poor. In areas such as healthcare, communications, agriculture,
financial services and environmental management, they are fundamentally changing the economics
of what is viable and scalable in alleviating poverty. Consortia of universities, companies, venture
capitalists, philanthropists and public donors are combining world-class technologies with adaptive
business models and innovative financing instruments to simultaneously meet the needs of low-
income households in developing countries at the same time as those in industrialized countries. As
the Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network note in a report on Scenarios for the Future
of Technology and Development, “…technology has been dramatically changing not just the lives of
individuals in developed countries, but increasingly the lives and livelihoods of people throughout
the developing world. Whether it is a community mobile phone, a solar panel, a new farming
practice, or a cutting edge medical device, technology is altering the landscape of possibility in places
where possibilities used to be scarce.”50
A vanguard of companies from both developed and developing countries is starting to target commercial
R&D resources or leverage social investments in R&D to address critical development challenges. On
the consumer side, for example, R&D by companies and social enterprises has generated a number of
low-cost technologies for renewable energy and water purification at the community and point-of-use
levels. These technologies are in turn enabling new business models that target low income and rural

households. On the producer side, agribusiness firms are investing to develop new seeds and plant
varieties designed to deliver high yields under the kinds of growing conditions smallholder farmers in
developing countries face – ranging from extreme weather to scarcity or lack of affordability of inputs
like water and fertilizer. Commercially-driven R&D efforts are also supporting advances in bio-fortified
foods, portable and easy-to-use health diagnostics, and new vaccines and drugs to tackle neglected
diseases. Some examples of commercial R&D to facilitate local innovation and development are
profiled below. The section on corporate philanthropy illustrates how companies can leverage their
philanthropic dollars to support R&D for development.
General Electric is increasing its research and innovation in developing countries, some of which is
directly able to serve the needs of low-income households and/or remote and underserved
communities. The company has been instrumental in coining the term ‘reverse innovation’: “rather
than follow the historical route of developing high-end products and adapting them for emerging
markets, reverse innovation focuses on developing local technologies in these regions and then
distributing them globally.”51 Products developed to date include a hand-held electrocardiogram
(ECG) unit and a portable ultrasound machine, which cost a fraction of the standard machines to
produce and use, and which can help to improve healthcare and save lives in remote rural locations
and during humanitarian emergencies.
Sumitomo Chemical and A to Z Textile Mills have established a joint venture that combines Japanese
R&D with African manufacturing to tackle malaria and create jobs. Sumitomo Chemical used the latest
research and technology to develop the Olyset Net – a long-lasting insecticide net (LLIN) that was the
first of its kind to be approved by the World Health Organisation. By incorporating the insecticide
permethrin, a synthetic molecule similar to natural pyrethrin, into the fibres of the net, the company
has been able to ensure a product that is long-lasting, reliable and durable, and that poses minimal toxic
risk to humans. It guarantees its nets for five years. In 2003 it provided a royalty-free technology license
to A to Z Textile Mills in Tanzania. In 2008, the two companies announced a 50:50 joint venture
factory, which is producing over 20 million nets a year – more than half the global output of Olyset
Nets. A to Z is now one of Africa’s largest employers, employing over 5,000 people, primarily women,
and supporting over 25,000 people. In 2009, Sumitomo opened a stitching factory in Ethiopia and
plans additional sewing facilities in Malawi and Uganda.52
AstraZeneca opened a process research and development laboratory in Bangalore, India in March
2007, the company’s first such laboratory outside of Europe. Among other economic multiplier
effects, the laboratory employs people in a range of functions, from highly qualified scientists to
administrative and janitorial staff, and supports local business through procurement, distribution,
and collaboration with other firms. In addition, the laboratory focuses on finding a cure for
tuberculosis, a disease that primarily affects developing countries.53
ViiV is a new joint venture launched in 2009 by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer that will pool the
companies’ resources and expertise to tackle HIV/AIDS. The venture will use the revenue from 10
existing treatments to fund research and development into novel treatments – for example, medicines
that overcome drug resistance, make patient compliance easier, or improve efficacy in certain types of
patients, such as children.55

Nestlé opened an R&D center in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire in 2009 with two objectives. First, to improve
the quality of coffee, cocoa, and cassava grown locally, so the company could increase its procurement
from local smallholder farmers. Second, to adapt its food products for success in West African consumer
markets.54 To-date, the center has distributed disease resistant and high-productivity cocoa and coffee
plantlets and reduced mycotoxins in grains and legumes. In Uganda and Tanzania, Nestle has partnered
with local coffee research institutes to improve the productivity, quality and disease resistance of locally
produced coffee. It has also signed a partnership with the East Africa Dairy Development Board to
improve milk standards across the value chain from farm to factory, involving some 179,000 local
farmers. These R&D efforts can improve farmer competitiveness and incomes, while also securing
quality products and creating factory jobs for existing and new plants in countries such as Ghana, Angola,
Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2010 the company announced plans to
establish an R&D center in India which will focus on Popularly Positioned Products.
DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred business has been the principle technology donor to the Africa Biofortified
Sorghum Project, an African-led consortium consisting of African scientists and leading African research
institutions, supported by Africa Harvest and a variety of public and private donors. This initiative aims
to tackle malnutrition by improving the nutritional value and digestibility of sorghum. DuPont’s
technology allows the cultivation of sorghum with higher levels of Vitamins A and E, micronutrients
such as iron and zinc and essential amino acids.
Microsoft: Microsoft, along with other leading technology companies such as Cisco, Intel and IBM, has
established R&D hubs in key emerging markets such as India, China and Brazil. In addition it has invested
in decentralized local innovation centers and networks to identify and incubate innovations arising
through its broader business and community ecosystems. It has over 110 Innovation Centers in more than
60 countries. In partnership with universities and other local institutions, these support individuals and
entrepreneurs to build careers and businesses developing software that runs on Microsoft systems.56 The
transformative impact that information and communications technology has had in addressing a
number of key development challenges is briefly illustrated in Box 10.
These few examples are the ‘tip of the iceberg’ in terms of the potential to harness the R&D capabilities
of the private sector to support development goals. The landscape of what is possible – not only
scientifically and technologically, but also economically – is shifting rapidly. There is growing recognition
in both the development and the public research community of the potential to engage the private sector
– and the need for innovative funding mechanisms and new models of collaboration to make this
happen. There is also renewed focus on building local research capacity within developing countries and
on engaging low-income beneficiaries themselves through more participatory research protocols.
Conway and Waage conclude in their comprehensive report, “We tend to think of science and
technology for development as a public sector activity, practiced largely by developed country scientists
working on developing country problems. This model is changing rapidly. Public sector research will
continue to play a key role, through new, international science innovation systems and continuing
international research institutes. However, the important role of the private sector is emerging through
our understanding of how innovation works. New models for PPPs are developing, which, in a
supportive regulatory environment, allows industry to invest in science for development, even in
situations of market failure.”57

BOX 10:
ICT4D: The transformative development impact of information and communications technology
ew technologies have had more of a Enabling commercially viable inclusive Enhancing the outreach, effectiveness
F transformative impact on enabling
commercially viable inclusive business
business models and accountability of public sector and
nonprofit service delivery
In terms of direct service business models,
models, enhancing the effectiveness of mobile phones in particular have had a In addition to underpinning new direct
non-governmental and nonprofit profound impact on expanding opportunity service business models, innovations in ICT
organizations, and strengthening public and access for the poor, and in building a are also strengthening government and
sector capacity to serve the needs of low- new generation of corporate leaders based NGO capacity to meet the needs of the
income populations than information in emerging economies. A 2009 survey by poor and to achieve other development
and communications technology (ICT). The Economist observes that, “the spread of goals.
In particular, the growing penetration of mobile phones in developing countries has In the case of e-government, the Economist
and connectivity between smart devices been accompanied by the rise of home- Intelligence Unit observes,
such as personal computers and mobile grown mobile operators in China, India,
phones, software innovation, access to “Governments in the emerging world
Africa and the Middle East that rival or
the Internet, and the emergence of are increasingly turning to
exceed the industry’s Western incumbents
off-premises or cloud-computing are technology to support their
in size. These operators have developed
fundamentally changing both the logistics economic and social development
new business models and industry
and economics of what is viable in goals, including things like
structures that enable them to make a
reaching and serving large numbers strengthening competitiveness,
profit serving low-spending customers that
of low-income people.58 improving quality of life, supporting
Western firms would not bother with.”59
disenfranchised population segments
IT companies from both developed and The survey goes on to say, and ultimately boosting economic
developing countries are not only
“… new phone-based services, growth. While in the past the focus of
developing commercially viable, high
beyond voice calls and basic text technology access programs was
impact business models to serve low-
messages, are now becoming largely on narrowing the digital
income segments directly – they are also
feasible because mobile phones are divide – in other words boosting
important enablers of other key services
now becoming relatively widely personal computer (PC) penetration
and service providers in the private, public
available. In rich countries most such – a new generation of programs is
and nonprofit sectors.
services have revolved around trivial taking a significantly different
things like music downloads and approach, which governments
mobile gaming. In poor countries believe will make them more
data services such as mobile-based effective and more cost-efficient.” 61
agricultural advice, health care and Major IT corporations are establishing
money transfer could provide dedicated business units to serve public
enormous economic and development sector customers in developing countries,
benefits. Beyond that, mobile thereby enabling the governments to
networks and low cost computing better serve their citizens while building a
devices are poised to offer the profitable business.
benefits of full Internet access to
Likewise, NGOs and nonprofits are being
people in the developing world in
able to do more with less by accessing
the coming years.” And, “…adding
leading-edge IT to improve the efficiency
an extra ten mobile phones per 100
of their internal operations and their
people in a typical developing
external service delivery capacity, to share
country boosts growth in GDP per
technology platforms and to collaborate
person by 0.8 percentage points.” 60
more effectively in delivering urgent
humanitarian relief after natural and man-
made disasters, and to raise public
awareness and raise additional funds

BOX 10:
ICT4D: The transformative development impact of information and communications technology
continued
through social networking via sites such Building IT ecosystems for poverty ● Access to money:
as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. alleviation and development IT-enabled inclusive business models
Importantly, access to relevant and ICT-enabled inclusive business models, that are driving mobile money and
affordable IT is making it possible for NGOs e-government services and philanthropic branchless banking to deliver
and community-based organizations in ICT support for nonprofit organizations microfinance services such as savings,
some of the poorest and most remote have together supported the emergence of loans, insurance and money transfers, to
locations to better serve the poor. ICT ecosystems that are transforming the low-income households enabling them
While some of these services are delivered ability of all key actors to address a range to purchase essential goods and services
to NGOs and nonprofits through of vital development and poverty and invest in enterprise as outlined in
commercial business units, many are alleviation needs. Areas of ICT-enabled the section on private financiers.
provided through the increasingly innovation that are particularly important
competence-driven, strategically aligned to poverty alleviation include: ● Access to social services:
and large-scale corporate citizenship, Government benefit payments are one
philanthropy and volunteering activities ● Access to health: type of transfer that can be made using
of leading IT companies. IT-enabled healthcare ecosystems mobile money; combined with
include inclusive business models, partnership programs that make access
improved public sector and NGO to financing for computers and Internet
capacity and public private partnerships access available to low-income
that are accelerating R&D of life-saving populations, IT platforms are also
medicines and hand-held diagnostic enabling teachers to keep curricula
devices, improving ability to track and up to date; small business owners to
prevent pandemics, and catalyzing last- access government contracts; and public
mile delivery solutions to improve the servants to learn the skills that will
affordability of and access to healthcare enable them to provide better service
services, especially in remote, to their citizens.
low-income communities.
● Access to humanitarian relief:
● Access to education and training: IT-enabled platforms are playing a
IT-enabled platforms are making it crucial role in improving the speed and
possible to improve the quality and reach of emergency relief services after
scope of education and training provided natural and man-made disasters and
in both public and private schools, importantly, enabling public, private
colleges and vocational training and nonprofit relief efforts to better
institutes, and to scale the reach coordinated and more accountable.
and variety of teaching training and
support programs.
● Access to agricultural extension

services and market information:
Farmers can now receive weather
information, market prices and price
forecasts, and even highly customized
growing advice – specific to their
particular crops and climates – via their
cell phones.

■ Converge solutions to poverty alleviation and climate change
Nowhere is science and technology innovation – and a combination of sound public policy and
market-based solutions – going to be more important than in addressing the increasingly inter-
connected challenges of poverty alleviation and climate change.
While climate change threatens livelihoods and lifestyles in all countries, developing countries are the
most vulnerable. And within these countries, low-income rural and urban communities are usually
the most vulnerable of all. The World Bank estimates that developing countries: “would bear some
75 to 80 percent of the costs of damages caused by the changing climate. Even 2 degrees Celsius
warming above preindustrial temperatures – the minimum the world is likely to experience – could
result in permanent reductions in GDP of 4 to 5 percent for Africa and South Asia. Most developing
countries lack sufficient financial and technical capacities to manage increasing climate risk. They
also depend more directly on climate-sensitive natural resources for income and well-being. And
most are in tropical and subtropical regions already subject to highly variable climate.”62
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is not alone in stating that, “climate change
is the defining human development challenge of the 21st Century. Failure to respond to that
challenge will stall and then reverse international efforts to reduce poverty.”63 Many scientists and
economists point to a ‘perfect storm’ of convergence between growing demands for energy, food and
water at the same time that security of and access to these vital resources are being threatened.
According to the U.K.’s Chief Scientist, John Beddington, “It is predicted that by 2030 the world
will need to produce 50 percent more food and energy, together with 30 percent more available fresh
water, whilst mitigating and adapting to climate change.”64
These trends call for a concerted effort by leaders in all sectors to take an integrated approach to
addressing the dual challenges of poverty alleviation and climate change. In short, there is a need to
develop more climate resilient development strategies The trends create risks, but also opportunities
for private enterprises of all sizes - from large corporations to social entrepreneurs – to help find
solutions that not only tackle poverty, but do so in a way that helps the poor to be more resilient in
the face of a changing climate.
Professor Stu Hart talks of the business opportunities emerging from the ‘Great Convergence’
between the growth in clean technology and the growing focus on ‘base of the pyramid’ or inclusive
markets. He comments,
“Emerging clean technologies, including distributed generation of renewable energy,
biofuels, point-of-use water purification, biomaterials, wireless information technology,
and sustainable agriculture hold the keys to solving many of the world’s global
environmental and social challenges. And they represent enormous business
opportunities for those companies able to develop the competencies needed to
effectively commercialize these “leapfrog” green technologies. …Given the size, growth
and clean technology potential at the base of the pyramid, it offers the perfect
“laboratory” for incubating [clean technologies]. The challenge is to combine the
advanced technology of the “rich world” with the entrepreneurial bent and community

focus of the base of the pyramid. Learning how to build upon, and not over, ancient
foundations and local knowledge is key. By creating a “Great Convergence” of clean
technology at the base of the pyramid, China, India, Africa, Latin America and the
other underserved communities around the globe can become the breeding ground for
the Green Leap Revolution, to everyone’s benefit.”65
Box 11 illustrates some of the major poverty-related challenges associated with climate adaptation in
developing countries. From the perspective of large corporations, depending on the industry sector
in question, there are opportunities to develop new technologies, products, processes, financing
mechanisms and even business models to support climate adaptation, while also tackling poverty.
Areas for engagement include the following:
• Improving energy and water access and efficiency for low-income households and communities
through market-based solutions;
• Increasing agricultural productivity and resilience through new crop varieties, water management
systems, information services, and so on;
• Improving land use management in agriculture and forestry;
• Developing and pricing ecosystem services;
• Using mandatory and voluntary carbon offset programs to support climate adaptation and
resilience projects in developing countries;
• Participating in other innovative carbon financing mechanisms at the community, project,
industry and global level;
• Delivering micro-insurance and other risk transfer financing solutions to help poor communities,
small businesses and farmers manage risks and reduce their vulnerability to climate change;
• Protecting low-income producers and communities through the provision of social protection
services, and economic diversification opportunities;
• Strengthening health systems and supporting programs in specific disease burden areas that will
increase with climate change, such as malaria;
• Developing advanced building materials and making physical infrastructure more resilient and
energy efficient in urban and rural environments;
• Supporting ICT solutions to improve climate risk mapping, data collection and analysis, early
warning systems, disease surveillance and disaster preparedness.66
Space does not permit detailed analysis of each of these areas of potential and existing private sector
engagement. In all cases, however, a vanguard of social enterprises and large companies – especially
in the life sciences, clean technology, information technology and financial sectors – are starting to
explore solutions that include the poor as producers, employees and consumers, while also explicitly
addressing climate adaptation and resilience. They are engaging at the level of individual company
value chains and community-based initiatives. And they are investing at the level of multi-million
dollar infrastructure, transportation, power generation, urban development and carbon capture and
sequestration projects. In both cases, the funding involved is often a hybrid of public and private
finance and/or commercial and social investment.

Box 11: Corporate action on climate adaptation in developing countries
THE ADAPTATION CHALLENGE THE BUSINESS CASE FOR ACTION TYPES OF BUSINESS ENGAGEMENT
Decreased agricultural production Managing and mitigating Harnessing core corporate

and food security: Likely increases in increased risks competencies and value chains:
drought-affected areas, desertification, Developing and disseminating
salinization, losses in agricultural Minimizing higher operating commercially viable products, services, and
productivity and rural livelihoods, and costs technologies; and sharing risk
growth in hunger and malnutrition. management, scenario planning, and
Building resilience to systemic disaster preparedness tools along
Threats to ecosystems and shocks in supply chains and corporate value chains to increase climate
biodiversity: Marine, ice-based, and international markets change resilience in developing country
tropical forest ecologies face negative enterprises and communities.
effects, and sizable percentages of animal Harnessing new business
and plant species could face extinction. opportunities and markets Investing in innovative public-private
and hybrid financing mechanisms:
Increased water stress and water Responding to changing Ranging from donor-led global funds and
insecurity: Due to changes in stakeholder expectations of major project coinvestments to climate
precipitation patterns, melting glaciers, business adaptation insurance and banking for the
increasing salinity, and high use by poor, voluntary corporate carbon offset
agriculture, consumption, and industry. Committing to good global projects, investments in social enterprises.
corporate citizenship and philanthropic innovations.
Threats to human health: Likely
expansion in vector-borne diseases such Partnering strategically with civil
as malaria and dengue fever, and water- society: Developing strategic alliances
borne diseases, plus heat waves and between business, nongovernmental
malnutrition will place increased pressure organizations, research institutes, and
on weak public health systems and community organizations.
vulnerable low-income households.
Creating industry-wide sector
Greater exposure to climate disasters: initiatives: Working with competitors to
Rising sea levels, flooding, and more establish common standards and spread
intense tropical storms could displace technology and good practices.
hundreds of millions of people and have
catastrophic consequences for certain Engaging in public policy advocacy and
countries and communities. dialogue: Corporate efforts to strengthen
public governance and institutions that
Increased humanitarian crises, support adaptation at the global, national,
migration, and environmental and city levels.
refugees: As climate-affected
populations have lower capacity to
prepare, cope, and recover from climatic
shocks and stresses.
Potential conflicts and instability:

Potential competition over scarce
resources, exacerbation of ethnic
tensions, and weak governance.
Adapted from: Nelson, Jane. Corporate Action on Climate Adaptation and Development. Chapter 13 in Brainard, Lael, Jones, Abigail, and Purvis, Nigel (eds). Climate Change
and Global Poverty: A billion lives in the balance? The Brookings Institution, 2009

■ Harness consumer spending in wealthy markets
Corporations with well-known brands and marketing expertise can harness their consumers in wealthy
markets to help make value chains more inclusive and sustainable. Such activities have been greatly
enhanced in recent years through the use of social media and the ability to interact more efficiently
with consumers and the public.Three of the inter-related goals of engaging consumers are to:
• Raise awareness by informing and educating consumers about development issues;
• Mobilize financial resources by selling products that either increase income directly for low-
income producers in developing countries or raise funds to support development goals more
broadly; and
• Increase public advocacy by inspiring consumers to become advocates and champions for global
development or specific development challenges.
Consumer awareness, purchasing power and advocacy can be harnessed for global development
through a variety of ethical trade initiatives and cause-related marketing programs.
Building inclusive markets and tackling poverty through trade: Ethical trade or fair trade
initiatives help to build direct trade linkages between smallholder farmers and producers in
developing countries and consumers in wealthier markets. They also raise consumer awareness of and
demand for the products being produced thereby scaling and sustaining the market. In addition,
many of them aim to spread responsible social and environmental standards along global supply
chains. They are variously described as fair-trade, ethical trade, sustainable trade, product
certification and labeling schemes. Leading examples include Transfair (now Fair Trade USA), the
Rainforest Alliance, Rugmark, Utz Kapeh and the Marine Stewardship Council, to name just a few.
Fair Trade Labelling Organisations International serves as a global coordinating body, setting
international standards, organizing support for producers around the world, developing a global
strategy for Fairtrade and promoting trade justice in global forums. Its members include 19 Labeling
Initiatives covering 23 countries and three producer networks representing producers in Asia, Africa
and Latin America and the Caribbean. Consumers willing to pay the price for certified, labeled
products effectively help companies and intermediary organizations to raise producer incomes and
also fund a range of financial services, business development support services and community
investment activities for producers and their communities.
Raising resources for development through cause-related marketing: Companies with powerful
brands can also harness consumer buying power to raise awareness and mobilize resources to support
global development and environmental issues more broadly. This can range from consumers buying
products associated with a specific cause to customers making donations linked to a particular brand
and cause. Companies will often partner with a nonprofit organization to promote the cause and
implement projects. Well-known initiatives include Product (RED), the GLAM campaign of the
MAC AIDS Fund and the Change for Good program run by a number of airlines in partnership
with UNICEF. These and other campaigns aim to harness the power of brand equity, world-class
marketing, traditional and social media, and often celebrities and pop culture to raise consumer
awareness and dollars for development. The examples of fair Trade USA and Product (RED) are
profiled in Box 12.

BOX 12: Harnessing the power of the brand
Building inclusive markets and tackling poverty Raising resources for global development through
through trade: The example of Fair Trade USA™ cause-related marketing: The example of Product (RED)
Fair Trade USA™ was founded by social entrepreneur Paul Rice in 1998 Product (RED) describes itself as a “simple idea that transforms our
as Transfair USA. It is a nonprofit social enterprise that engages with incredible collective power as consumers into a financial force to
consumers, NGOs, partner companies, philanthropists and producer help others in need.” It was launched at the 2006 World Economic
organizations to improve livelihoods and environmental performance Forum by Bobby Shriver and Bono with the goal of partnering with
in farming communities in developing countries. It does so by some of the world’s most iconic brands to raise both consumer
certifying producer associations, and then promoting the sale of Fair awareness and funds to support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Trade certified products through the companies that are importers, Tuberculosis and Malaria and its projects in Africa.
manufacturers, distributors and retailers of these products. To date
these have been agricultural products such as coffee, tea, cocoa, rice, Employing world class marketing, advertising and brand
sugar, produce, vanilla, flowers, honey and wine. The organization is management expertise, and both traditional and new media, (RED) is
now exploring garments certification for apparel and cotton goods. working with brands such as American Express, Apple, Gap Inc., Nike,
Emporio Armani, Motorola, Dell, Converse, Bugaboo, Hallmark,
Today, Fair Trade USA™ is the leading independent, third-party certifier Penguin and Starbucks to promote and sell (RED)-branded products
of Fair Trade products in the United States. It works with more than and services. Each time a consumer buys a (RED) product or service
800 companies to certify some 6,000 Fair Trade products. These the company will give up to fifty-percent of the profit direct to the
generated US$1.2 billion in retail sales in 2009, part of a marked Global Fund. In turn, the Global Fund uses 100 percent of this money
growth in the U.S. market for Fair Trade products despite difficult to finance HIV health and community support programs in Africa,
economic conditions. Over its 12 years of operation this model has with a focus on women and children. In addition to using their
enabled industry partners and consumers to generate an estimated purchasing power, consumers are also able to donate money
US$200 million in additional revenues to support community through INSPI(RED).
development and sustainable agriculture in farming communities in 70
countries. Well-known corporate partners include Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Campaigns such as ONE, social media such as facebook, twitter,
Whole Foods, Costco, Green Mountain Coffee, Ben & Jerry’s, Divine myspace, Google and YouTube, and traditional print and television
Chocolate, Target, Dunkin Donuts, 1-800-flowers.com, and Equal media are all active promotional partners for (RED). By harnessing
Exchange, among others. In addition, Fair Trade USA™ is actively commercial acumen with consumer purchasing, donations and
involved in media, outreach campaigns, Fair Trade shows and other advocacy, the initiative is able to offer a sustainable flow of funds
communications and research activities to raise consumer awareness, from the private sector to the Global Fund.
influence policy makers, and help increase reputation and other
business benefits for participating companies. In less than four years, (RED) partners and events have contributed
over US$150 million to the fund. By the end of 2010 more than 5
A core foundation of the business model is the setting of a fair price million people had been impacted by (RED) supported Global Fund
whereby farmer groups are guaranteed a price that covers the cost of grants in Ghana, Rwanda, Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland and
sustainable production, a premium for community-selected Zambia.
development projects, and an additional price premium when their
crops are certified organic. It also focuses on direct trade with farmers
and their producer associations and the provision of commercial credit
to farmers either direct from buyers or in association with financial
intermediaries. In addition to promoting fair labor conditions, Fair
Trade USA™ proactively supports the empowerment of farmers and
workers through the formation of farmer cooperatives and worker
councils and supporting farmer representation on global Fair Trade
bodies. Financial support for community development and
environmental management is also embedded into the business
model.
Source: Initiative and partner materials and websites

SUMMARY OF CORE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND VALUE CHAINS
AN AGENDA FOR CORPORATE ACTION
Optimize the development impact of existing business operations

Create decent jobs
Produce safe and reliable products and services
Generate local investment, income and taxes
Invest in human capital and workforce development
Support local enterprise development
Transfer technology
Implement global standards and business practices
Build institutional and physical infrastructure
Promote responsible business standards and accountability

Comply with national and international laws and regulation
Support voluntary principles, codes and standards
Spread international good practices along supply chains
Report publicly on environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance
Engage systematically with key stakeholders
Innovate to serve the poor through inclusive business models

Develop direct business linkages with small and micro-enterprises
Gear product development and delivery to meet essential consumption needs
Share intermediary platforms and networks to expand reach
Invest in pro-poor science and technology research
Converge solutions to poverty alleviation and climate change
Harness consumer spending in wealthy markets

2. Enhancing corporate philanthropy, volunteering and community

social investment
Companies can make a measurable contribution to development and humanitarian assistance
through their corporate philanthropy, employee volunteering and community social investment
activities. This is especially the case when philanthropic resources are effectively leveraged by aligning
them to the company’s core competencies and by working with others, including beneficiaries, to
design, implement and evaluate philanthropic programs.
This does not suggest that corporate philanthropy should be a substitute for making markets work
more effectively for the poor or for developing more inclusive and sustainable core business models.
The greatest and most sustained role that a company can play in development is through its
mainstream business operations and value chains – optimizing positive multipliers, minimizing
negative impacts and proactively innovating to include the poor. Corporate philanthropy can play a
useful complementary role to such efforts. It can also help to catalyze innovative new business
models, products and services that directly serve the poor. In addition, it can provide valuable
resources to support humanitarian assistance, strengthen community programs and the capacity of
local leaders and institutions, and encourage research and education on global development issues.
Aggregated public data on the scale and impact of corporate philanthropy focused on supporting
development goals remains very limited, whether through cross-border resource flows or domestically
within developing countries. This is an area that warrants greater research and analysis. The following
provides an overview and illustrative examples of some of the key questions, trends and approaches
in this field.
There is a wide range of operating and governance models for a company’s philanthropic,
volunteering and community social investment activities. Some corporations establish independent
nonprofit foundations that are governed separately to the company’s other corporate social
responsibility or corporate citizenship initiatives. Others have a foundation that is integrated into
these activities. Many companies make all their philanthropic contributions directly from the
business, either through the corporate head-office and/or through local business units. Most
companies that opt to establish a foundation create one entity that operates globally, but a number
create national or regional foundations in their major markets of operation. Some corporate
foundations are endowed others are not.
In certain industry sectors, most notably healthcare and information and communications
technology, in-kind or product donations comprise a major percentage of overall giving. A growing
number of companies are also increasing their employee volunteering and community engagement
activities relative to cash giving or product donations and are focusing on harnessing the core skills
of their employees.
The field of philanthropy in general is undergoing some fundamental shifts many of which are
relevant for corporate philanthropy. One has been the emergence of more strategic competence-led

approaches to leveraging philanthropic resources and more performance-based approaches to
assessing their impact on the issues and institutions they aim to support. A growing number of
companies are focused on achieving greater alignment between corporate strategy and societal need,
what Michael Porter and Mark Kramer have termed ‘creating shared value’. They argue,
“Few companies have engaged operating management in processes that identify and
prioritize social issues based on their salience to business operations and their
importance to the company’s competitive context. Even fewer have unified their
philanthropy with the management of their CSR efforts, much less sought to embed a
social dimension into their core value proposition. Doing these things requires a far
different approach to CSR and philanthropy than the one prevalent today. Companies
must shift from a fragmented, defensive posture to an integrated, affirmative approach.
The focus must move away from an emphasis on image to an emphasis on substance.”67
Another shift underway is the emergence of new models of resource allocation and leverage. These
range from venture philanthropy and program-related investments to online giving applications and
impact investing, which are summarized in the section on private financiers. Linked to this is a
mindset shift towards more of a social investment approach to philanthropic giving, with well-
defined criteria for assessing performance and impact for both beneficiaries and donors, versus a
more traditional charity mindset. The latter remains important, especially in times of humanitarian
crisis and for many individuals and faith-based groups, but for corporate philanthropy a social
investment model makes sense.
Mathew Bishop and David Greene comment in their book philanthro-capitalism: “As they apply their
business methods to philanthropy, philanthrocapitalists are developing a new (if familiar sounding)
language to describe their businesslike approach. Their philanthropy is ‘strategic’, “market
conscious”, “impact oriented”, knowledge-based”, often “high engagement”, and always driven by
the goal of maximizing the “leverage” of the donor’s money.68
Corporate philanthropy is not without its critics. Some of the questions related to its role in
supporting poverty alleviation and development include the following:
Can corporate philanthropy achieve scale?
There is criticism that corporate philanthropy represents a tiny percentage of a company’s profits and
cannot achieve the scale of commercial, market-oriented business models or public sector funding
when it comes to reaching low-income communities and households. In relative terms this is the
case. Philanthropic activities represent a small component of the overall development impact of most
large companies. They are usually dwarfed by the impact of the company’s mainstream business
operations and value chains, accounting for about 0.5 to 5 percent of operating or pre-tax profits in
most cases. Yet in absolute terms, the contribution of corporate philanthropy to humanitarian relief
efforts and longer-term development can be substantial, both for individual companies and
collectively.

Although aggregated statistics are not available, evidence suggests that the amount of corporate
philanthropy going to developing countries from global corporations in the form of financial grants,
product donations, employee volunteering and other in-kind contributions, adds up to some US$ 8-
10 billion annually. The Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances provides the most
comprehensive analysis currently available. This is an annual guide that reviews the sources and
magnitude of private philanthropy and remittances going from developed to developing countries.69
It has been produced by the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Prosperity every year since 2006.
Initially focused on private resource flows from the United States, the index is now cooperating with
a variety of international partners to develop a global database.
In terms of corporate philanthropy flows from the United States, the Hudson Institute estimates that
U.S. corporations made direct philanthropic contributions of about US$7.7 billion to developing
countries in 2008.70 This data also draws on analysis by the Committee Encouraging Corporate
Philanthropy and the U.S. Council on Foundations. By comparison, the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP’s) total income for the same year was about US$ 5.5 billion, some
80 percent of which was earmarked.71
Table 1 shows overall figures for private philanthropy from the United States to developing countries
in 2008, totaling US$37.3 billion (an increase from 2007 private philanthropic flows of US$36.9
billion despite the financial crisis). This exceeds U.S. Official Development Assistance (ODA) of
US$26.8 billion by more than US$10 billion. Private philanthropy from the United States alone in
2008 was equivalent to nearly one third of the total Official Development Assistance (ODA) from
all 23 governments that are members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
Although data is not available, it is likely that some of the US$11.8 billion from private and
voluntary organizations (PVOs) is also sourced from corporate donors and from companies’
employee matched giving programs so that combined figures for direct and indirect U.S. corporate
giving to developing countries are likely to be higher than US$7.7 billion.
U.S. Private philanthropy to developing countries, 2008 (billions of US$)

Foundations $ 4.3
Corporations $ 7.7
Private and Voluntary Organizations $11.8
Volunteerism $3.6
Universities and Colleges $1.7
Religious Organizations $8.2
TOTAL $37.3
Source: The Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances 2010. The Hudson Institute.

Similar aggregated statistics are not available for Europe or other parts of the world, where public
reporting requirements for corporate and private foundations are less demanding. The European
Foundation Center (EFC) has about 200 members, mostly from Europe and comprised of private,
family and corporate foundations. A survey undertaken by EFC to review European foundations
working in international development estimated that in 2005 the foundations surveyed allocated
about US$600 million to 126 countries, although only 29 of these countries met the UN
categorization of Least Development Countries. Of the ten leading European foundations cited in
the research, four were corporate foundations – the Deustche Bank, Shell, Volkswagen and
Rabobank Foundations. Similar to private foundations in the United States, some of the other major
European foundations, such as the Wellcome Trust, Sigrid Rausing Trust and Gatsby Charitable
Foundation, were initially endowed by large corporations and/or successful business leaders.72
In short, although corporate philanthropy is a fraction of the foreign direct investment that flows to
developing countries from global corporations, it is still fairly substantial, both directly and indirectly.
And it is likely to grow as more global companies invest in developing economies. This is in addition
to local philanthropy, product donations and volunteering activities undertaken by domestic
companies and local business units. Furthermore, much of this philanthropy is targeted specifically
at tackling social and economic development challenges, especially health, education, economic
empowerment and entrepreneurship, and at supporting humanitarian relief and conflict resolution.
Also of relevance in terms of achieving scale, a number of corporations have established strategic
flagship initiatives to ensure greater focus and leverage of their core competencies in selected
geographies and/or issues. Examples such as the Cisco Networking Academies, Microsoft’s Unlimited
Potential initiative, Intel@Teach, BMS’s Secure the Future initiative, ExxonMobil’s Women’s
Economic Opportunity initiative, Citi’s Microfinance program, Merck’s Mectizan Donation
Program and Diageo’s Water of Life initiative, to name a few, demonstrate that it is possible to
achieve scale or to replicate in many locations through more strategic and competence-led corporate
philanthropy.
Box 13 illustrates these examples. Each vignette looks at just one initiative led by one company. They
do not cover the company’s entire philanthropic, volunteering and community engagement impact,
let alone its broader ‘development footprint’ through its core business activities and engagement in
policy dialogue. Nor do they cover collaborative initiatives between the companies. Microsoft, Cisco
and Intel, for example, cooperate strategically in a number of joint initiatives ranging from the Jordan
Education Initiative to collaborative efforts in schools in Kenya, Tanzania and Egypt all aimed at
achieving greater scale and leverage than each company and its partners could do alone. The
individual and combined outreach of these companies’ philanthropic initiatives can make a
meaningful contribution to poverty alleviation and development.

BOX 13: ‘Snapshots’ of the reach of selected corporate philanthropy programs
Each of these examples offers a HARNESSING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Through building the capacity of
‘snapshot’ of just one program selected FOR DEVELOPMENT educators – Intel: The Intel ®Teach Program
from a portfolio of programs run by the Through local community technology aims to improve the effectiveness of educators
same corporation. As such they do not centers – Microsoft: Since 2003, the by using a train-the-trainer model and a
represent the company’s total Microsoft Unlimited Potential Community content localization strategy to help teachers
philanthropic contribution. The purpose Technology Skills program has worked with integrate technology into their lessons and to
is to provide some sense of the potential over 1,500 non-governmental partners in 106 improve problem-solving and collaboration
reach and scale of flagship corporate countries, to support 50,000 community skills among their students. The program has
philanthropy programs, the vast majority technology centers that have reached an trained more than seven million teachers in
of which are implemented through estimated 170 million people. The community over 60 countries. SRI International and the
networks of hundreds of nonprofit, technology centers are just one component Education Development Center serve as
government and other partners. Most of of the company’s global Unlimited Potential independent evaluation partners.
the initiatives profiled have undertaken initiative. The program focuses on three areas The company focuses in particular on
or will be undertaking independent to facilitate sustained social and economic improving science, technology, engineering
evaluations of their impact. They all have development for the “next 5 billion”: it and math education, of importance its own
a strong focus on developing countries. combines content, training and delivery to business needs and development needs more
transform education; it convenes government, broadly. In 2008, it made a US$120 million
investors, entrepreneurs and academics to commitment over ten years to further this
foster local innovation; and it provides ICT goal.
hardware, software and skills curricula to
enable jobs and opportunities. SUPPORTING ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
Through investing in microfinance – Citi:
Through information technology training The Citi Foundation’s program on
academies – Cisco: Launched in 1997, microfinance and microenterprise has
Cisco’s Networking Academy program helps granted some $70 million to support 350
students to prepare for information microfinance programs and organizations
technology and networking careers by across 57 countries. It has also played a
teaching them how to design, build and crucial role in building the microfinance
manage computer networks. The program movement since its inception over the past
now operates through more than 9,000 two decades. The company’s contribution has
academies in over 160 countries working in included the provision of seed funding to
partnership with a wide variety of public and some of the pioneering and now most
private sector partners. An estimated 900,000 successful microfinance institutions and
students develop ICT skills through the supporting a number of them to become
program each year, with some 2.6 million commercially viable. It has helped to build or
students having passed through since the strengthen intermediaries, alliances and
program was established. It receives about networks such as the Consultative Group to
1.5 million hits a day on its website, which Assist the Poorest (CGAP) ad supported
provides materials and technical assistance to capacity building efforts in the field. And it
instructors and students. has been instrumental in mainstreaming
related services into Citi’s own core business
operations. Today, the company operates a
commercially viable business unit focused on
providing services to microfinance
intermediaries in addition to its ongoing
philanthropic support to this sector.
Source: Company and partner materials

BOX 13: ‘Snapshots’ of the reach of selected corporate philanthropy programs continued
Through investing in women IMPROVING ACCESS TO HEALTH, train local doctors and an online NGO
entrepreneurs – ExxonMobil: NUTRITION AND WATER Training Institute, which offers curricula on
Since launching its Women’s Economic Through essential product donations – management, governance, leadership and
Opportunity Initiative in 2005, the Merck: The Merck Mectizan Donation assessment. In all locations it aims to mobilize
ExxonMobil Foundation has made grants Program was one of the first large-scale community resources and capacity to ensure
totaling over $20 million to provide women global health initiatives of its kind. It was local ownership and sustainability.
with training, resources and support launched in 1987 to donate the drug
structures aimed at helping them expand MECTIZAN (ivermectin) to treat onchocerciasis, Through extending access to clean water –
their economic opportunity and leadership or river blindness, in countries where the Diageo: As a beverage company, Diageo
platforms. It partners with organizations such disease was endemic. Through a multi- relies fundamentally on access to clean water.
as Africare, Vital Voices and the International sectoral partnership, involving the WHO, Its flagship Water of Life program focuses on
Center for Research on Women to focus on the World Bank and UNICEF, as well advancing this goal for local communities in
three strategic areas: building the next as ministries of health, dozens of non- developing countries. Established in 2000,
generation of women leaders and governmental development organizations and the program made a commitment to support
entrepreneurs; removing barriers to women’s local communities, Merck has donated more the MDGs in 2006 by launching a “1 million
economic participation; and identifying and than 2.5 billion tablets of MECTIZAN (worth challenge” initiative to extend access to clean
deploying technologies for women. To-date some $3.9 billion), with nearly 700 million water to 1 million new people in Africa every
the program has enabled women from over treatments approved since 1987. The year until 2015. The effort is driven from the
60 developing countries to participate in program currently reaches more than 80 bottom-up. It is funded mainly by local
leadership development and skills training million people in Africa, Latin America and business units, which contribute 1 percent of
programs. Country-level programs have been the Middle East (Yemen) each year. net operating profit after tax to community
implemented in Angola, Chad, Colombia, Additionally, 300 million treatments for engagement activities of which half is
Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, lymphatic filariasis (LF) have been approved, dedicated to water. The business units work
Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Thailand and Qatar. The nearly 90 million treatments approved in with local nonprofit organizations and
program is also designed so that the 2008 alone. community partners in identifying local
thousands of women who have participated needs and priorities, utilizing local resources,
directly in turn train thousands more in their Through supporting women and children and cooperating on evaluation and impact
own communities. with HIV/AIDS – Bristol Myers Squibb: assessment. The global Diageo Foundation
BMS’s ‘Secure the Future’ initiative was provides additional funding alongside
launched in 1999 to provide care and support employee contributions and fundraising
for women and children with HIV/AIDS. To- efforts around the world. To-date some
date the company has committed $150 4.3 million people have been reached.
million through more than 230 grants. Over
the decade the initiative has transitioned
from broad-based grant making for medical
research, community treatment and
education to a third phase launched in 2008
that is focused on technical assistance and
skills transfer aimed at replicating lessons and
successful models and at building the
management and leadership capacity of local
NGOs. The program’s geographic focus has
expanded from 5 to 12 countries. Among
other efforts, the initiative is supporting
clinical centers of excellence focused on
children’s HIV/AIDS, a pediatric AIDS corps to

Can corporate philanthropy be sustained?
Corporate philanthropy is criticized for not being as sustainable as commercially viable business
models and too dependent on the vagaries of changing executive priorities and economic conditions.
This is correct in the sense that most philanthropic dollars are disbursed as grants and don’t generate
a self-sustaining rate of return or even achieve cost recovery. Philanthropy programs usually require
either a well-managed endowment or regular infusions from the parent corporation to be sustained.
This is starting to change with the emergence of venture philanthropy models and the use of
additional financing instruments by corporate and other foundations including loans, challenge
funds and guarantees, all of which help to leverage philanthropic resources and in some cases create
self-sustaining financial flows.
There are also examples of major corporations maintaining the same or similar levels of philanthropic
funding and/or continuing the same programs over several decades. The strategic philanthropy
programs profiled in Box 13 offer a small sample. Most of these have been in existence for a decade
or longer. As such they probably match the duration of similar programs led by bilateral development
agencies and governments, many of which change with changes in political leadership. Likewise,
large domestic companies and the business units of multinational companies based in developing
countries often have longstanding community engagement and philanthropy programs, some of
which have been ongoing for fifty years or more. Many of these programs have a traditional
charitable focus and their impact on local development, capacity building and poverty alleviation
may not as effective as it could be, but the practice of philanthropy is well established in many large
companies based in developing economies.
Corporate philanthropy from the majority of large corporations declined during the 2008-2009
global financial crisis, but it did not plummet as dramatically as many had predicted. The Committee
Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP) tracks and benchmarks the corporate philanthropy
data of some 160 global corporations, most but not all of them from the United States. Its Corporate
Giving Standard provides an online database providing comparative data that CECP has been
collecting since 2001.
In order to track year-on-year trends more accurately, CECP also analyzes an inflation-adjusted,
matched-set of 95 companies, which have responded to the survey annually since 2006 and which
account for 80 percent of the total giving in CECP’s database. Nearly half of this group is Fortune
100 companies. While median total giving declined, aggregate total giving from these 95 companies
rose in 2009, as a result of factors such as dramatic increases by a small group of companies, increased
non-cash contributions from pharmaceutical companies, expanded giving budgets due to mergers
and acquisitions, and increased employee participation in matched-giving programs. In summarizing
the survey results, CECP noted:
“Overall, 60 percent of the matched-set companies gave less than in 2008, with 40
percent declining by over 10 percent. …Still, 40 percent of the companies in the CECP
matched-set gave more in 2009 than they did in 2008, some of which increased their
giving so significantly that the aggregate of total giving rose to $9.93 billion. This aligns

with the results released today by Giving USA, which found that corporate giving rose
by 5.9 percent, to within 1 percent of its pre-recession level.”73
Most of this corporate philanthropy remains in the United States or other OECD countries, rather
than going to developing countries. CECP has started to track the flows to developing countries. A
matched set of 26 corporations showed contributions to developing countries of US$ 885 million in
2008 and US$953 million in 2009. Healthcare companies and non-cash product donations
dominate these figures.
Do philanthropic contributions match business investment in developing countries?
The allocation of corporate philanthropy rarely matches the global footprint of a company’s revenues.
Research by CECP shows that in a matched-set of 65 U.S. companies, international giving as a
percentage of total giving has grown from 11 percent in 2006 to 14 percent in 2009. Although the
percentage is gradually increasing, a number of these companies are earning far greater percentages
of their revenues from abroad – over 70 percent in some cases. Most of this international giving also
occurs in other OECD countries rather than in developing countries. A recent sample of foundation
giving in Europe toward global development suggested that European foundations, including but not
only corporate foundations, disbursed about 16 percent of their funding for development purposes
in 2007.74
As U.S. and other multinational corporations earn more of their business revenues from developing
countries there may be pressure to shift philanthropic dollars in the same direction. Given longstanding
responsibilities to home-base communities going back a hundred years for some companies, this is
easier said than done. This is all the more reason for companies to look for opportunities to leverage
corporate philanthropic assets with other development resources from governments, private
foundations and philanthropists, and in some cases remittances and Diaspora funds.
It is also worth noting that some corporations have supported substantial, multi-year philanthropic
commitments in developing countries where they have minimal direct business interests or
operations. Cisco has partnered with the UN for example to spread the Cisco Networking Academy
program to the Least-Developed Countries. Abbott, Merck, General Mills, SAP and Microsoft have
all partnered with governments and donors to support local capacity building and technology
transfer efforts in selected African countries where they do not have major business interests. Having
said that, the vast majority of corporate philanthropy goes to developing countries and communities
where the companies in question have business interests.
How measurable and accountable is corporate philanthropy?
Corporate philanthropy is criticized for not being as performance driven and transparent as it could
be, especially given the focus that parent companies place on assessing the performance of their core
business activities and increasingly on publicly reporting their non-financial performance. This is a
justified critique, although more rigorous analysis and reporting are underway in a growing number
of large corporate foundations and philanthropy departments.

Credible assessment of performance and development impact is not a problem that is unique to
corporate philanthropy. It remains a challenge for most public donors, both bilateral and multilateral
development agencies, and for private foundations and other social change organizations. David
Bonbright, CEO of the Keystone initiative, talks of, “…the fatal flaw at the heart of our profession
[of social purpose organizations] – the generally inadequate informational basis for understanding
the difference we make.”75 Corporate philanthropy faces a similar measurement and accountability
challenge. And in addition to measuring and accounting for social impact it also has to demonstrate
business benefit to justify to shareholders the allocation of corporate profits and resources for
philanthropic purposes.
A 2009 study by the European Development Center, Emerging Non-State Actors in Global
Development, commented: “…there are still large information deficits about the scope of engagement
of emerging non-state actors and about the nature of their impact on development outcomes. While
actors such as global programmes and the Gates Foundation have invested in evaluating the
effectiveness of the programmes they fund and publish progress reports, information on the
philanthropic activities of firms in developing countries remains especially limited.”76
Over the past decade a growing number of corporations have started to place greater focus on the
measurement, impact evaluation, reporting and benchmarking of their philanthropic programs. This
process is being supported and standardized by initiatives such as CECP’s Global Giving Standard,
the Keystone initiative, the U.S. and European Councils on Foundations, the London Benchmarking
Group, the Center for Effective Philanthropy, and the emergence of an entire new field of corporate
responsibility rankings and indices, consulting firms and corporate responsibility networks.
There are also untapped opportunities to share tools and learning between work that is being
undertaken by traditional donors to measure development impact and work to assess the
contribution of corporate philanthropy to social and economic development.
Do companies leverage their philanthropic dollars effectively?
Another critique is that corporate philanthropy is rarely leveraged as effectively as it could be by large
corporations. It is argued that philanthropic activities are too often divorced from the company’s
mainstream skills, competencies and networks thus limiting their potential scale and impact. There
is also criticism that companies focus too much on their own branded philanthropy programs in
order to gain reputation benefits and miss opportunities to partner with other companies and actors
to achieve greater impact for development. And there is the view that philanthropic dollars could be
leveraged more effectively if they were not restricted to making grants.
In recent years corporations have started to address these issues. They are starting to align their
philanthropy more closely to corporate strategies and to harness their core competencies, especially
their people, products, processes and networks, in addition to their profits, to enhance the impact of
philanthropic activities. Many are working in strategic partnerships and increasingly in multi-
company alliances with other key development actors. Some examples of these alliances are profiled
in Part Four of the report.

In a few pioneering cases, companies are starting to move beyond grant-making to use their financial
philanthropic assets for program-related investing, social venture capital and the creation of prizes,
innovation or challenge funds. The emergence of venture philanthropy and impact investing is
leading to a blurring of the boundaries between philanthropic and commercial finance and between
private and public funds. Some of the key characteristics of venture philanthropy are outlined in the
box below. The burgeoning field of impact investing, which is estimated to represent some US$50
billion a year, is summarized in the section on private financiers. Legal restrictions on the use of
charitable funds in many countries limit such financial innovation and this is an issue that warrants
further attention in ongoing efforts to leverage more and better financial resources for development.
Defining venture philanthropy

The European Venture Philanthropy Association (EVPA) offers the following definition and characteristics:
“Venture Philanthropy is a field of philanthropic activity where private equity / venture capital models are
applied in the non-profit and charitable sectors. There are many different forms of venture philanthropy but
the EVPA believes it can be characterized as:
• The active partnership, or engagement, of donors, volunteers and/or experts with charities to achieve
agreed outcomes such as organizational effectiveness, capacity building or other important change;
• The use of a variety of financing techniques in addition to grants, such as multi-year financing, loans or
other financial instruments most appropriate for a charity’s needs;
• The capability to provide skills and/or hands-on resources with the objective of adding value to the
development of a charity;
• The desire to enable donors to maximize the social return on their investment whether that be as a
financial donor or as a volunteer of time and expertise.”
Source: The European Venture Philanthropy Association
The following table illustrates some of the shifts that have occurred in corporate philanthropy and
community investment over the past two decades toward a more strategically aligned and
competence-led approach.

From “check book” philanthropy to social partnerships
OLD PARADIGM GIVING: One-way NEW PARADIGM PARTNERSHIPS: Strategic
PHILOSOPHY • Discretionary giving • New business discipline

• Corporate obligation • Societal opportunity and corporate strategy
METHODS • Formulaic • Opportunistic

• Responsive • Anticipatory
• Conventional • ‘Out of the box’
• Incremental • Transformative
• Risk averse • Risk-taking
DECISION-MAKERS • CEO and spouses • Line business managers

• Board members • Stakeholders
• Department of ‘good deeds’ • Core strategic competence
PURPOSE • Conformity • Differentiation

• Good will • Results and reputation
RECIPIENTS • The ‘usual suspects’ • New social entrepreneurs and innovators
REACH • Local • Local and global

• Transactional • Systemic
IMPACT • Minimal and not measured • Potentially high, leveraged and measured
EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT • Minimal and ad hoc • Higher and competence-led
RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT • One way • Strategic partnership

• Bureaucratic • Entrepreneurial
• Paternalistic • Mutual learning
NEXUS WITH CORE COMPETENCIES • Peripheral • Linked to core business purpose,

competence and in some cases competitive
context
Source: Adapted from Jackson, Ira and Nelson, Jane. Profits with Principles: Seven strategies for creating value with values. Currency/ Doubleday, 2004.
Regardless of the industry sector or the thematic focus of their philanthropic activities, there are a
number of cross cutting actions that all companies can take to leverage their philanthropic resources
with the goal of enhancing development impact while also creating business value. Eight key actions
are as follows:
i) Align core competencies with specific development goals
ii) Mobilize skilled volunteers for development projects
iii) Crowd-source solutions through online platforms
iv) Seed-fund innovation and entrepreneurship
v) Strengthen the capacity of local leaders and institutions
vi) Connect humanitarian relief with long-term recovery and resilience
vii)Fund research, public awareness and advocacy for development

(i) Align core competencies with specific development goals
When companies identify a strategic fit between specific development goals and their own core
competencies, skills, products, services and networks the contribution of corporate philanthropy can
be high in terms of both development impact and business benefit. In such cases philanthropy can
also provide seed funding for social enterprises or catalyze new hybrid business models within the
company itself that are capable of addressing development challenges in a self-sustaining manner.
Most of the examples profiled in this section illustrate competence-led approaches. Such approaches
include:
• Information and communications (ICT) companies harnessing their technology, skills and
business ecosystems for health, education, training and entrepreneurship projects or disaster relief
efforts that can be made more efficient, effective and accountable by the application of ICT.
• Healthcare companies engaging in strategic product donations and efforts to strengthen health
systems.
• Banks, insurance companies and investment institutions supporting financial literacy,
community finance, microfinance, small enterprise finance, environmental finance and other
innovative financing models, some of which may become commercially viable over time.
• Energy companies and water and electricity utilities supporting innovative off-grid and/or
renewable energy options and investing in local energy entrepreneurs to serve low-income or
remote communities.
• Food companies supporting food security, nutrition and water initiatives from strengthening
smallholder farmers and rural communities along specific commodity value chains to
humanitarian programs such as school feeding initiatives and disaster relief.
• Transportation and logistics companies supporting initiatives to improve the coordination and
delivery of humanitarian assistance.
• Large infrastructure, mining, oil and gas projects financing and building the capacity of
community-based entrepreneurs who then have the quality needed to tap into the companies’
local content programs.
• Professional services firms mobilizing consultants, lawyers, accountants and advisers and other
industries lending technical and scientific specialists to work on development projects or in
nonprofit organizations that are lacking these essential capabilities.
In addition to providing sector specific competencies and technical skills, almost all large
corporations have skilled employees in functional areas such as finance, project and information
management, human resources, logistics, and marketing. All of these are in high-demand and low
supply for many nonprofit organizations and often for public institutions in developing countries.
There is also untapped potential for companies from different industry sectors to combine their core
competencies and philanthropic resources to support more systemic initiatives. These can include
efforts to strengthen health and education systems, to implement community wide approaches, such
as the Millennium Cities and Villages approach, and to improve disaster relief and resilience efforts.
Healthcare, agribusiness and financial companies, for example, are starting to partner with ICT
companies to extend the reach, efficiency and accountability of their projects. Agribusiness and financial

service companies are working together on projects to improve the financial security and resilience of
smallholder farmers, small agro-dealers and rural communities. Professional services firms are working
on a pro-bono or low-cost basis, as well as commercially, with nonprofits and companies in other
industries to strengthen the development impact of their programs. Often these alliances are one-to-one
partnerships between two companies, but a growing number are bringing together groups of companies
in system-wide collaborative efforts. Some of these broader collaborative efforts are profiled in Part Four
of the report.
There is a blurring of the boundaries between competence-led corporate philanthropy and some of the
more inclusive, commercially viable business models that were described in the previous section. In many
cases philanthropic funds or social venture capital, either from the company itself or from other private
and public donors, are essential to overcome the organizational, market or governance barriers to making
these inclusive business models commercially viable. Even the largest corporations may require various
forms of seed funding or ongoing philanthropic, donor or public support to start or scale inclusive business
models. Corporate foundations could play much more of role in providing such support, in addition to
the role of other development actors in providing such support, which is profiled in Part Three.
(ii) Harness volunteers for development projects

Employee volunteering and community engagement programs have a longstanding tradition in many
developed economies, especially the United States. Some corporations have developed global programs
that either focus on supporting development goals and/or engage employees based in developing
countries. There are numerous models that companies use to support employee engagement and
volunteering. They range from board-based programs aimed at engaging as many employees as possible,
to leadership-oriented fellowships and seconding high-potential employees to nonprofit organizations,
and from generic volunteering to efforts that explicitly harness the core competencies and skills that
employees use in the workplace.
The most common model is initiatives that encourage all employees to donate money and/or to
volunteer their time and skills to support projects either in their local communities or through the
company’s flagship citizenship program or to global relief efforts at times of humanitarian disasters.
Companies often support their employees in these activities through ‘matched giving’, ‘payroll giving’ or
‘dollars for doers’ programs that match employees’ financial contributions or provide financial support
for their volunteering efforts. Many companies also offer paid time off work or dedicated volunteer days,
online platforms to match employees to projects and nonprofits, support for employee affinity groups,
and internal recognition and award programs. In some cases these broad-based programs are global and
support the volunteering activities of all employees, although many are still focused on the company’s
home country or a few major markets.
Employees may be encouraged to use their skills and core competencies to support clearly defined
initiatives that align with the company’s overall citizenship strategy or simply to volunteer in whatever
way and for whatever organizations they chose. In some cases, companies are actively supporting their
employees to become social entrepreneurs, establishing and leading their own social enterprises, while
still remaining with the company.

Another approach being adopted by some global companies is skills-based leadership or fellowship
programs targeted at engaging top-performing staff selected on a competitive basis. These are often
implemented in addition to the broader-based volunteering programs that aim to engage all or large
numbers of employees. A few examples of leadership initiatives that are based on employee
engagement and aimed at supporting global development goals are outlined in Box 15. Some
companies are also starting to collaborate on such efforts. Dow Chemical, Citi, Coca-Cola and
Accenture Development Partnerships, for example, joined forces in 2009 to create the Global
Sustainability Network. This is a collaborative platform for companies, NGOs and development
agencies to leverage their combined employee engagement, technical and operational resources in a
more effective way by working together.
These two broad models of employee engagement map to the following models for international
corporate volunteering, which have been identified by FSG Social Impact Advisers in a project with
the Brookings Institution:77
• Local Service: In which employees based in countries outside headquarters are supported to
volunteer in programs in their own local communities; and
• Cross-Border Service: In which skilled employees travel abroad to volunteer.
The more volunteering is based on employees’ core competencies and skills the more likely it is to
deliver social benefit as well as business benefits such as building leadership skills, teamwork,
corporate reputation and in some cases even new markets. Box 14 illustrates the strategic framework
FSG propose for the transition toward more competence-led volunteering that aligns social needs
and impact more closely with business interests and impact.
BOX 14: Achieving business and social impact in international corporate volunteering
Strategic
(e.g. priority stakeholder
relations, customer
focus, competitive HIGH IMPACT VOLUNTEERING
context, leadership
development)
BUSINESS MOTIVATIONS
General
(e.g. corporate
citizenship, reputation, TRADITIONAL VOLUNTEERING
employee morale)
Low LEVERAGE OF CORPORATE ASSETS High

(e.g. non-technical AND EXPERTISE (e.g. skills-based service,
service, low leverage of high leverage of
corporate resources) corporate resorces)
Source: “Volunteering for Impact – Best Practices in International Corporate Volunteering” by Greg Hills and
Adeeb Mahmud, FSG Social Impact Advisors, September 2007

Box 15: Examples of employee engagement programs that support development
The following are examples of skills-based IBM’s Corporate Services Corps (CSC): Pfizer’s Global Health Fellows: Established
leadership and fellowship programs that The CSC program was launched in 2008 with in 2003, the goal of this program is connect
bring together high-potential employees in the goal of developing leadership skills and Pfizer employees with programs to strength
global companies to support development addressing socio-economic challenges in health systems in the developing world.
projects. Each of these initiatives in based emerging markets worldwide. The program People are selected on a competitive basis to
on a foundation of employee engagement sends cross-functional teams of high- fill clearly defined positions with NGOs and
and the sharing of technical or professional potential IBM employees to work on projects multilateral organizations that last for up to
skills on a non-commercial basis. At the in partnership with governments, nonprofit six months. Partner organizations have
same time, in all cases there is long term organizations and inter-governmental included African Medical and Research
potential for the company to build future agencies in developing countries. In most Foundation (AMREF), Africare, Family Health
markets as well as strengthen stakeholder cases the engagement involves harnessing International, Health Volunteers Overseas,
relationships, enhance reputation and information technology and technology skills Infectious Diseases Institute, Institute for
develop the leadership capacity of key to support economic development, OneWorld Health, International AIDS Vaccine
employees. capitalizing on the core competencies that Initiative (IAVI), International Rescue
the employees already possess. In addition to Committee, International Trachoma Initiative,
leveraging their skills to support development Populations Services International,
projects, the employees gain the opportunity USAID WaterAid and PAHO. The partner
to develop new perspectives, expertise, organizations identify the needs and design
leadership capabilities and networks, along the actual work plan for each fellow, with a
with the ability to work across traditional strong focus on local capacity building and
cultural and functional boundaries. Since skills transfer, and the company covers
2008, more than 700 skilled IBM employees expenses. To date some 200 fellows have
from some 50 countries have participated in been selected to work in 38 countries.
CSC. Over 5,500 employees have applied for They have included Pfizer physicians, nurses,
the program. Projects have been completed epidemiologists, laboratory technicians,
in Ghana, Romania, Tanzania, the Philippines marketing managers, financial administrators,
and Vietnam tackling challenges such as and health educators.
water quality and disaster preparedness.
Although assignments are only several
months in duration, the company aims
to sustain long-term relationships with
implementing partners to ensure continuity
and scale over time. In 2010, IBM teamed
up with USAID to create an Alliance for
International Corporate Volunteerism, which
aims to make it easier for smaller companies
to engage in similar programs.

Box 15: Examples of employee engagement programs that support development continued
KPMG’s Global Development Initiative General Mills Science and Technology The Cisco Leadership Fellows Program:
(GDI): Launched in 2009, GDI is one of KPMG’s Transfer Initiative: In 2008, General Mills This program selects high-performing
two global themes for its international made a commitment to support human capital directors and vice-presidents to lead strategic
corporate citizenship, the other being the and technology development in efforts to projects in NGOs for six to 12 months. Partners
Global Green Initiative. GDI aims to apply eliminate hunger in several African countries. operating in developing countries have
KPMG’s skills, knowledge and resources to It launched a new corporate citizenship included Mercy Corps, Save the Children,
help achieve the Millennium Development initiative to leverage the skills and NetHope and the New Partnership for African
Goals, with a focus on MDG 1,2, and 3 competencies of some 1,200 of the company’s Development (NEPAD). Cisco has a team
(eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, research and development and engineering working on the NEPAD e-Schools project, for
achieving universal primary education, and employees, as well as its world-class facilities example, along with several other companies.
promoting gender equality and empowering and retirees aimed at: “….assisting In addition to installing networking
women). Each of the 22 member firms small/medium sized food processors in technology in some 50 schools in 15 African
represented on KPMG’s Global Board are improving their operating efficiencies and countries, the Cisco team is training teachers
expected to embed GDI as a component developing nutritious food products utilizing and school administrators on how to use and
of their citizenship activity during 2010 the crop output of smallholder farmers.” The maintain the technology and also working
and all KPMG’s firms around the world are initiative is making expertise available to field- with students to introduce to them to
encouraged to get engaged. They are based NGO and small enterprise partners in different applications.
supported to do so through manuals, areas such as: food nutrition; food formulation;
capacity building efforts, and the process development, including the use of The PricewaterhouseCoopers Ulysses
appointment of GDI Champions. appropriate technology and design and program: This initiative was established in
effective management of local food processing 2000, with the aim of developing a cadre of
Six key development partners have been systems; packaging development; food safety; responsible leaders who are able to
identified: Save the Children, Oxfam, World go-to-market operations; and raw materials understand the changing role of business in
Vision, UNICEF, the Red Cross and the Red procurement. It is initially identifying and society and are equipped to work with diverse
Crescent Societies and the Millennium Cities working with local partners in Malawi, groups of stakeholders and cultures.
Initiative. Global Lead Partners have been Tanzania, Zambia and Kenya, with technical Employees apply to the program from around
assigned to manage each of these assistance and support from international NGO the world and participate in a pre-placement
relationships, in the same way that KPMG partners such as TechnoServe and CARE leadership training program before being
manages its major commercial relationships, International. assigned to work in cross-cultural and cross-
and teams of KPMG staff are working with functional teams with NGO partners for
these development partners on a low or no periods of about eight weeks. After their field
fee basis in a variety of developing countries. assignments participants become members of
In addition to supporting these strategic NGO the company’s Ulysses network and commit
and UN development partners, firms are also to sharing lessons and engaging with
being called on to support pro-poor private colleagues in addressing global development
sector initiatives and to work with national issues.
governments to provide transparent and
accountable governance.

In addition to engaging their current employees in volunteer efforts, a number of corporations are
also exploring opportunities to mobilize their retirees. The bulk of baby boomers born between 1946
and 1964 will retire over the coming decade and their relative wealth, health and education has major
implications for consumption and leisure patterns, and also for volunteering. In the United States,
for example, it is estimated that volunteers over 65 will increase 50 percent by 2020 to over 13
million people. While many of them will volunteer in their own local communities, there is potential
to harness the managerial and technical skills of retirees from relevant industry sectors to support
NGOs and projects in developing countries.
A number of OECD countries have intermediary organizations that already support executive
overseas programs aimed at retired executives, but to date relatively few corporations have provided
platforms for their own retirees to get engaged. This is starting to change. General Electric, IBM and
Microsoft are three examples of global corporations that offer such programs for their former
employees.
Companies are also exploring ways to engage other key stakeholder groups in volunteering and online
efforts to support global development issues. Some companies are supporting university-based service
programs for students, young professionals and social entrepreneurs to work on projects in
developing countries. Others are offering opportunities for their customers and business partners to
support joint volunteer and fundraising efforts. The online platforms and crowd-sourcing models
outlined in the following pages are making it easier for corporations to support such efforts in a cost-
effective way with potential benefits for both the company and society.
(iii) Crowd-source solutions through online platforms

As illustrated throughout this report, information and communications technologies and the
emergence of new applications and online platforms have revolutionized both the field of business
and increasingly the field of international development. They also offer potential to increase the
efficiency, the leverage and the accountability of philanthropic giving, including corporate
philanthropy.
Over the past decade a number of enterprises have created online platforms to serve as intermediaries
between individuals, nonprofit organizations and private enterprises that want to donate their money,
time and/or skills, and individuals, nonprofits and small or micro-enterprises that need these
resources, both at home and internationally. In essence, they are creating social investment markets
or social investment stock exchanges based on similar foundations to other markets and stock
exchanges. They are making it possible for the first time to leverage small amounts of resources
(money, time, knowledge, new ideas) on an ongoing basis from large numbers of people to address a
wide range of causes all over the world. Some of the key financial intermediaries in this evolving field
are profiled in the section on private financiers. Many of them are focused on giving to developing
countries and supporting the achievement of development goals.
Large corporations are key customers for a number of these online giving and volunteering
marketplaces. These platforms can be especially effective in helping companies to manage their

matched-giving and employee volunteering programs. Large companies have been relatively slow,
however, to use similar online platforms and interactive Web 2.0 technology themselves to directly
enhance their philanthropy and community engagement. Many are harnessing these technologies in
their core marketing and customer engagement strategies, and a few are starting to do likewise in
their philanthropy. Box 16 illustrates examples from five of the pioneers in this area.
There is potential for companies to leverage online platforms and crowd sourcing to raise additional
resources and engage additional corporate stakeholders to support global development. Having said
that, as Keystone and others have pointed out, such platforms are only an enabler. There is a need in
all of the online approaches to ensure that they result in real action and change and to implement
metrics and reporting processes to account for how much of the resources reach ultimate beneficiaries
and for their impact.
(iv) Seed-fund innovation and entrepreneurship

Corporate philanthropic funds or social venture capital from large companies can be effective
catalysts for entrepreneurship aimed at for seed-funding, incubating or providing technical assistance
and ongoing financial support to small enterprises, social entrepreneurs or development NGOs that
focus on developing innovative, often market-based solutions to poverty alleviation and
sustainability. They can also play a valuable role in funding entrepreneurship more broadly, and
especially in supporting women and youth entrepreneurs. In some cases these solutions and
entrepreneurs have the potential to become commercially or economically viable over time, although
in many situations they will require an ongoing combination of market-rate/ commercial capital and
below market-rate capital, grants and technical assistance. This type of ‘impact investing’, ‘blended-
value’, or ‘hybrid’ funding is outlined in more detail in the section on private financiers.
There is also a spectrum of options in terms of the nature of the relationship between the large
company and the social entrepreneur or nonprofit partner. The diagram below illustrates some of the
options ranging from philanthropy and corporate social investment to core business alliances. The
important role of high-impact entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs in developing inclusive and
sustainable business models reviewed in the next section.
Spectrum of large company engagement with social entrepreneurs
CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY COMMERCIAL CORPORATE VALUE CHAIN
The company provides The company combines The company offers market- The social entrepreneur
traditional philanthropic grants financial grants with employee based financial support in the partners with the company
engagement in an advisory form of loans, investments and along the company’s own
or technical assistance capacity guarantees, sometimes in commercial value chain to help
or other in-kind operational addition to grants, that aim it to build more inclusive
support to make the recipient business models that source
economically viable from, distribute through or sell
over time to low-income producers and
customers and/or that produce
environmentally sound products

Box 16: Online corporate philanthropy and cause marketing platforms to mobilize social action social
action for development
The following examples illustrate how four companies are using online platforms to engage with stakeholders, ranging from
direct customers to the general public, and to raise awareness and inspire volunteer action related to their philanthropic
objectives. In several of the cases they have partnered with leading social entrepreneurs, new media companies and/or
traditional media.
American Express’s Members Project and million and over 87 million Membership company employees and other
TakePart Rewards points. stakeholders to vote for the causes and
American Express’s Member Project first • The company has teamed up with charities they care about or think have
introduced crowd-sourcing philanthropy in VolunteerMatch to enable people to the greatest impact.
2007. The company’s customers, American volunteer in a variety of opportunities The JPMC initiative invites Facebook users
Express cardholders, were invited to submit and to either receive or donate a to vote for charities that are driving positive
community projects and vote on those they maximum of 10,000 Membership change at the community level. In addition
thought should receive support from the Rewards points based on the amount of to the online outreach, JPMC has
company. The first winning project received hours volunteered. established a Chase Community Giving
$2 million and enabled UNICEF to provide • The platform provides its participants Advisory Board to advise the program and
clean drinking water to communities in with tools to make it easy for them to support the donations made by the
Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, promote and recruit support for their company. In the first round of the
Angola, and Guinea. In its second year own initiatives or favorite charities. Theycompetition the company pledged to
Cardmembers voted for the company to are invited to become a fan of Members donate $5 million to 100 community
support public awareness and early Project on Facebook, use the project’s charities based on online votes, with an
detection of Alzheimer’s disease. In 2010, twitter tag and share video content via ultimate winner being awarded US$1
American Express joined forces with YouTube. million. More than two million Facebook
TakePart, a social action network created by users became fans of the program and
Participant Media. The organization uses Facebook and Chase Community Giving: helped to select winners from over 500,000
film and other media to raise awareness You Decide What Matters nonprofit organizations. Invisible Children,
and mobilize citizen action to drive social In 2010, the JPMorgan Chase Foundation Inc. won the main award. It is a nonprofit
change. Their shared platform will enable partnered with Facebook to expand the based in the United States seeking to end
both American Express Cardmembers and reach and scale of its crowd-sourcing the conflict in Uganda and stop the
the general public to get engaged in a philanthropy efforts. Facebook has over 400 abduction of children for use as child
number of ways, including efforts to million active users, some 70 percent of soldiers. The program has been enhanced
support global development: whom reside outside the United States. It based on user feedback to enable greater
• Participants are invited to vote for a cause offers companies a variety of options for interaction between users and charities and
to receive funding. Five charities will be engaging with this large community of to offer additional options for mobilizing
selected every three months to receive users both for mainstream marketing resources.
$200,000. purposes and increasingly for what it terms
• Cardmembers will have the option to ‘public philanthropy’. In the latter case
directly support a cause themselves companies are given options to:
selecting from over a million charities. • Sponsor a cause and nonprofit beneficiary,
The platform makes it easy for members through creating incentives for Facebook
to donate Membership Rewards points, users to raise funds and recruit new
make a one-time donation using their members for a pre-selected cause and/or
American Express card, or arrange to nonprofit organization by offering
make ongoing donations over a period of matching grants; and
time. After the Haiti earthquake • Host a Challenge through Facebook
Cardmembers donated nearly US$100 Causes that enables Facebook users,

BBC, Newsweek and Shell’s World clean water and environmental resilience. Participants register their computers online
Challenge Winners have included: the Hashoo and install a free software program that
The World Challenge is a global Foundation in Pakistan that enables women operates like a screen saver, tapping into
competition managed by BBC World News beekeepers to earn an income by selling computing power only when the computer
and Newsweek in association with Shell. their honey to hotels; Maximus, a is idle. Servers managed by IBM coordinate
The competition aims to find community papermaking firm in Sri Lanka that makes the process, linking idle personal computers
projects or small businesses from around recycled products from a variety of wastes; to discrete research assignments and
the world that have shown enterprise and an enterprise founded by a surgeon in Sri validating and packaging calculations as
innovation in tackling development Lanka that has distributed over 750,000 safe they come back.
challenges. It aligns closely with the Shell bottle lamps to help stop serious injuries
Foundation’s focus on supporting caused by unsafe kerosene lamps in low- As of mid 2010, individuals from some 200
enterprise-driven solutions to development income households; T’ikapapa, an initiative countries had registered with the project.
and harnesses the new media and in Peru to support smallholder farmers and They had contributed an estimated 300,000
traditional outreach capacity of two global farmer organizations to grow nutritious years of computer runtime which has
media organizations. The media groups indigenous potato varieties and link them processed more than 350 million results for
provide an online platform for grassroots to markets; and Juboken Enterprise in the scientists and researchers free of charge.
organizations and their supporters to Philippines, which creates local livelihoods Projects have included research on fighting
submit nominations and for readers to vote by producing biodegradable nets from to cancer, infectious diseases in developing
on the finalists. At the same time the media waste coconut husks and using them to countries such as HIV/AIDS, malaria,
companies can raise awareness of the issues hold loose soil in areas prone to serious smallpox and dengue fever, nutritious rice,
and provide publicity for inspiring examples landslides and soil erosion. genomics and climate change in Africa.
through journalism and advertorials.
The World Challenge was established in IBM and The Worldwide Community Grid
2005 and has attracted close to 3,000 The Worldwide Community Grid (WCG),
nominations from about 100 countries created by IBM in 2004, offers a different
each year. A high-profile panel selects the type of example where crowd-sourcing,
finalists and then several hundred thousand volunteering and online platforms converge
people vote online for the winners. to help tackle humanitarian challenges
Nominations must meet the following while also supporting a company’s
criteria: philanthropic objectives and aligning to its
• Projects or small businesses that core competencies. WCG utilizes grid-
demonstrate an entrepreneurial spirit computing technology that enables
and increase investment in the local individuals and businesses to volunteer the
community unused time on their computers to perform
• Projects or small businesses that shows specific calculations related to humanitarian
initiative, the innovative use of research projects. The projects are focused
technology or an invention on complex environmental and health-
• Projects that take a responsible approach related challenges that require massive
to the environment in which they are computing capacity. IBM manages the
operating. initiative with input from an advisory group
To-date nominations have covered a wide of scientists, philanthropists and public
range of local solutions to challenges such officials who help to select the research
as community health, education, nutrition, projects that will benefit from the program.
Sources: Company and partner materials

Examples of large companies that have provided a combination of philanthropic grants, skills-based
volunteering support and impact investments to social entrepreneurs to develop or scale innovative
market-based approaches and technologies are illustrated throughout in the report. They include:
• The Cisco Systems Foundation, which provided seed capital for social entrepreneur Jacqueline
Novogratz to establish the Acumen Fund in 2001. Acumen is an innovative venture capital fund
for the poor, providing finance and advice to market-based enterprises delivering affordable
solutions in the areas of health, water and sanitation, and housing.
• Green Mountain Coffee and Starbucks have engaged with Root Capital through their core value
chains in addition to providing social investments and cause-related marketing support. This has
enabled Root Capital’s founder, Willy Foote, and his team to deliver an economically viable
combination of innovative rural finance, advise and local capacity building to smallholder coffee
farmers, while also engaging in catalytic activities to foster the field more broadly, supporting
community development efforts and above all, ensuring a market for the farmers’ products.
• The Citi Foundation, which has worked with E&Co. to develop a number of innovative
financing instruments. These have enabled E&Co. to provide growth capital and support services
to small-scale energy entrepreneurs in developing countries and to tap into carbon finance
markets to leverage the economic, social and environmental impact of its activities.
• SC Johnson partnered with KickStart, founded by social entrepreneurs Nick Moon and Martin
Fisher, through a combination of its core business and social investment activities to provide
smallholder pyrethrum farmers in Kenya with access to appropriate and affordable irrigation
pumps. Both had an interest in raising farmer productivity, quality and incomes and different
resources to offer in achieving this goal.
• The Abdul Latif Jameel Group and the Grameen Foundation have partnered in the Middle
East to fund, strengthen and network entrepreneurial microfinance intermediaries and market-
based approaches to small and micro-enterprise development, with a strong focus on empowering
women entrepreneurs.
• The Ayala Foundation and the International Youth Foundation, which have cooperated to
promote youth empowerment and skills development through a variety of local social
entrepreneurs and online platforms in the Philippines.
• Renewable World, formerly the Koru Foundation, was established in 2007 by a group of
renewable energy companies and their trade associations in Europe with the aim of tackling
energy poverty and supporting community-based adaptation and resilience to climate change.
Renewable World works with local partners in Latin America, Africa and Asia to deliver
entrepreneurial solutions to the provision of small-scale, affordable, reliable, renewable energy,
primarily in areas of market failure. Partners are supported to assess local development needs and
the technical and financial feasibility of energy micro-systems in solar, wind and hydro services,
and to build local capacity and stimulate energy-enhanced enterprises.

All of these examples and a growing number similar to them involve a combination of philanthropic
funding or social investment and alignment with the company’s core competencies. In some cases,
they also involve direct integration into the company’s commercial value chain.
Box 17 illustrates the examples of the Shell Foundation, the ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth,
Virgin Unite. These three corporate foundations are explicitly focused on seed funding enterprise-
based solutions to sustainable development and poverty alleviation and to aligning their
philanthropic activities to the core competencies and cultures of the companies that established them.
As the Shell Foundation notes:
“We address social problems arising from the links between energy and poverty, energy
and the environment and the impact of globalization on vulnerable communities. In
addition, while set up as a grant-making charity, the Shell Foundation believes the
application of business principles and business thinking can be very useful in tackling
social problems, especially the challenges of overcoming poverty in developing
countries. Hence we tend to act more like an investor in deciding where and how to
allocate our commitments of time and money. We also expect our partners to act like
entrepreneurs and businesses in the pursuit of their social and charitable objectives.
Finally, we’re exploring ways of harnessing what we call the ‘value-creating’ assets of one
of the largest energy companies, the Shell Group, to advance our charitable
objectives.”78
Given the central role of innovation and an entrepreneurial mindset to business success for many
large companies, it is surprising that many more of them are not actively funding, supporting and
partnering with social entrepreneurs, small businesses and development innovators through their
philanthropic and/or business activities. These ‘hybrid’ relationships warrant further analysis and
support by other private and public sector development actors.

BOX 17: Corporate foundations that are seeding enterprise solutions to poverty
● The Shell Foundation funded are evaluated against development The foundation takes a an integrated
Royal Dutch Shell established the impact criteria in addition to financial approach to empowerment, with five
foundation in 2000 as an independent returns. strategic programmatic areas based on
nonprofit organization to facilitate a more what it describes as its core beliefs about
strategically aligned approach to the • Through its Trading UP initiative, the inclusive growth. They are as follows:
company’s global giving. The foundation foundation is helping to make value
does not substitute for the company’s chains more inclusive by matching • Good health and basic education are
ongoing community engagement, consumer demand in developed fundamental prerequisites for achieving
volunteering and consultation strategies at countries with small farmers in inclusive growth.
the local operational level. It has combined developing countries. Trading UP
the support of innovative market-based partners with for-profit and nonprofit • While health and educated individuals
solutions through its program funding with intermediaries that deliver services such have the capacity to transform their lives,
strategic use of high-profile platforms and as seed capital, supply chain or business their ability to do so depends on the
research to influence policy dialogue and management and mentoring programs quality of their access to transformative
the debate on ‘business and development’. to small producers in Africa and India. tools such as finance.
It has also played a role in building the At the same time, it facilitates major
capacity, scale and impact of intermediary retailers such as Marks & Spencer to • For the Indian growth process to be truly
organizations – both those that directly source from these producers, by helping inclusive, health, education and access to
delivering products and services on-the- to take some of the transaction costs complete financial markets are necessary
ground as well as field building platforms and risks out of dealing with them. but not sufficient. …additional efforts are
such as the Aspen Network of Development The foundation is focused on scaling the required, such as the strengthening of
Entrepreneurs. Two examples of how the intermediary organizations that make this grassroots organizations and regulatory
Foundation is supporting entrepreneurial connection economically feasible and infrastructure to ensure that the market
market-based approaches are as follows: socially and environmentally sound – does not exploit marginalized sectors of
describing them as ‘ethical agents’. the population or the environment.
• Since 2003, the Aspire program has
partnered with international financial ● ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth From the outset, ICICI made the decision
institutions to support the development This is a new foundation, created by the not to build a large organizational structure
and scaling of GroFin, an intermediary ICICI Group in 2008 to focus the company’s with all its own program management
that provides integrated growth capital efforts more strategically on promoting systems, but to collaborate strategically
and business development support to inclusive growth amongst low-income with and support a select group of
small and growing businesses in Africa. households in India. Through its mainstream independent organizations with deep
Today, in Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, South business operations ICICI has played a expertise in the foundation’s focus areas.
Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda, pioneering role in improving access to This approach aims not only to build the
GroFin is managing more than $260 affordable financial services for millions capacity, scale and impact of these strategic
million in investments in over 160 of Indian entrepreneurs and households. partners, but through them to deepen an
companies, with funding provided by a The company is widely viewed as one strengthen a broader ecosystem of local
combination of both African and global of the corporate success stories of India’s organizations and networks focused on
investors. Some 5,000 jobs have been impressive economic growth over the past inclusive growth. The five strategic areas
created or maintained and women own two decades. Its foundation aims to expand are: primary health; elementary education;
almost 30 percent of the small companies such opportunity. Its stated mission is: “…to comprehensive access to financial services;
funded. GroFin now manages the world’s create and support strong independent strong civil society; and environmental
largest sub $1million per investment SME organizations which work towards sustainability. In all cases, the foundation
fund and is focused on scaling into a empowering the poor to participate in and aims to support entrepreneurial and
further five African markets over the next benefit from the Indian growth process.” accountable local entities.
three years and raising its capital base to
$400 million. All the small enterprises

BOX 17: Corporate foundations that are seeding enterprise solutions to poverty continued
● Virgin Unite City Campus, a cost-effective and the company’s technologies, products
The Virgin Group is widely recognized for its affordable business school established by and skilled employees. From the outset,
entrepreneurial culture and that of its Taddy Bletcher, a South African social Google.org has also been actively involved
founder, Richard Branson. Virgin Unite was entrepreneur, to enable high-potential in policy advocacy. Since its inception, it has
established as a nonprofit foundation in youth from low-income communities to committed over US$100 million in grants to
2004, with the following mission: gain business and technology skills. non-profits and investments in companies
“We unite people to tackle tough social and The Branson School of Entrepreneurship that are working on breakthrough
environmental problems in an entrepreneurial now offers an18-month training program technologies to tackle challenges such as
way. Our aim is to help revolutionize the for CIDA graduates that aims to launch 30 climate change, pandemic disease and
way businesses and the social sector work small businesses each year. Money raised poverty. It has also supported efforts to
together – driving business as a force for from another entrepreneurial Branson improve information access aimed at
good. This is based on the belief that this is initiative, an annual dinner to recognize informing and empowering citizens to hold
the only way we can tackle the scale of the the Virgin Atlantic Fast Track 100 their governments to account. And it has
challenges facing the world today.” entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom, supported social enterprises such as the
The Virgin Group and Richard Branson goes into the CIDA Seed Fund to provide Acumen Fund and TechnoServe, which are
cover the foundation’s overheads. capital to student with good business investing in small and growing businesses in
This enables all additional donations and plans to start their own enterprises. crucial poverty-alleviating sectors such as
resources mobilized to go to programs agriculture, water, energy and housing.
and projects. The foundation works actively • Entreprenuers Unite is another
to engage other actors in its programs, program, which aims to make it easy In 2009, a decision was made to focus
including the company’s employees, and fun for other entrepreneurs to get Google.org’s primary efforts on tackling
customers and suppliers, as well as other actively engaged in the social sector. complex challenges that are most likely to
entrepreneurs and organizations. It offers a flexible approach that benefit from the company’s strengths in
enables entrepreneurs to engage with technology, engineering and information.
Its activities focus on three main areas: Virgin Unite’s own projects or other It is now focused on investing in technology-
Big Ideas, which brings together leaders entrepreneurial solutions in a way that enabled and entrepreneurial solutions that
from different sectors and countries to suits their own objectives and capacities. have the potential to scale and have
create new global leadership models to systemic impact. Examples include: Google
address conflict, climate change and ● Google.org Flu Trends, which provides real-time
disease, and includes The Elders initiative; Google.org was created in 2004 as part of tracking data on flu activity around the
Entrepreneurial Incubator, which brings the company’s initial public offering (IPO). world; and RE<C, which is making
together leaders in the business and social In writing to prospective shareholders in investments in a variety of clean energy
sector to develop entrepreneurial their IPO letter, Google founders Larry Page sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal
approaches aimed at driving economic and Sergey Brin stated, “We hope someday and the commercialization of plug-in
empowerment and healthy communities; [Google.org] may eclipse Google itself in vehicles. It is also supporting initiatives such
and Mobilizing and Inspiring Business, terms of overall world impact by ambitiously as Innovative Support to Emergencies,
which aims to make it easier for other applying innovation and significant Diseases and Disasters (Instedd), which
companies to get engaged in resources to the largest of the world’s aims to improve the detection of,
entrepreneurial social solutions. problems.” A commitment was made to preparedness for, and response to global
Two examples of the foundation’s donate 1 percent of Google’s equity and health threats and humanitarian crises.
entrepreneurial focus are as follows: profits to philanthropy. Google.org was
legally structured in a manner that enables
• In South Africa, Virgin Unite has it to undertake traditional grant making to
established the Branson School of nonprofits, but also to make investments in
Entrepreneurship. This has been for-profit enterprises with a social and/or
implemented in partnership with CIDA environmental mission, and to leverage

(v) Strengthen the capacity of local leaders and institutions
Many NGOs, community-based organizations, universities, and other civic organizations in
developing countries lack not only financial resources, but also the necessary human, technical,
institutional, planning, project management, logistics and communications capacity to be effective.
In the same way that small enterprises in many developing countries lack access to markets, civic
organizations often lack access to networks that can help them access philanthropic and other funds,
get technical assistance, join peer groups and find partners with which to collaborate. In many cases
essential government Ministries in areas such as health, education and employment, face similar
institutional capacity gaps.
In addition to institutions, individual leaders are essential drivers of more inclusive and sustainable
models of development, both nationally and at the community level. Millions of teachers, health
workers, emergency first-responders and public administrators strive against the odds to build local
human capital and resilience. Whether they work in the public, private or civic sector, and whether
they are paid for their efforts or serve as unpaid volunteers in their communities they play an essential
role in fostering human potential and economic opportunity. Yet, in far too many cases these local
leaders are over-stretched, under-valued and poorly qualified. Many go elsewhere to find jobs with
greater financial security and less stress, putting even greater strain on those who stay. There is an
urgent need for new types of partnership to train, retain and network these vital local leaders.
The UN estimates that some 4 million new teachers are needed in Africa if universal primary
education is to be achieved, and nearly sixty countries in Africa and Asia face a severe shortage of
health workers requiring a total of 4.2 million additional workers to fill the gap. Sub-Saharan Africa,
for example, has 11 percent of the world’s population, 24 percent of the global burden of disease and
only 3 percent of the world’s health workers. At the same time, civil servants in many countries could
serve their citizens better if greater investments were made in building their managerial capacity and
equipping them with better technologies and technical skills.
The Rockefeller Foundation outlines the importance of strengthening local leaders and institutions:
“Economies are lifted by investments in the best individual minds, the best-functioning
institutions and the latest smartly utilized information technology. Not only are poor
countries and weak organizations ill-equipped to compete in international markets;
worse, they are unable to respond successfully to demands by local clientele and
communities. Recognizing that capacity building is central to achieving economic
growth, reducing poverty and equalizing opportunity, foundations and bilateral and
multilateral funding agencies have taken a newfound interest in this fundamental area.”79
One challenge is that no individual company can achieve systemic impact without working
strategically with host governments, other development partners and in certain cases other
companies. Whether the goal is building health, education or others types of local institutional
capacity, there is a danger of too many individual, vertical initiatives replicating efforts and in some
cases competing with each other. There is a need for such capacity building efforts to be more
effectively leveraged by greater coordination between different companies, or strategic alliances

between companies, other private foundations and public donors. Such collaborative efforts warrant
further attention. They could help to scale the reach and increase the effectiveness of institutional
capacity-building efforts by the private sector.
A number of companies have established NGO and/or public sector training programs and institutes
to strengthen the capacity of individuals and institutions in key areas such as health, education and
community development. Pharmaceutical, information technology companies, professional services
firms, and companies with a strong local operating presence have been particularly active in this area.
A few examples of multi-country capacity-building programs in the area of health workers and
healthcare institutions are as follows:
• BD, the medical technology company, has a Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) training program,
which is designed to help improve laboratory skills, safety and the quality of patient care in
resource-limited settings. As of 2010 the program had trained more than 4,000 laboratory
practitioners from some 58 countries. These programs are core components of the company’s
Global Health Initiative, which focuses on strengthening healthcare systems in developing
countries through: providing technical assistance and training to build local capacity; increasing
access to affordable and appropriate technology such as diagnostic tools and medical devices; and
investing in new technologies that are more relevant for resource-constrained settings. The
company makes extensive use of its own employees in training workshops and capacity-building,
in addition to partnering with global health organizations and NGOs.
• Bristol Myers Squibb is building the capacity of health workers and health-related NGOs in a
number of African countries through its Secure the Future program. The company and its
foundation have committed some US$150 million to the program. Since its creation in 1999,
Secure the Future has supported more than 200 projects focused on community education and
outreach and medical care and research, and has expanded its reach from 5 countries to 12. The
program is not only a grant-making facility, but also focuses on community-based education and
treatment support, pediatric AIDS and building NGO management and leadership capacity.
Through its online NGO Training Institute, for example, BMS is working to strengthen
institutional capacity for NGOs and community organizations focused on HIV/AIDS. The
NGO Training Institute is a virtual program that offers curricula on management, good
governance, organizational leadership and self-assessment tools. It is operational in South Africa,
Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland.
• Johnson & Johnson supports a number of longstanding programs aimed at building health care
capacity in developing countries through providing leadership and management development
training and networking opportunities for doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare
professionals. In 2006, for example, it partnered with UCLA to establish the Management
Development Institute, an intensive one-week training program to enable healthcare professionals
in East Africa to become better managers. Similar programs for hospital managers and health
workers in other parts of the world are supported in partnership with institutions such as
Singapore Management University, Wharton, INSEAD and the Aga Khan Foundation.

• Pfizer has worked in partnership with others to establish an Infectious Disease Institute in
Uganda, which provides region-wide capacity building in the care and treatment of HIV/AIDS
and other infectious diseases. Hosted by Makerere University and supported by a variety of public
and private organizations that provide both financial and in-kind support, IDI provides training
to health workers, research on best practices in low-resource settings and advanced clinical services
that support the development of new models of care. Since its establishment in 2004, the institute
has trained some 3,500 healthcare workers from about 27 African countries. It is also working
with the Accordia Global Health Foundation to implement an Integrated Infectious Disease
Capacity Building Program targeted as building the capacity of mid-level health practitioners in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
These philanthropic initiatives are in addition to the human capital development and institutional
strengthening that these companies undertake through their core business activities in developing
countries. The following pages illustrate four other examples of companies that have engaged in
strategic multi-year partnerships with governments and donors to undertake comprehensive
countrywide approaches aimed at building government and NGO capacity in different sectors in
Botswana, Angola, Tanzania and Ghana.
Some companies have also taken an integrated regional or countrywide approach, working directly
with governments to help strengthen local institutions in a particular sector and location.
In Botswana, for example, the Merck Company Foundation / Merck & Co. has partnered with the
Government of Botswana and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support the Africa
Comprehensive HIVS/AIDS Partnership (ACHAP), which is focused on strengthening and
coordinating the country’s HIV/AIDS response along the full spectrum of prevention, care and
treatment. From its outset in 2000, the initiative was designed to be country-led, with the
Government and local civil society and private sector organizations playing the lead role in defining
priorities and needs. The Gates Foundation and the Merck Company Foundation both committed
US$50 million and Merck donates two of its antiretroviral (ARV) medicines to the national ARV
therapy program. The initiative has been multi-faceted and has included support for improving
health infrastructure, developing local human resources and training of over 5,000 healthcare
workers, the provision of equipment to improve monitoring capacity, support for local media
campaigns to raise awareness and tackle stigma, efforts to promote workplace policies through local
companies and business associations, and guidance on public policy and national strategic
frameworks. Independent evaluations of the program estimate that its has prevented more than
53,000 deaths of people living with HIV and today 90 percent of the population living with HIV
receive treatment compared to 5 percent when the program began. In 2010, in addition to ongoing
product donations from Merck, the two foundations each committed a further US$30 million in
funds to deepen and strengthen the program.

In Angola, Chevron partnered with the Angolan Government, USAID, UNDP, Africare and other
local and international development NGOs to establish the Angola Partnership Initiative (API) in
2002. It was capitalized with an initial US$25 million commitment from the company, matched by
funds and technical assistance from other partners. API’s goal was to provide humanitarian assistance,
revitalize commercial agriculture, invest in small enterprise development and support community-
based capacity building. It was part of a national effort to rebuild the country’s economy and social
infrastructure after years of devastating civil war. In 2007, after the API funds had been committed,
the initiative was evaluated. Some 1.6 million people had participated in food-for-work activities
resulting in the rehabilitation of rural infrastructure, including almost 4,000 kilometers of rural roads
and over 1,000 kilometers of irrigation channels. About 2,200 smallholder farmers were involved in
the ProAgro initiative to strengthen local agricultural value chains and food security. NovoBanco, a
commercial bank for small and microenterprises had been established, and by December 2007 had
cumulatively extended loans valued at over US$27 million and taken in US$ 9.2 million in deposits.
A Business Resource and Development Center had provided business development services to about
7,000 clients. Twenty-six education and learning centers had been established through a partnership
with Discovery Channels and some 1,300 teachers trained. Key lessons from the participatory
evaluation process are now being applied by the company to strategic partnerships in other
developing countries, including the launch in 2010 of the Niger Delta Partnership Initiative in
Nigeria.
In Tanzania, the Abbott Fund and the Government of Tanzania have formed a strategic partnership
aimed at strengthening key elements of the country’s health system, with a focus on serving people
with HIV/AIDS. The Abbott Fund, which is the philanthropic arm of Abbott, has established a local
office and since the partnership was initiated in 2002 it has invested over US$80 million in the
program. Working closely with the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the initiative has also
drawn on the core competencies of Abbott’s employees in areas ranging from diagnostic, clinical and
laboratory skills to facilities and logistics management. It has helped to expand and modernize
facilities, train medical and administrative staff, improve hospital and patient information and
management systems, and expand the capacity for HIV testing, counseling and treatment. The
initiative has been centered at the Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’s main
referral and teaching hospital. Improvements have included a new outpatient facility with 34
examination rooms, a new laboratory, an emergency medical department, new training facilities and
the implementation of information technology (IT) systems. The laboratory has increased testing
capacity up to a hundredfold for certain types of tests and the IT systems have helped to improve
patient service and financial management, enabling the hospital to increase revenue collection by an
estimated 350 percent. Together these reforms are enabling the hospital to start accessing other
sources of revenue such as funding for research and sales of diagnostics to other healthcare
institutions. In addition, the initiative is working in partnership with other organizations to build a
network of modern laboratories in all 23 of the country’s regional hospitals and provide technical,
financial and training support for more than 80 hospitals and rural health centers in total. It is also
providing more than 100 scholarships a year to students pursuing medical laboratory sciences at local
universities.

In Ghana, SAP has partnered with the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, the German
federally-owned development agency Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ),
and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) to support the government in
establishing an accountable and transparent system for monitoring payments and revenues from its
growing minerals, oil and gas industries. Ghana EITI is a national chapter of the EITI, which was
launched by the UK government in 2002 and now operates as a stand-alone institution. EITI is a
voluntary coalition of governments, companies, investors, civil society organizations and
international agencies that aims to improve revenue transparency and governance in resource-rich
countries through the publication and verification of company payments and government revenues
in the mining, oil and gas sectors. SAP is a global leader in the provision of business software such as
enterprise resource planning, business intelligence and related applications, which enables companies
to identify and respond to risk and opportunity throughout their extended enterprise, thereby
improving the efficiency, resilience and integrity of their operations. In working with Ghana EITI,
GTZ and the Ghanaian government, SAP has leveraged both its products and the expertise of its
employees to support the country’s efforts to curb corruption and to ensure that revenues from the
extractive sector translate into economic growth and poverty alleviation. The company has donated
an enterprise performance management solution and technical assistance, which will help the
Ministry of Finance to improve financial oversight and analysis of extractives revenues and also
provide public information to empower civil society and other stakeholders to monitor government
accountability and performance. In 2010, the company partnered with GTZ to hold a multi-
stakeholder workshop, including representatives from Ghanaian civil society in addition to
companies and government officials, to agree on the scope, governance and implementation of the
Ghana EITI program. In October 2010, Ghana became the fifth country to achieve Compliant
status with the EITI’s global standard.
Box 18 illustrates two other examples of strategic corporate citizenship programs that are focused on
strengthening the capacity of local leaders and institutions in developing countries.

Box 18: Corporate citizenship programs that mobilize people, products and process to strengthen
nonprofit and public institutional capacity
Microsoft’s Unlimited Potential™ In 2008-2009 the company donated more than equipment repair to help receiving facilities
program building NGO capacity US$400 million worth of software to over make best use of current medical
Microsoft has operated a variety of 30,000 NGOs and nonprofits, it supported technologies.” 81
philanthropic, product donation and employee intermediaries such as TechSoup, Telecenter.org
engagement programs for more than two and NetHope to enable them to enhance the The program has active support from the
decades that equip nonprofit organizations – capacity of NGOs, it developed Shared Access company’s African American Forum, Hispanic
both international NGOs and community- computing options for users in remote areas Forum and Asian Pacific American Forum.
based initiatives – with information building the local capacity of thousands of Employee volunteers partner with each
technologies and technical skills to improve telecenters, libraries, schools and Internet cafes, receiving hospital to monitor equipment use
their organizational effectiveness, reach and it hosted an NGO oriented website and ran and share business best practices. Products and
social impact. The convergence between ICT NGO Connection Days around the world, and equipment donated by the company have
devices, software and cloud-based services it ran programs such as the Imagine Cup included basic laboratory equipment, patient
offers new opportunities as well as challenges challenge to motivate students and developers monitoring devices, surgical suite equipment
for the NGO community. As the company to create software solutions for tackling key such as anesthesia and patient monitors,
notes, “Technology can be a disruptive force development challenges. In all cases, the aim maternal and infant care products, such as
that opens exciting opportunities and avenues is to increase capacity, productivity and infant warmers, water filters, and diagnostic
for nonprofits to better achieve their missions effectiveness, improve communication and tools such as X-ray and ultrasound. The
and accelerate their impact. This ‘constructive collaboration, and scale and strengthen social program places a particular emphasis on
disruption’ of traditional business, delivery, impact. Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5:
information and networking models is already maternal and infant care. The facility
underway. … As more examples emerge of General Electric’s Developing Health improvements made through the program
innovative technologies and new models for Globally™ program to build capacity of also improve treatment of trauma and acute
social change, the challenge for NGOs, rural health centers illnesses such as combinations of HIV/AIDS,
nonprofits and foundations is how to be GE’s Developing Health Globally™ program TB and malaria.
involved in shaping these solutions and take upgrades the capabilities of rural district
advantage of them for development.” 80 hospitals in selected countries in Africa, Asia The company carries out independent
and Latin America. The company estimates evaluations to track patient volumes and
As a core component of its Unlimited Potential that it has a direct impact on more than 4.8 health outcomes. Since the start of the
program, Microsoft is working with thousands million lives. Launched in 2004, with active program in Africa, practitioners’ improved use
of nonprofit partners and with intermediaries employee engagement, the program aims to of technology has increased deliveries by 50
to build their institutional and technical improve healthcare delivery for some of the percent, ultrasound scans by 200 percent and
capacity to reap these opportunities. world’s most vulnerable people. As the baby warmer use by 175 percent. Surgery
The company has identified four areas for company outlines: “The program draws volume also increased because of aid from
action: technology innovation to make sure on GE products, expertise and employee modern tools, leading to a 100 to 250 percent
that existing and emerging technologies are engagement to provide a sustainable, increase in anesthesia and monitoring and a
relevant, affordable and accessible for NGOs enterprise solution approach to gaps that 250 percent increase in X-rays. After being
globally; IT capacity building and the creation exist in rural healthcare facilities today. launched in Ghana, the program has now
of NGO partner ecosystems to fully optimize The enterprise solution approach GE follows is expanded to Kenya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Malawi,
these technologies; motivating and supporting unique for a philanthropic/product-donation Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Senegal,
IT developers to pursue innovation specifically effort in that it is carried out using GE business Honduras, Cambodia and Indonesia, covering
for the nonprofit sector; and social networking practices similar to how GE implements a some 100 health centers. About 3,000 products
platforms to exchange information and best greenfield opportunity and combines GE have been donated and the company has
practices throughout the social sector. people, process and technology to yield made an investment of US$ 40 million.
sustainable, best-case results. In addition to
physical facility upgrades, GE builds in-country
capacity for clinical practice and biomedical

(vi) Connect humanitarian relief with long-term recovery and resilience
Natural and man-made disasters have a devastating effect on millions of peoples’ lives every year. In
addition to the immediate humanitarian crisis, over the longer-term they usually have a negative
impact on efforts to improve health and education, build local livelihoods, strengthen communities,
alleviate poverty and ensure sustained development. The UN estimates that more than 200 million
people are affected every year. The risk associated with a growing number and intensity of disasters is
increasing, especially due to climate change. Estimates predict that the humanitarian caseload could
rise by as much as 25 percent by 2015.82 It is usually the poorest and most vulnerable populations who
face the highest risks and are least equipped and resilient to respond to or recover from disaster.
As highlighted throughout the report, the key responsibility for large companies is to ensure first that
their own business activities do not cause or exacerbate disaster situations. Second, that they have
management systems in place to prepare for and respond to disasters in a way that protects the lives
of employees and local communities, and that manages operational risk and supply chain resilience.
In addition, corporate philanthropy can make a valuable contribution to supporting disaster relief,
not only in countries and communities where the company has operations, but also globally.
Many corporations support disaster response efforts with a combination of philanthropic donations
and matched-giving programs for employees. Depending on the relevance of their products and
services, some also provide essential product donations and skills-based employee volunteering.
Companies in the pharmaceutical, information and communications technology (ICT), transport
and logistics, food and beverage, and financial services sectors have a particularly important
contribution to make. The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy states that, “Over the
past few years, [2007-2010] disaster relief has accounted for approximately 1% - 3% of the average
company’s total giving budget, depending on the number and scale of disaster events requiring
response.”83
Over the past decade, corporate philanthropic efforts to respond to disasters and emergencies have
become increasingly sophisticated and coordinated. Leading companies now have dedicated resources
and processes in place to manage their engagement. A number of them have explicit goals to be more
strategic along the full spectrum from immediate disaster relief through to rebuilding, recovery and
resilience. There has also been a marked growth in collaborative efforts and several organizations have
produced guidelines to improve the quality and accountability of corporate engagement.
Intermediary organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Clinton Global
Initiative (CGI), UN agencies and business associations have played a key role in facilitating these
developments and ICT often serves as a useful coordinating or networking platform. WEF’s
Humanitarian Relief Initiative, the UN High Commission on Refugee’s business advisory council,
the U.S. Business Roundtable’s Partnership for Disaster Response, and the Disaster Assistance and
Recovery initiative at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all provide platforms for companies and other
actors to learn from each other and identify areas for on-the-ground cooperation. WEF and the UN
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have jointly developed a set of
‘Guiding Principles for Public-Private Collaboration for Humanitarian Action’.

Other collaborative initiatives include NetHope, which brings together ICT companies and
humanitarian NGOs, the Partnership for Quality Medical Donations, which brings together
pharmaceutical companies and humanitarian NGOs, the Fritz Institute and the Logistics Emergency
Teams (LET) initiative, which both link logistics expertise to humanitarian efforts, and Innovative
Support to Emergencies, Diseases and Disasters (Instedd), which uses new technologies to improve
the early detection of, preparedness for, and response to global health threats and humanitarian crises.
A few of these collaborative efforts are profiled in Part Four of the report.
There are also a growing number of individual companies that have formed one-to-one multi-year
strategic alliances with a particular humanitarian NGO or UN Agency. Organizations such as the
Red Cross, CARE International, Mercy Corps, World Vision, Oxfam, Catholic Relief Services,
Islamic Relief, Save the Children, the World Food Programme, UNICEF and UNHCR have been
particularly active and strategic in engaging with the corporate sector to improve the effectiveness of
immediate humanitarian relief and longer-term recovery. Four examples among many of on-the-
ground rebuilding efforts supported by corporate philanthropy are profiled in Box 19.
The spectrum for corporate engagement in disaster relief and recovery
Immediate emergency relief

The imperative is to deliver lifesaving aid, distribute clean water and sanitation, provide
urgent medical attention, distribute food, ensure personal security, organize shelter, prevent or
minimize outbreaks of disease – quality operations and logistics capabilities, information and
communications technologies, emergency supplies, complex project management skills, access to
emergency funds are all essential to saving lives, minimizing human suffering and protecting
survivors.
Restoration of basic services, core infrastructure and local economic activity
In addition to ongoing emergency efforts there is the need to reconnect families, restore essential
public facilities, keep citizens informed, support local livelihoods through market-based
reconstruction models and cash-for-work programs, manage refugee situations.
Longer-term engagement in broader economic recovery and in rebuilding health and
education systems
Explore opportunities to integrate local enterprises, suppliers and distributors into corporate
value chains, look at opportunities to ‘leap-frog’ technologies to build more resilient
infrastructure, better schools and hospitals.
Support disaster planning and preparedness, including local capacity building
Help communities and local institutions to improve disaster preparedness capabilities, support
organizational capacity building of humanitarian NGOs (both local and international), invest in
and train local first-responders in emergency services.
Increase the resilience of the most vulnerable populations.
Efforts to build more sustainable local enterprises, resilient economies, social safety nets,
household savings and insurance policies, and economic and social capacity, which will not only
help poor communities to better plan for and cope with disaster, but in many cases also
contribute directly to poverty alleviation.

Box 19: Philanthropic partnerships to help rebuild after conflict and natural disasters
In the following examples, the companies profiled have provided immediate relief and emergency response support to affected
populations, usually in partnership with governments and NGOs. At the same time they have made investments in rebuilding and
supporting longer-term recovery, resilience and development.
The Aceh Recovery Initiative – Established training and education; job creation and Connecting Sichuan – This is a collaborative
by Chevron working with the government, private sector revival; ICT infrastructure; initiative between Cisco and the Government
Swiss Contact and USAID following the 2004 and relief and response. The partnership of China. Initiated in 2008 after the Sichuan
tsunami, this initiative focused on providing leveraged the knowledge and experience of earthquake, it leverages Cisco’s networking
locally needed vocational skills and economic the supporting companies while also laying capabilities and extensive technical expertise
development opportunities for people living the groundwork for long-term productivity to improve the quality and reliability of
in Aceh, Indonesia. An immediate three- of Lebanese businesses and opportunities healthcare and education for affected
month program provided training in for youth. Activities included a home populations, especially in rural areas.
reconstruction needs such as road and home reconstruction program, loans and technical The company made a US$45 million, three-
construction, electrical installation and use of assistance to support rural-based information year commitment to the initiative, bringing in
information technology. Evaluation of the technology businesses, and IT training more than 47 government entities, non-
program showed some 80 percent of the 300 centers and public school programs. governmental organizations, systems
graduates were employed or had started integrators and solutions providers.
their own businesses in the area. At the same Haiti Hope – To support longer-term The healthcare initiative is implementing
time, the company launched a joint effort to rebuilding and development following the mobile solutions for disease surveillance
develop a new polytechnic in Aceh to 2010 earthquake, this project has been and training, and supporting a multi-hub
support longer-term skills and economic launched by the Coca-Cola Company working telehealth network to connect regional
development. This was opened in 2009 and in partnership with USAID, the Inter-American and national hospitals. By the end of 2010,
offers courses in electronics engineering, Development Bank, and the Clinton Bush networking and collaborative technologies
engineering, robotics, information Haiti Fund, with the NGO TechnoServe as an had been installed at over 40 hospitals and
technology and accounting. The company implementing partner. The initiative is aimed some 4,700 health, education and IT
has also supported the local Business Startup at strengthening Haiti's rural economic and professionals had received training.
Establishment project, which aims to start productive capacities to help build resilience The education initiative is providing
over 1,000 small business and micro- in the years to come. The project is a five- technology and training in targeted schools
enterprises. year, US$9.5 million investment in the further and vocational colleges, establishing Cisco
development of the Haitian mango industry. Networking Academies and supporting
The Partnership for Lebanon – Launched in Today, mangos are one of Haiti's top exports teacher professional development and
September of 2006 in the aftermath of the and an important crop for local food security, training. To-date over 20 schools, two
Israeli-Hezbollah war, the Partnership for but experts estimate that the industry has colleges and more than 500 classrooms had
Lebanon was led by five corporations: Cisco, significant growth potential. There is been equipped, reaching an estimated 1,000
Intel, Microsoft, Ghafari Associates, and opportunity to expand the productive teachers and 31,000 students and 50 new
Occidental Petroleum. They worked with capacity of existing mango trees and improve Networking Academies are serving some
diverse partners including the Lebanese farming practices to generate higher returns 5,000 students.
government, local business associations and for mango farmers. The project aims to
local and international agencies, such as enable 25,000 farmers to double their farm
ANERA, Al Majmoua, Ameen, Habitat for income, while also supporting the formation
Humanity, Mercy Corps, Relief International and financing of mango producer groups and
and UNICEF. The goal was to support rural infrastructure. Additionally, value-added
Lebanon’s reconstruction, stabilization and activities may also prove viable, including
economic growth. Activities focused on five local processing of mangos into juice or dried
areas: connected communities; workforce fruit.
Sources: Partner and company websites

(vii) Fund research, public awareness and advocacy for development
As outlined in the section on core business operations, scientific, social and economic research is a
crucial driver of development. More research needs to be targeted at meeting the needs of the poor.
A small vanguard of companies is starting to address this challenge through their mainstream R&D
budgets and this is clearly where the major resources are to be found. At the same time, there is an
opportunity to leverage corporate philanthropy budgets more effectively to support credible and
independent research focused on improving humanitarian assistance and building more inclusive and
sustainable markets for the poor. Corporate philanthropy, together with social marketing, cause-
related marketing and public service announcements, can also help to raise public awareness and
improve knowledge about key development issues in both donor and developing countries.
Building the capacity of scientists, researchers, policy think tanks, research institutes and universities
based in developing countries is another opportunity that requires greater focus and support on the
part of large companies and their corporate foundations and philanthropic efforts. As the Hewlett
Foundation notes, “Policymakers in developing countries often lack credible, objective information
to address increasingly complex social and economic issues. Independent think tanks can play a
critical role in supplying this information and improving the national debate about policy options.”84
Several major initiatives focused on this goal have been launched in the past two years by private
foundations. Where relevant and appropriate, these and similar efforts warrant engagement from
multinational and large domestic companies, either as providers of additional resources, as research
subjects, as dialogue partners and/or as policy advocates.
In addition to funding developing country-based research and researchers, companies could also do
more to initiate or support ongoing efforts in building the capacity of local media, journalists and
broadcasters in these countries. An open and free media is a vital component of good governance and
in ensuring accountability of governments, corporations and other influential actors. The media can
also play a crucial role in raising public awareness and educating citizens on specific public health
issues, information relevant to the productivity, market access and resilience of smallholder farmers
and enterprises, and supporting basic education and literacy. As outlined in Part Four of the report,
companies have supported a number of successful collaborative efforts to promote public awareness
and action on HIV/AIDS in Africa, India and China and in other public health messaging. More
could be done in this area.
When it comes to funding research and public awareness campaigns, there are well-cited concerns
about corporate foundations being too closely aligned to corporate business interests, especially given
the tax benefits they gain from having nonprofit or charitable status in many countries. This is a valid
concern. There is a need for corporate foundations, especially those engaging in controversial sectors
such as public health, nutrition and food security, biotechnology, water and climate change, to be
accountable and transparent about their goals, beneficiaries and research findings.
Box 20 provides a brief overview of six corporate foundations and philanthropy programs that are
supporting research and also helping to raise public awareness and advocacy on key development
issues.

Box 20: Corporate foundations and philanthropy as catalysts for development research, public
awareness and advocacy
The Nike Foundation and ‘Investing in the The Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable
Girl Effect’ Development Agriculture
The Nike Foundation began its focused The Novartis Foundation is a nonprofit think The Syngenta Foundation is a nonprofit
investment on adolescent girls in developing tank on international development and organization that was funded and created by
countries in 2004. From the outset, the humanitarian issues. It forms part of the Syngenta under Swiss law in 2001. It has
foundation set out to combine rigorous corporate responsibility portfolio of the access to the company’s expertise and
research and empirical evidence with Novartis Group and is fully financed by the resources, but is legally independent with
inspiring stories to make a compelling case company. Although health and corporate its own board of directors. Its mission is to
that investing in girls and improving their responsibility are part of its research focus, create value for resource-poor small farmers
lives will have a powerful ripple effect on the foundation is structured to carry out its in developing countries through supporting
tackling poverty. The foundation’s targeted work independently from the company’s research and innovation in sustainable
strategy and innovative approaches have business activities and is governed by an agriculture and activating value chains that
mobilized Nike’s own resources, leveraged independent board. The foundation has a help farmers to access services such as
millions of dollars in additional funding from legacy dating back to the 1970s when it extension, credit and microinsurance,
other philanthropists, governments and the was called the Ciba-Geigy Foundation for innovative technologies and markets.
general public, funded influential research, Cooperation with Developing Countries, The foundation funds scientific and policy
challenged politicians and policy makers, one of the first OECD-based corporate research and supports projects that focus on
raised pubic awareness and put the crucial foundations dedicated to international ‘pre-competitive’ farmers, often in semi-arid
importance of investing in girls onto the development. Today it states its goal as, areas in Africa, Asia and Latin America, who
international development agenda. “the sustainable improvement of the quality display potential for agricultural growth.
of life of the poorest people in developing It is on the private sector committee of
The foundation has funded groundbreaking countries. We aim to help in the formulation the Consultative Group on Agricultural
research by think tanks and institutions such and shaping of development policy and Research (CGIAR).
as the International Center for Research on practices, in order to reduce poverty and
Women, the Population Council, the Center social inequality. We do this through a Research projects and field programs are
for Global Development and the Jameel synergistic approach of research, information usually carried out in partnership with other
Poverty Action Lab at MIT. It promotes and advice on development policy, and private and public sector funders and also
research findings on key policy platforms practical development work.” 85 engage Syngenta scientists and technical
such as the World Economic Forum and expertise. They include plant breeding
World Bank supported by the personal Research projects and publications are research on bio-fortification and insect
leadership of the company’s CEO. At the supported in the areas of: population policy resistant wheat, maize and sorghum varieties,
same time, it has tapped into the company’s and sustainable development; business scientific and regulatory capacity building in
marketing skills, media networks and culture ethics and globalization; governance and developing countries to better harness the
of innovation to raise public awareness and development; health policy in conditions of opportunities and manage the risks of
provide practical guidance to individuals and poverty; and access to basic health care in biotechnology, and in-country extension
institutions on how to get actively engaged. developing countries. In addition the projects to improve farmer productivity and
In addition, the Foundation has funded a company convenes regular dialogues and income generation. The foundation is also
variety of programs on-the-ground to public lectures on development issues and engaged in developing markets for farmer
directly invest in and with girls in some of serves as an advisor to various governmental inputs and their crops. And it supports a
the poorest regions of the world. And it has organizations. It also supports about eight number of new financing models from
funded evaluation and learning from these strategic projects focused on access to health working with insurance companies, ICT and
projects to build the case for investing in and community development in Africa and mobile telephone operators on weather
85
girls and to share lessons on what works in India. index-based microinsurance to supporting
practice. the global BioCarbon Fund, managed by the
World Bank.

Box 20: Corporate foundations and philanthropy as catalysts for development research, public
awareness and advocacy continued
The Alcoa Foundation’s Conservation and The HSBC Climate Partnership The GSK African Malaria Partnership
Sustainability Fellowship Program In 2007, the global banking group HSBC made GSK has made a public commitment through
The Alcoa Foundation launched its a US$100 million, five-year commitment to its core business operations to invest in on-
Conservation & Sustainability Fellowship launch the HSBC Climate Partnership. This going research into new malaria medicines,
Program in 2005. Its goal is to advance supports four leading environmental NGOs in treatments and vaccines and to provide
research and knowledge in the field of researching and tackling the causes and preferential pricing of its anti-malarials in the
conservation and sustainability through impacts of climate change. They are the least developed countries. At the same time,
supporting a combination of pure and Climate Group, WWF, Earthwatch Institute, the company is supporting a variety of
applied research and through facilitating and Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. philanthropic and community investment
interdisciplinary collaboration. It achieves The initiative is supporting scientists to help activities to combat malaria funded through
this by awarding competitive fellowships to improve understanding of how forests interact the GSK African Malaria Partnership (AMP).
outstanding academics and their institutions with carbon and climate. It is exploring AMP was established in 2001 to improve
and to practitioners from non-governmental different approaches to protect major rivers both the prevention and treatment of
organizations. Research grants are such as the Amazon, Ganges, and Yangtze malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. In its first
accompanied by opportunities to meet, from the impacts of climate change and to phase, the partnership supported public
collaborate and widely disseminate the make some of 450 million people who rely on awareness campaigns to drive behavior
research findings and insights, with a these rivers less vulnerable. And it is working change in eight countries, encouraging
goal of influencing the adoption of more with some of the world’s largest cities in people to sleep under insecticide treated
environmentally sound policies and practices China, India, the United States and the United bednets and seek treatment for fevers.
and creating a global alumni network of Kingdom to develop models of more systemic
future leaders and mentors with a city-level approaches to climate change In 2005, AMP partnered with the Malaria
commitment to conservation and mitigation and adaptation. The initiative also Consortium to launch Mobilizing4Malaria.
sustainability. The US$10 million program aims to engage the bank’s employees and the This three-year advocacy initiative in Europe
receives advice from a panel of external public to raise their awareness of climate and Africa was aimed at raising public
experts in addition to business unit and change and get them involved in community awareness and driving increased political
functional leaders within Alcoa. volunteering and research projects. commitment and funding to tackle the
disease. In 2006, Mobilizing4Malaria
Five academic partners have been selected to Achievements to date have included the established national ‘Coalitions Against
host up to 30 post-doctoral fellows working establishment of several new research Malaria’ in the United Kingdom, Belgium,
on interdisciplinary projects – Curtin initiatives, the creation of networks of France, Ethiopia, Cameroon and Mozambique.
University of Technology the London School scientists and volunteers, the launch of These coalitions bring together activists,
of Economics and Political Science; Tsinghua consumer campaigns in the United Kingdom, politicians, the media, the private sector and
University, University of Michigan, and United States, Hong Kong and Brazil, and the scientific and academic communities. In
University of São Paulo. These academic engagement with major corporations and Africa, they collaborate with existing
partners are in countries important to the government leaders on specific projects. The networks to represent a united advocacy
company’s business and influential in global HSBC Climate Partnership forms part of the voice on malaria. The initiative has also
policy on sustainability issues. In addition, bank’s broader commitment to sustainability supported advocacy innovation grants to
three nonprofit sustainability institutes have through its core business operations. These inspire African civil society organizations and
also been selected by a competitive process include its adoption of the Equator Principles the media to become champions in the fight
to mentor up to 60 practitioner fellows, who to manage social and environmental risks against malaria. In 2009, AMP extended its
are mid-career professionals from NGOs. They associated with project finance and its support to strengthen these national
are International Union for Conservation of development of new financial services and coalitions and help them to secure other
Nature (IUCN) in Switzerland, Tecnológico de instruments in areas such as microfinance, sources of funding.
Monterrey in Mexico and World Wildlife Fund rural development, water and climate
in the United States. mitigation and adaptation.

SUMMARY OF CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY, VOLUNTEERING
AND COMMUNITY SOCIAL INVESTMENT
• Align core competencies with specific development goals
• Mobilize skilled volunteers for development projects
• Crowd-source solutions through online platforms
• Seed-fund innovation and entrepreneurship
• Strengthen the capacity of local leaders and institutions
• Connect humanitarian relief with long-term recovery and resilience
• Fund research, public awareness and advocacy for development

3. Engaging in public policy dialogue, advocacy and institution building
Ultimately, no matter how inspiring the examples of individual corporate engagement – whether
through core business operations, philanthropy, social investments or hybrid approaches –
improvements in public policy and institutional capacity are necessary to achieve the scale needed to
lift millions of people out of poverty.
Clearly, efforts to ensure that public policy is pro-poor and pro-business, especially supportive of
small business, are the responsibility of government. Both developing country governments and
donor governments must take the lead. But the private sector plays a substantial role in influencing
public policy, especially large corporations, representative trade and industry associations and
leadership coalitions of companies working together.
The relationship between corporate responsibility and the public policy frameworks or governance
context within which companies are operating – whether global, national or local – is one of the least
researched, yet strategically important issues in the discussion on business and international
development. This interface is likely to come under growing scrutiny in the coming years, both by
supporters and critics of business, and by companies and policymakers themselves.86
Compliance with the law and the implementation of due diligence policies and management systems
to respect human rights must be the starting point for any large company. There is also the need to
tackle corruption and to be accountable and transparent in dealing with public officials. Even these
fundamental responsibilities can be very challenging for companies operating in situations with weak
governance. At the same time, as the social, environmental and security problems faced by individual
nations and by the international community become increasingly complex and pose ever greater risks
for business, large companies will be expected to do more.
In discharging their responsibilities to their owners, business leaders will have to concern themselves
more strategically with the policy issues and public goods that are likely to affect the broader
prosperity, security and sustainability of the countries and communities in which they operate. The
ability to identify and prioritize these and then determine the best strategies for addressing them, either
individually or collectively, will be an increasingly important mark of good business leadership in the
years ahead. As McKinsey & Company noted about the results of a 2006 McKinsey Quarterly survey,
“Although lobbying – often behind closed doors – is as old as business itself, high-level
and concerted corporate activism in the social and political arena has been conspicuous
by its absence. That deficiency, executives tell us, is the result of short-term financial
pressures, a lack of familiarity with the issues, and the sense that specialists in the
public-affairs and legal departments handle this sort of thing. Such thinking, we believe,
is dangerous and wrong headed. Business leaders must become involved in
sociopolitical debate not only because their companies have so much to add but also
because they have a strategic interest in doing so.”87
In a 2010 McKinsey survey on how business interacts with government, 71 percent of respondents
agreed that companies should proactively and regularly engage with government, but only 43 percent

said that their companies actually do so and executives indicated that they are not particularly good
at it.”88
It is particularly difficult for the business community to stand on the sidelines when there are serious
governance gaps or institutional failures. As the Secretary-General of the OECD notes, “Investments
in places with weak public governance pose some of the most difficult ethical dilemmas confronting
international business today. In addition to the human suffering it causes, weak public governance
forces companies and managers to ask: if governments cannot or will not assume their roles and
responsibilities, what then is the role of business?”89
The role of the private sector in influencing the quality of governance – either national or global – is
especially sensitive. Even when companies act through representative trade and industry associations,
many question the mandate and legitimacy of business to influence national governance, let alone to
shape global governance frameworks, norms and standards. There is no doubt, however, that
companies and business associations do influence political and governance processes, – both
transparently and behind closed doors, both for the common good and vested self-interest, both
positively and negatively. The challenge for responsible companies is to ensure that they engage in
public policy debates and governance issues in an accountable and wherever possible transparent
manner.
The most effective and legitimate response by business will vary depending on the industry sector
and on the type of governance and institutional frameworks in the country or situation in question.
However, there are a number of actions that all large companies can take to participate in public
policy dialogues and advocacy platforms and to help governments build institutional capacity in a
manner that supports development goals and helps to alleviate poverty. These actions can either be
on an individual or collective basis. They include efforts by business to:
(i) Tackle corruption and promote good governance
(ii) Strengthen public institutions and administrative capacity
(iii) Contribute to national development plans and poverty alleviation strategies
(iv) Advocate for pro-development policy reform.
In each of the above areas, every large company must take steps to ensure that it is compliant and
upholding responsible business practices in its own operations and value chains, as outlined earlier in
the report. Due diligence management systems must be in place, for example, to minimize the
potential of the company contributing to corruption or weakening public institutions or
undermining social and environmental policies. At the same time, companies need to consider if and
how to engage with the public policy agenda beyond their own operations. If an individual company
has excellent internal due diligence processes but the broader environment is rife with corruption or
weakened by lack of public capacity, there is often no choice but to get engaged in the broader policy
agenda. In such cases, action is usually more effective and legitimate if taken through business
associations or coalitions of companies working with each other and with organizations from other
sectors. As such, most of the following policy interventions call for collaborative action, some
examples of which are covered in more detail in Part Four.

(i) Tackle corruption and promote good governance
The UN Global Compact captures the negative impact of corruption on the creation of business
value and development impact as follows: “Corruption is recognized to be one of the world’s greatest
challenges. It is a major hindrance to sustainable development, with a disproportionate impact on
poor communities and is corrosive on the very fabric of society. The impact on the private sector is
also considerable – it impedes economic growth, distorts competition and represents serious legal and
reputational risks.”90
Many companies avoid investing in locations where corruption is high, but where strategic natural
resources are located in these countries or where a situation deteriorates, companies must decide
whether to invest/remain or disinvest. If they invest or remain, they are under increasing pressure to
have due diligence processes in place to ensure the integrity and ethics of their own operations and
to join forces with industry peers and other stakeholders to tackle corruption more systemically.
Collective action can include:
• Participation in voluntary anti-corruption, accountability and transparency mechanisms within

and across industry sectors. Initiatives such as the integrity pacts promoted by Transparency
International, the UN Global Compact, which has anti-corruption as its 10th Principle, and the
World Economic Forum’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative are examples. The
International Chamber of Commerce has a long-standing Commission on Anti-Corruption and
serves as the secretariat for the Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy initiative.
Collective action is also gathering momentum at the sector level in industries such as oil, gas and
mining, construction and finance.
• Active engagement in representative chambers of commerce, local business associations and

cooperatives in developing countries. Provision of funding, technical assistance and networking
support can help these local private sector institutions to increase their voice in public policy
debates and to tackle systemic challenges such as corruption, legal and regulatory reform, lack of
property rights and weak corporate governance.
• Efforts to help strengthen government institutions that focus directly on tackling bribery. And
effort to improve administrative capacity, checks and balances and transparency in public
institutions that allocate or receive large amounts of money, whether from taxes, the private sector
or donors.
• Philanthropic programs to support and strengthen local civil society organizations and media
efforts that are focused on tracking public revenues and promoting good governance and
accountability.
Tackling corruption is an integral part of efforts to improve both corporate governance and public
governance more broadly. The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) is one example of
a nonprofit organization that has played a leadership role on addressing these issues. CIPE focuses on
the inter-relationship between democracy, free markets and private enterprise. It works with local

partners, chambers of commerce, individual companies and governments to help build the legal and
institutional structures necessary to build market-oriented, democratic societies. Since it was founded
in 1983 CIPE has provided grants and technical support for over 1,100 projects in 100 countries. It
often works with large foreign investors, leveraging their knowledge and skills, as well as helping to
build the capacity of local private sector institutions.
CIPE has eight major areas of work. These provide a useful framework for thinking about the
interventions that large companies can make to tackle corruption and promote good governance in
support of poverty alleviation and development. They are as follows:
• Democratic governance: creating and strengthening institutions of accountability and increasing
public participation in reform.
• Combating corruption: improving governance mechanisms and standards and making a link
between cultural norms and the rule of law, with leadership from the private sector.
• Business association development: supporting grassroots participation of private sector
organizations.
• Corporate governance: programs to educate private sector leaders and the public on fairness,
accountability, responsibility and transparency.
• Legal and regulatory reform: working with the local private sector to identify laws and
regulations that hinder business activity and recommend reforms.
• Access to information: supporting local partners to promote greater transparency in government
and achieve an unrestricted voice for reformers.
• Women and youth: supporting entrepreneurship programs for women and youth.
• Informal sector and property rights: efforts to increase the voice and participation of the
informal sector, to reform small business registration procedures, and to strengthen private
property rights.91
(ii) Strengthen public institutions and administrative capacity

Closely linked to the challenge of promoting public accountability and transparency is the problem
of weak institutional and administrative capacity in many national, regional or municipal
governments. Often governments that are democratically elected and making every effort to improve
governance find it difficult to effectively serve the needs and aspirations of their citizens, due to
constraints financial, human or infrastructural resources. Although institution building is primarily
a function of governments and donors, the private sector can play an important role, especially in the
area of building economic and financial institutions, but also helping to strengthen education, health
and even justice systems. Some examples of corporate philanthropy engagement in strengthening
public institutions, as well as nonprofits in developing countries were provided in the previous
section. Other collective examples include:

• The Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition, Business Against Crime, and the Education
Quality Improvement Programme (EQUIP) in South Africa;
• The Education Quality Improvement initiative in Brazil,
• The African Investment Climate Facility, and
• The Business Action for Africa initiative for Improving Customs Administration.
As outlined in Box 10, the role of information technology can be especially important in helping
governments to strengthen their administrative and outreach capacity, and to better serve their
citizens. Leading information technology companies are increasingly active in e-government efforts
on both a commercial and social investment level.
(iii) Contribute to national development plans and poverty alleviation strategies

As outlined above, representative trade and industry associations and chambers of commerce have a
vital role to play in tackling corruption, promoting good corporate and public governance. They are
also essential in creating an enabling environment for private sector development, and for inclusive
and responsible business models and markets. In addition, companies and business leaders’
organizations can play an active role in supporting broader social and environmental policies. They
can also support governments more proactively in developing and implementing national
development plans and poverty alleviation and growth strategies.
In a few developing countries, large companies are joining forces to create national business
leadership coalitions or to support joint public-private consultation structures focused on addressing
key development challenges. Their aim is to ensure more organized and systematic engagement of the
private sector in national policy planning and implementation around key development areas such as
national poverty reduction strategies, energy, health and education policies etc.
These are not traditional trade associations or chambers of commerce lobbying directly for business
interests, but new models aimed explicitly at co-creating policy solutions to national development
challenges. These ‘business and development’ leadership coalitions are currently few in number but
they warrant further analysis and experimentation. Examples include:
• National Business Councils for Sustainable Development;
• The Country Coordinating Mechanisms of the Global Fund on HIV/AIDSs, TB and Malaria;
• National Business Coalitions on HIV/AIDS ;
• National Industry Charters for Development;
• Public-Private Policy Forums; and
• National ‘Business and Development’ Coalitions such as South Africa’s Business Trust and
National Business Initiative, Philippines Business for Social Progress, Brazil’s Instituto Ethos and
Vietnam’s Business Forum, some of which are profiled in Part Four.

(iv) Advocate for pro-development policy reform
There are well-documented examples of aid, trade, investment and socio-economic policies in both
donor and developing countries that undermine poverty alleviation and development and that call
for reform. They include market distortions to pro-poor growth such as agricultural subsidies in
developed countries. They include failure to prioritize education, health and productive
infrastructure in national budgets over non-productive public interventions or unnecessary military
spending, and failure to address crucial environmental and social challenges such as climate change.
They include legal frameworks that fail to protect the poor or to empower them as economic actors.
These failures can sometimes be tackled by lobbying and advocacy campaigns and by public support
for progressive policies and policymakers from citizen-led groups, business associations, think tanks
and academic institutions.
Corporations spend billions of dollars a year on lobbying governments both directly and through a
wide variety of trade associations, nonprofit organizations and lobbyists. As Kyle Peterson and Marc
Pfitzer argue in a 2009 article Lobbying for Good,
“Much corporate lobbying has a poor reputation, particularly among nonprofits that
battle corporations over environmental, health, and consumer fairness legislation. Even
corporations with kinder, greener practices sometimes support legislation that directly
contradicts their socially responsible image. …Yet corporate advocacy need not always
be self-interested. Traditionally, nonprofits have promoted social issues in the halls of
power. But corporations, with their carefully cultivated connections, wider lobbying
leeway, and proficiency in influence, are often better equipped to make the case for
stopping domestic violence, improving safety on the roads, thwarting climate change
and fostering economic development – to name just a few social change efforts.”92
Peterson and Pfitzer propose three different targets of lobbying for good: generic social issues, which
are critical to society but not immediately consequential to a company’s business; value chain social
impacts, which are the footprints a company leaves behind through its normal operations; and social
dimensions of competitive context, which are the external conditions (e.g., strong schools and good
roads) that a company needs to succeed.93 All three of these targets have relevance for pro-
development policy reform, but the closer companies and business leadership groups can focus on
social dimensions of their own competitive context, the greater the likely impact for creating business
value and development results.
Lobbying for pro-development policies can take a number of forms, from high-level policy dialogues,
to support for independent research to public awareness campaigns. They can take place within
developing countries led by local business leaders and companies, or in donor countries, aimed at
promoting policy reform in areas such as aid, trade, investment and climate change. Some examples
of collective efforts include the following:
• Corporate advocacy for development and poverty reduction: In the United States, the
Initiative for Global Development has mobilized several hundred American business and civic
leaders to publicly call on the United States government to, ‘make the elimination of extreme

global policy a priority’. IGD focuses its efforts on aid, trade and investment reform. A vanguard
of companies is also active in the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign; the Business Coalition for
Global Development; the Corporate Council on Africa; and the Modernizing Foreign Assistance
Network. In the UK, Business Action for Africa has brought together over 50 companies and
business networks to share good practices, and mobilize public awareness, political support and
private resources for African development. Within developing countries themselves, more
business groups are starting to engage proactively with their governments in the development of
national growth and poverty reduction strategies.
• Corporate and investor advocacy on climate change: Progressive business-led initiatives in

Europe, the United States and the major emerging economies of Brazil, South Africa, India and
to a lesser extent China are starting to play an important role in putting climate change more
firmly on the public policy agenda. They include the Climate Leaders Group in Europe, the U.S.
Climate Action Partnership, the Investor Network on Climate Risk, the Energy and Climate
Programme of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the World Economic
Forum’s Task Force on the Low-Carbon Global Economy and national efforts such as Instituto
Ethos in Brazil and the National Business Initiative in South Africa.
Leading think-tanks focused on development have also started to look more strategically at the role
of the private sector and markets in alleviating poverty. The Overseas Development Institute and the
Center for Global Development in particular are playing a leadership role, by researching and
working with private sector actors and exploring a variety of market-based solutions to development.
Over the past five years, a number of other leading policy think-tanks have established programs on
international development, including the role of the private sector. These include Brookings,
Chatham House, the Center for Strategic and International Security Studies, the Council on Foreign
Relations, and the Center for American Progress.
In summary, effective public policy and good governance are the essential foundation on which
sustained economic growth and poverty alleviation are built. As part of the emerging corporate social
responsibility agenda, companies and business associations are playing a more proactive and
influential role in shaping governance structures and public policies, not only as they relate directly
to economic growth and private sector development, but also to support the achievement of broader
economic, social and environmental goals.
There should be no doubt that the major responsibility for avoiding bad governance, strengthening
weak governance and aligning political will with public interest rests with governments themselves –
at the local, national and global level. It is important that companies and business associations ensure
that their engagement on public policy issues is accountable, consistent and transparent. They also
need to manage the expectations of their stakeholders in terms of what they can and cannot do when
it comes to addressing public governance gaps and institutional failures. Yet, companies can play a
proactive and progressive role beyond traditional lobbying efforts. As Peterson and Pfitzer note,
tapping into this potential requires, “resisting two knee-jerk reactions: one from critics who believe
that corporate lobbying in any form is bad for society, and a second from corporate managers who
look to lobbying merely to defend the status quo.”94

Internally, there is potential for large corporations to improve dialogue between their corporate
responsibility departments and government relations and public affairs teams.
Integrating corporate responsibility and public policy issues at the Board of Directors level, for
example through a board committee, can also support better governance structure of these issues.
Large companies can also identify and publicly communicate their position on key public policy
issues that represent specific risks and/or opportunities to the company and/or its industry sector.
Public communication can range from public policy sections on company websites and in their
annual sustainability reports, to chief executive speeches and statesmanship on these issues.
Some companies are establishing external, independent stakeholder advisory groups to serve as a
sounding board on particularly sensitive public policy issues or concerns, such a biotechnology,
health, environment and energy issues. And, as profiled in Part Four of the report, there is potential
for companies to participate in industry-wide or multi-stakeholder collaborative initiatives to tackle
complex and systemic public policy challenges that are crucial to economic growth and poverty
alleviation, but which no one company or sector can address on its own.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC POLICY DIALOGUE, ADVOCACY AND
INSTITUTION BUILDING
• Tackle corruption and promote good governance
• Strengthen public institutions and administrative capacity
• Contribute to national development plans and poverty alleviation strategies
• Advocate for pro-development policy reform

Throughout history, entrepreneurship has been one of the driving forces of innovation, wealth creation
and social transformation in every successful economy. Yet, until recently targeted recognition of and
support for high-impact entrepreneurs and the systems that nurture them has been missing in most
international development programs and developing country poverty alleviation strategies.
As Carl Schramm, President and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation has observed, development
policies have traditionally tended to focus on macroeconomic issues and general institution building:
“Entrepreneurship, meanwhile, is considered only as an afterthought and in piecemeal fashion.”95
When the development community has focused attention on entrepreneurship, the emphasis has
usually been on small business development more generally or in recent years on supporting micro-
enterprises. Small and micro-enterprises are essential for helping to alleviate poverty. Yet, very few
small and micro-enterprises will grow into medium or large businesses, employ more than 20 people,
integrate into formal value chains or have the capability to serve as ‘aggregators’ for other small and
micro-enterprises thereby facilitating the access of other businesses to formal markets. Even fewer will
spearhead technological change and innovation or have a systemic impact on solving development
challenges in their communities and countries more broadly.
There is a vital sub-group of individual entrepreneurs who do have the potential to play a crucial role
in growth, innovation, job creation and systems change. There is a critical need to identify them and
support them. They include:
• ‘Opportunity’ entrepreneurs: commercially driven, for-profit entrepreneurs who create value

and stimulate growth by bringing new ideas, technologies, products or processes to market or by
improving existing products and business models. Most don’t have an explicit social mission, but
many have the potential to make a broader contribution to development.96
• Social entrepreneurs: individuals who apply innovative and performance-driven approaches

and/or technologies that are explicitly aimed at solving societal problems and creating social or
environmental value. They assume a variety of legal and operational models from enterprising
nonprofit entities that have a self-financing component, to for-profit social businesses and hybrid
enterprises that combine both for-profit and nonprofit legal models.97
• Social intrapreneurs: entrepreneurial individuals and innovators working within larger

corporations and institutions who are catalyzing or scaling inclusive business models and
innovative new approaches to tackle social and environmental challenges.98
For the purpose of this report this diverse group of individuals is termed as ‘high-impact’
entrepreneurs. As Linda Rottenberg, founder of Endeavor, comments: “High impact entrepreneurs
have the biggest ideas and most ambitious plans. They have the potential to create thriving
companies that employ hundreds, even thousands of people, and generate millions in wages and
revenues. And they have the power to inspire countless others.”99

These ‘high-impact’ entrepreneurs are individual ‘change-agents’ and innovators who either lead their
own commercial or social enterprises or who play transformational leadership roles within larger
corporations, institutions and networks. They share the following common aspirations and mindsets:
• Innovation – They develop or improve viable ideas for new technologies, products, services,
business models, processes or policies that solve an unresolved problem or serve an unmet need.
• Value creation –They identify and seize opportunities to create either economic value and/or
social and environmental value, and often a combination of both.
• Growth orientation – They focus on achieving scale, whether by increasing their own size or by
achieving greater reach and impact by partnering with others or harnessing technology platforms.
• Systemic transformation – In the most ambitious cases, they envision and work to realize sector-
wide or national systemic change and impact.
Many of them have been enabled by the power of new information technologies. As the Economist
magazine commented in a 2009 special report on entrepreneurship, “The triumph of
entrepreneurship is driven by profound technological change. A trio of innovations – the personal
computer, the mobile phone and the Internet – is democratizing entrepreneurship at a cracking pace.
Today even cash-strapped innovators can reach markets that were once the prerogative of giant
organizations.”100
In the context of this report, ‘high-impact’ entrepreneurs are those individuals who play a catalytic
role in building more inclusive business models and markets by starting and/or scaling new solutions
to poverty alleviation, or replicating solutions that have succeeded elsewhere. They often play a vital
intermediation role between the poor and formal markets, serving as the linkage mechanisms or
aggregators that enable the poor to integrate into formal value chains as producers, employees and
customers.
Some of the greatest innovations in market-based solutions to poverty alleviation are being driven by
this group of often small, but agile and aggressive commercial and social enterprises or by units
within larger companies that are led by entrepreneurial individuals. As the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor, Kauffman Foundation, Monitor Inclusive Markets and others have shown, they often
struggle to scale, but they offer untapped potential for alleviating poverty and warrant further analysis
and support. In particular, greater attention needs to be paid to identifying, financing, capacity
building and connecting these high-impact entrepreneurs and to building ecosystems to nurture
high-impact entrepreneurship in developing countries more generally.
The following pages look at different approaches for:

1. Mobilizing Opportunity Entrepreneurs
2. Scaling the Impact of Social Entrepreneurs
3. Empowering Social Intrapreneurs.

1. Mobilizing opportunity entrepreneurs
The Kauffman Foundation and the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) make the distinction
between:101
• “Opportunity entrepreneurs,” who make an active choice to start a new enterprise based on the
perception that an unexploited or underexploited business opportunity exists; and
• “Necessity entrepreneurs,” who have to become an entrepreneur because they have no better
option – and in the case of many of the world’s poorest citizens have to be entrepreneurial in order
to literally survive and feed their families.
The Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) has coined the term “Small and
Growing Businesses” to depict those opportunity entrepreneurs who operate, “commercially viable
businesses, often with less than 250 employees, that have strong potential for growth and thus for
creating social and economic benefits in the community and more broadly the economy.”102 In short,
‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs are not only entrepreneurs by choice, but they have the potential for
growth. Many also have the potential to make a contribution to development and poverty alleviation
more broadly. Although research is limited on their broader development impact, evidence suggests
that it is positive.
One analysis of the development impact of opportunity entrepreneurs was conducted by Small
Enterprise Assistance Funds (SEAF). SEAF has a twenty-year track record in 30 developing countries
of providing growth capital and operational support to small and medium enterprises that it assesses
to be extraordinarily growth-oriented. In 2007, SEAF surveyed the development contribution of 49
companies in its portfolio of some 250, and carried out more detailed case studies on 18 of them. It
used an IFC methodology that looks beyond financial returns to assess the impact of these growing
businesses on the lives of employees and other stakeholders in the local economy. Some of the key
findings are summarized in Box 21.103
SEAF concluded that:

“Supporting SMEs with high growth potential can generate significant and sustainable
development impact. Whether or not a vibrant SME sector as a whole is an important
foundation for economic growth and poverty alleviation, SEAF’s studies show that its
portfolio of companies (those that pass the review and due diligence of a seasoned fund
manager and are willing to accept third party capital to pursue growth) generate
attractive financial returns, demonstrate strong development performance in terms of
indicators related to employees, suppliers and other stakeholders, and make other
important developmental contributions that are less easily quantified, such as
addressing market deficiencies, bringing micro-suppliers into the value chain, and
making profound differences in the lives of employees.”104
E&Co. is another organization that has a fifteen-year track record of providing services and capital
to more than 200 energy enterprises in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It has developed a social,
environmental and financial score card to assess the annual impact of its investment portfolio. This

scorecard shows how these enterprises have made measurable local contributions to tackling energy
poverty and climate change while creating local livelihoods and expanding economic opportunity.
The June 2009 scorecard is summarized in Box 21.
In its 2009 report, Paths to Prosperity, the Monitor Group makes the following argument for the
economic, social and political benefits of entrepreneurship. It concludes, “Entrepreneurship creates
jobs for local people, rewards merit, integrates immigrant and marginal communities into the
socioeconomic fabric, and over time establishes cross-border relationships. It opens doors and gives
a broader sector of the population a stake in the economy, and thus, as well, in its ongoing and
peaceful functioning.”105 These inter-related development and security benefits can be especially
important in fragile states or post-disaster and conflict situations. The encouraging results of
supportive enabling environments for entrepreneurship in post-conflict Rwanda and Mozambique
are two examples of the potential.
Box 21: The contribution of ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs to development
Data Survey and Case Study Analysis of SEAF Investments underestimated multiplier effect. Interviews provided numerous
1 2007 examples of SMEs serving to address the barriers that micro-suppliers
face by operating as collection centers, value-added processors, and
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
distributors to higher value markets, as well as providing suppliers
Multiplier effect: The combined set of 18 case studies shows that with technical and financial support. In other words, the SMEs serve
every dollar invested generates, on average, an additional 12 dollars as ‘market aggregators’ and as a critical link to connect smaller
in the local economy. This multiplier effect is experienced among suppliers with customers further up the value chain.
multiple stakeholders – including employees, suppliers, competitors,
producers of complementary goods, the local community, and the E&Co’s ‘Cumulative’ Triple Bottom Line Scorecard
broader local economy – to a greater extent than captured previously.
Impact on the lives of employees: The data survey and additional
2 as of June 2009
case studies reinforced the conclusion that [growth-oriented] SMEs SOCIAL

tend to hire and train low-skilled workers and promote from within, Access to Clean Energy 5.6 million people
demonstrating that they can generate jobs appropriate for the poor Entrepreneurs Trained 1,000
and can be an effective vehicle for achieving poverty alleviation. Income Generated US$ 8 million
72 percent of jobs generated in the survey went to unskilled or
ENVIRONMENTAL
semi-skilled employees. Some 83% of the employees at surveyed
Carbon Dioxide Reduced 4 million tons
companies received health and pensions contributions from their
Trees Reforested 525,000
employers and some 85% received some form of training.
Decreased Oil Consumption 670,000 barrels
‘Aggregators’ of micro-suppliers: Through the data survey, SEAF
found that each SME – through its purchase of inputs – supports ECONOMIC
an average of 331 other local businesses, broken down as follows: Capital Invested US$ 36 million
18 manufacturers, 10 distributors, 20 service providers, 3 equipment Capital Mobilized US$ 213 million
suppliers, 280 micro-suppliers and farmers, with a high of 6,000 Portfolio Return* 8.4 percent
farmers and micro-suppliers for one investee. The SMEs surveyed * IRR calculations exclude operating and business development services costs: a large
generated an annual average of $3 million in business for domestic proportion of these costs are covered through contract revenues and grants and not
suppliers in 2005 and 27 percent of them have extended trade credit through the proceeds of investment.
or other forms of financing to their local suppliers – a generally

(i) Strengthening the ecosystem for opportunity entrepreneurs
There is widespread agreement on the barriers to small business development generally and to
‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs more specifically. In numerous research studies, four common
recommendations for mobilizing their potential come up again and again:106
• Access to growth capital (debt, equity and other forms of financing).
• Access to business development services and networks to improve their skills, organizational
capabilities and business contacts. This including training, mentoring and technology support for
owners and employees.
• Access to markets to establish value chain linkages, including timely and relevant market
intelligence, business relationships, infrastructure that facilitates and lowers logistics costs, and
quality standards.
• A supportive enabling environment that fosters an entrepreneurial ecosystems. This ranges from
basic conditions such as rule of law, macroeconomic stability, a sound investment climate and level-
playing field for business generally, to targeted support for entrepreneurship and innovation such
as innovation funds and centers, fiscal incentives, government-supported R&D, entrepreneurship
education and skills development, public recognition of entrepreneurs.
While government leadership is essential, especially in the case of the enabling environment, other
private sector actors such as large corporations, private financiers, social enterprises, foundations,
universities and development NGOs can all play a valuable role in helping to mobilize ‘opportunity’
entrepreneurs. Brief examples of such efforts are illustrated throughout this report.
Intermediary organizations that provide a combination of funding, technical services, access to

networks and technology platforms can play an especially valuable role. In many cases, these
intermediary organizations are themselves led by high-impact entrepreneurs. Initiatives such as SEAF,
E&Co., the Acumen Fund, Root Capital and Endeavor are examples.
In 2009, after extensive consultation, a group of these intermediary organizations joined forces with
some corporate and private foundations and academic institutions to launch the Aspen Network for
Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE). Housed in the Aspen Institute, ANDE is dedicated to
advocating for the growth of the Small and Growing Business sector. It also offers services and
programs to support the organizations that are operating in this sector. In less than two years, ANDE
has grown to a membership of 100 organizations ranging from major foundations and large
corporations to venture capital funds, social enterprises and development NGOs – all with a
common interest in mobilizing opportunity entrepreneurs in developing countries.
Diaspora networks are another group that can play a valuable role in identifying and supporting
opportunity entrepreneurs. Remittances to developing countries have grown dramatically over the
past decade to over $300 billion in 2008 according to the World Bank. While it is estimated that
most of this money goes to family members and to support consumption purposes in developing
countries, some is directed at funding opportunity entrepreneurs. Educated and highly-skilled
diaspora members could have a particularly important role to play by harnessing their peer networks
at home and abroad to identify and then provide capital, technical assistance and market access to

high-expectation ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs back in their home countries. Many are also going
home to their own countries to get directly involved in entrepreneurial start-ups.
The role of the Indian diaspora in helping to support access to funds, markets and peer networking
for the successful ICT sector in India is the most obvious and well-cited example – aided by the fact
that an estimated one third of the software engineers in California’s high-tech Silicon Valley are Indian.
The development contribution of diaspora from other Asian countries such as the Philippines,
Bangladesh and Pakistan and from Latin America, has also been well researched. And in recent years,
there has been increased recognition and analysis of the untapped potential among the estimated 33
million African diaspora.
A World Bank study in 2008 concluded, “Preliminary estimates suggest that sub-Saharan African
countries could potentially raise $1 to $3 billion a year by reducing the costs of international migrant
remittances, $5 to $10 billion by issuing diaspora bonds and $17 billion by securitizing future
remittances and other future receivables.”107 Although these estimates have been undermined by the
global economic crisis, they offer some indication of the potential for mobilizing capital and expertise
from diaspora communities. If a fraction of that money could be targeted to support opportunity
entrepreneurs and backed with technical assistance from skilled members of the diaspora the impact
could be substantial.
Entrepreneurship competitions and prizes offer another pathway for identifying, networking and in
many cases funding opportunity entrepreneurs with innovative ideas to tackle development and
environmental challenges. In a 2009 McKinsey Quarterly article Using Prizes to Spur Innovation, the
authors conclude, “Ultimately, the ability of prizes to mobilize participants and capital, spread the
burden of risk, and set a problem-solving agenda makes them a powerful instrument of change. They
offer a valuable form of leverage to sponsors that use then as part of a well-designed strategy.”108
Examples of competitions, prizes and other initiatives to identify and support high-potential
entrepreneurs in developing countries include on-line platforms such as Ashoka’s Changemakers
competitions, BidNetwork, Endeavor, the World Bank’s Development Marketplace, the African
Diaspora Marketplace, AllWorld Network (modeled on the US InnerCity 100), the World Challenge
and TED Prizes. Brief examples of some of these platforms are provided in Box 22.
Large companies also have an important role to play and many are starting to do so through the type
of business linkage programs and local content initiatives that were profiled in the section on large
corporations. Companies in the IT sector have an especially vital leadership role to play. The Cisco
Entrepreneurship Institute provides support for entrepreneurs from conception through launch in
nearly 10 countries and online with general business skill curricula and start up information.
Microsoft’s BizSpark program offers software resources and technical support to software start ups, as
well as the opportunity for these entrepreneurs to profile their enterprises in an online network for
potential partners and investors. Private financiers, from banks to private equity firms and providers
of ‘patient capital’ such as foundations and angel investors are also increasingly active as outlined in
the section on private financiers.

Box 22: Platforms to identify opportunity entrepreneurs
Ashoka’s Changemakers Endeavor The World Bank’s Development

Established in 1981 by Bill Drayton, Ashoka Endeavor was founded in 1997 by Linda Marketplace
has pioneered the concept and practice of Rottenberg and Peter Kellner to identify and The World Bank’s Development Marketplace
social entrepreneurship. In addition to support high-impact entrepreneurs and (DM) is “is a competitive grant program…
supporting over 2,000 social entrepreneurs promote entrepreneurship in developing that identifies and funds innovative early
around the world, Ashoka drives innovation countries. Launched in Chile and Argentina stage development projects with high
and market-based solutions to poverty in 1998, by 2010 Endeavor had programs in potential for development impact and
alleviation in a number of areas. One more than ten countries in Latin America, replication.” The program is administered by
example is Ashoka’s Changemakers. the Middle East and Africa, while its business the World Bank Institute, with support from
This platform harnesses the power of model and participating entrepreneurs various public and private donors and
social media to connect a global online serve as role models globally. Endeavor partners. These have included: the Global
community of people to each other and operates a five-stage model summarized as: Environment Facility (GEF), the IFC, the
to innovative ideas and models for social launch; select; support; multiply; and give International Fund for Agricultural
change. Some are community based and back. It only launches a new affiliate if there Development (IFAD), the Ministry of Foreign
many are market-driven. Through a series are local private sector leaders who pledge Affairs of Denmark, Citibank, Ashoka, Lex
of online competitions, Changemakers their time and money to lead the initiative. Mundi pro Bono Foundation and Lemelson-
identifies high-potential social solutions Endeavor staff, local board members and MIT program. The World Bank outlines:
and mobilizes financial support for them. partners then select a portfolio of high- “The primary means for identifying and
Since 2004, Changemakers competitions impact entrepreneurs, who have potential investing in potential projects is through
have surfaced approximately 5,000 high- not only to drive innovation, wealth and job global and country/regional marketplaces
impact solutions from over 145 countries. creation, but also to serve as role models or competitions. Problem-solving
They have attracted approximately $30 and contribute to development. Endeavor entrepreneurs with innovative, poverty
million in post-competition investment for then supports these entrepreneurs by fighting ideas compete annually for early-
innovators around the globe. Examples of delivering demand-driven services, such as stage seed money to promote small-scale
competitions include the following: mentorship, networking, strategic advice, development projects intended to bring
• A partnership with ExxonMobil, with skills development, and facilitating access concrete benefits to their communities.
technical advice from the International to resources. Services are provided by The winners of the competitions are then
Center for Research on Women to explore VentureCorps, a volunteer network of some linked with partners who have the resources
innovative technology solutions that 1,000 global and local business leaders. to help them implement their proposals.”
empower women as economic actors. The model then aims to multiply the impact Since the Development Marketplace’s
• A competition to identify models for of individual entrepreneurs by showcasing establishment in 1998, it has awarded more
strengthening property rights for the them as role models, influencing policy than $54 million to over 1000 projects.
poor, supported by the Omidyar network. reform and education, and spurring local Over 1,700 projects applied from 47
• An SME Finance Challenge organized with venture capital. In each location, it aims countries to the 2009 competition which
the G-20, and with support from the to become self-sustaining through the focused on innovative solutions to climate
Rockefeller Foundation to identify some entrepreneurs giving-back and via other adaptation. In 2010, the World Bank
of the best models for catalyzing finance market-driven revenues. Over 80 percent of cooperated in a new initiative with the
for small and medium enterprises. Endeavor Entrepreneurs give back to their Agence Francaise de Development (AFD)
• A competition run in cooperation with the local affiliates. They have created over and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition to 100,000 jobs and generated billions of host a ‘Marketplace on Innovative Financial
identify scalable, market-based solutions dollars for local economies. Endeavor Solutions for Development’.
to fortifying food with micronutrients. measures its impact through growth not
only in financial capital, but also human
capital and social capital.
Source: Websites and materials from the initiatives profiled

Box 22: Platforms to identify opportunity entrepreneurs continued
AllWorld Network BiDNetwork The African Diaspora Marketplace

The AllWorld Network was established in BiDNetwork is a nonprofit organization Launched in 2009, the African Diaspora
2007, led by the co-founders of the US Inner based in the Netherlands that has created a Marketplace (ADM) is a business plan
City 100 and drawing on over a decade of global network of entrepreneurs, supported competition supported by the United States
lessons in identifying, networking and by funding and implementation partners. Agency for International Development
publicly promoting high potential It was established in 2004 with the goal of (USAID) and Western Union Company,
entrepreneurs in low-income communities stimulating entrepreneurship and economic together with Africa-based EcoBank and the
in the United States and United Kingdom. growth in developing countries by tackling Academy for International Development
The US Inner City 100 was created in 1999 three major obstacles: lack of access to (AED). The initiative aims to tap into the
by Harvard Business School Professor finance for small and medium-sized networks and resources of the U.S.-based
Michael Porter, Anne Habbiby and Deirdre enterprises (SMEs); high transaction costs of African diaspora community to promote
Coyle in partnership with Inc. magazine. finding and investing in SMEs; and related economic development in Sub-Saharan
Its goal was to shine a light on successful deal flow challenges. BiDNet sources and Africa. It does so by facilitating diaspora
entrepreneurs where no-one thought they selects business plans from small and direct investment (DDI) in viable small and
existed – in America’s economically medium sized enterprises from more medium enterprises (SMEs). The initial focus
distressed inner cities. In the first year, than 70 countries and offers tools and is on 19 countries where USAID has on-the-
120 companies entered the competition. connections to the best entrepreneurs to ground programs to provide technical
By 2008, there were 8,000 companies help them access finance. The organization assistance. The ADM offers matching grants
competing to be on the US InnerCity 100 runs the BiD Challenge business plan of up to US$100,000 to African diaspora
list. The top 100 companies grew at an competition, offers investor matchmaking working in partnership with African-based
impressive 40 percent a year on average, for services and operates an online business enterprises and/or entrepreneurs. Winners
five or more years, and created thousands of community website that links some 35,000 for the first round of the competition were
jobs. The US Inner City 100 became a well- entrepreneurs, experts, companies, 14 diaspora-driven businesses in 13
recognized American initiative and helped investors and coaches from around the countries. The included a franchise
to drive investment to inner cities and world. This online platform is the largest of healthcare model aimed at supporting nurse
provide entrepreneurs with valuable its kind in the world connecting small and entrepreneurs in Ghana and a commercial
publicity and networks. In 2007, following medium-sized enterprises with potential biotechnology business aimed at improving
the methodology honed over ten years with funders, advisors and market opportunities. crop yields in Ethiopia.
the US Inner City 100, the founders created In addition to the scaling potential of the
the AllWorld Network to find and profile online platform, BiDNet is working with
growth entrepreneurs in the Middle East, national alliances and business incubators in
Africa and Asia. The initiative is starting with a growing number of countries in Africa,
series of country-level lists, which include Asia, Latin America and the Middle East to
the Saudi Arabian 100, South African 50, help them build national platforms and
India 25, Lebanon 25, Jordan 25, and Egypt ecosystems to support SMEs. Its founding
25. They are working with a coalition of on- partners include the Dutch Postcode
the-ground partners including business Lottery: the Dutch National Committee
associations, chambers of commerce, for International Cooperation and
universities, alumni clubs, venture funds, Development; the Dutch Ministry of Foreign
banks and NGOs, who will help to identify Affairs; and ICCO, an inter-church
high growth entrepreneurs and support organization for development cooperation.
opportunities for networking, mentoring The network is supported by a growing
and publicizing their stories. number of international and emerging
market banks, companies and NGOs.
Source: Websites and materials from the initiatives profiled

(ii) Investing in women entrepreneurs
In many countries girls and women still lack the legal rights, economic opportunities and skills to
enable them to play a full and equal role in their societies. The statistics are well documented. As
McKinsey & Company summarize in their report The Business of Empowering Women, “Girls make up
60 percent of the world’s children not in school; at least two thirds of illiterate adults in the world are
women; women account for 60 percent of the working poor earning less than US$1 a day; and women
are more likely than men to work in the lowest paid informal or non-standard wage employment.”109
Despite the enormous constraints that they face, women make a crucial contribution to household
earnings, formal and informal economic enterprises, agricultural production, education and health,
community prosperity and to peace-building and conflict prevention. A small, but growing number
are playing a leadership role at the level of national and global agenda setting. This contribution must
be dramatically increased. The need to empower women, from achieving gender equality in
education, health and nutrition to ensuring that they have equal legal rights and opportunities as
adults, is a fundamental requirement for development and poverty alleviation.
An important component of this is strengthening women’s economic capacity as producers,

employees, consumers, investors and entrepreneurs. As outlined in The Business of Empowering
Women, the required action to achieve this falls into three main categories:
• Enabling women to develop marketable skills: This includes safe and affordable access to
primary, as well as secondary and tertiary education; ability to acquire vocational, technical
and/or entrepreneurial skills; opportunities to develop life, financial literacy, family, and
household management skills.
• Helping women to find and retain employment: This includes access to employment
opportunities free from discrimination, harassment and violence; access to capital, credit and
other resources required to start enterprises; ability to travel to and from work safely; access to
quality childcare; and support for career and leadership development.
• Supporting women in obtaining equal legal, social and economic rights and achieving
leadership positions: This includes equal rights in areas such as property and land ownership and
inheritance; ability to manage and control income; and opportunities to advance within
organizations and play a leadership role.110
Companies have a vital role to play in integrating women more effectively into economic decision-
making structures and in helping to create livelihood and entrepreneurship opportunities. This
includes engaging women as formal sector employees and producers in core business operations and
value chains through internal diversity programs and business linkages with women-owned
enterprises. It also includes investing in and providing business development services to women
entrepreneurs, providing philanthropic support to girls’ and women’s empowerment initiatives and
advocating publicly for women’s rights. Some companies and industry sectors have longstanding
programs in the above areas and a clearly stated business interest in empowering women. For most,
the issue of equal economic opportunity remains a challenge in both developed and developing
countries. It is also a major untapped opportunity. Box 23 offers some examples.

Box 23: Core business and philanthropic initiatives to empower women entrepreneurs
The Calvert Women’s Principles – In 2004, WIPHOLD – Founded in South Africa in 1994 Unilever – In 2000, Hindustan Lever launched
the Calvert Group and the United Nations by four successful business women, Women’s Project Shakti in partnership with NGOs, local
Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Investment Portfolio Holdings (WIPHOLD) is an banks and government. The program supports
launched the Calvert Women’s Principles investment and operating group, listed on the women to set up small and micro enterprises
(CWP). This was the first global code of Johannesburg stock exchange and owned by as direct-to-customer distributors or retailers
conduct focused exclusively on empowering, women. It is dedicated to the direct economic for the company’s products. It provides
advancing and investing in women worldwide, empowerment of black women through its them with training in sales and business
with relevance for both developed and ownership and governance structure, its core management and helps to facilitate access to
developing economies. While aimed at business operations and investments and its microcredit. The project enables the women
corporations, the seven core components of social development programs. The group to increase their incomes and skills, typically
the CWP provide a useful framework for acquires strategic or controlling stakes in doubling household income, while helping the
practical implementation and dialogue by companies that operate primarily in the company to reach millions of consumers in
policymakers and non-governmental financial, resources and infrastructure sectors. small remote villages – to date it has doubled
organizations as well as companies. They cover WIPHOLD has a clear strategy to align its social its direct rural reach. By the end of 2009 there
the following areas: employment and development programs to the company’s core were more than 45,000 Shakti entrepreneurs
compensation; work-life balance and career business, supporting projects that directly in some 100,000 villages in India. The
development; health, safety and freedom from empower women to create wealth and company has similar initiatives to support
violence; management and governance; livelihoods. One example is Project Imbizo, women entrepreneurs in Bangladesh,
business, supply chain and marketing which WIPHOLD spearheaded in cooperation Vietnam, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.
practices; civic and community engagement; with the Old Mutual Group, to deliver a variety
and transparency and accountability. Since of financial and business development servicesMicrosoft – Microsoft is supporting female
their launch, they have been adopted by a to low-income women in rural and urban entrepreneurs through its Women in
number of companies and efforts are communities. Technology program. Throughout the Middle
underway in partnership with UNIFEM, the UN East and North Africa, in partnership with the
Global Compact and others to scale their reach Standard Chartered – Standard Chartered U.S. Department of State’s Middle East
and impact in developing countries. bank has developed a number of new Partnership Initiative and Institute for
products and services specifically targeted at International Education, Microsoft is building
Exxon Mobil – The Exxon Mobil Women’s female customers and entrepreneurs in Asia the capacity of women entrepreneurs by
Economic Opportunity initiative is working to and Africa. These include all-women branches developing IT skills and business acumen. Now
decrease barriers to women’s economic in countries such as India and Pakistan, joint in nine countries, Women in Technology
participation – largely through the support of savings clubs and dedicated accounts for delivers training to individual women,
entrepreneurship. The program is operating women in a number of African countries establishes business networks among women
country level projects in Angola, Chad, through its Diva Club, and small business loans entrepreneurs, and builds the capacity of 60
Colombia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, and financial training for women local women organizations for sustainable
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar and entrepreneurs. The bank has also pledged to workforce training solutions. Participants are
Thailand – all countries where Exxon Mobil has provide $500 million to microfinance trained on entrepreneurial principles, ICT skills,
a local presence and stake in the community. institutions by 2011, and estimates that 80 and professional development skills.
The Initiative also supports leadership and percent of the end users of these products will By 2010, Microsoft estimates that the program
skills development programs for women in be women. It has become a member of the will have trained more than 10,000 women.
more than 60 countries. In particular, Exxon Global Banking Alliance for Women and has
has partnered with Vital Voices in Africa to hosted a ‘Women in Business Summit’. In
train women, enabling them to launch 2010, the bank launched its Women in
marketable products for sale, as well as Business online resource, to provide female
building and supporting a network of customers and entrepreneurs with basic
businesswomen’s organizations in Africa. financial literacy and business acumen.

Box 23: Corporate partnerships to invest in women entrepreneurs continued
Goldman Sachs – Launched in 2008 the Coca-Cola – In September 2010, the Coca- The World Bank’s Global Private Sector
Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Initiative aims Cola Company announced 5 BY 20, a 10-year Leaders Forum – This forum was established
to expand “entrepreneurial talent and the global initiative to empower 5 million women in 2010 by the World Bank Group as an
managerial pool of women in developing and entrepreneurs. This initiative aims to help initiative of its Gender Action Plan, which
emerging economies.” The program partners women who already own or operate promotes “gender equality as smart
with over 60 universities and development businesses in the Coca-Cola system break economics”. The plan is part of a growing
organizations that are delivering business and down barriers to growth and to support more commitment within the World Bank and the
management education to women. It is also women entrepreneurs to enter the system. In International Finance Corporation to play a
strengthening the quality and capacity of the company’s Micro Distribution Centers proactive role in increasing women’s economic
business schools in developing nations, (MDCs) in Africa, for example, women opportunity and access to decent employment,
supporting mentoring and networking entrepreneurs comprise over 30 percent of the high-value agriculture, business opportunities,
channels for women, and partnering with MDC owners in a number of countries. land, credit, technology and essential
research and women's development Through 5 BY 20, the company will partner infrastructure services such as transport, water
organizations to improve the quality of data with other organizations to provide training, and energy. The Global Private Sector Leaders
available on women entrepreneurs and access to finance and links to networks of Forum has been established to serve as an
businesses. Goldman Sachs employees have peers and mentors. The Coca-Cola Company adviser, ambassador and partner in achieving
also been encouraged to get engaged in the will spend a year in dialogue with its these goals. Participating companies and their
initiative. The program is active in over 15 associates, civil society and governments to senior executives commit to promote women’s
countries from Afghanistan and Rwanda to collaborate on program design. In late 2011, it economic empowerment in their own
Brazil, China, India and the United States. will share the details of the initiative and scale business operations and social investment
up the pilot programs already underway programs. They agree to share lessons and
Walmart – In March 2010, the Walmart within the global Coca-Cola system. best practices, support research to strengthen
Foundation made a commitment to support the business case for women’s economic
the Vital Voices Latin America and Caribbean Nestlé – Women play a crucial role in empowerment and explore new business
Women’s Business Network through a agricultural production in developing models and public-private partnerships to
combination of financial donations and countries, but often lack the land rights, skills increase opportunities for women.
employee engagement. Vital Voices and credit to improve their productivity and
Partnership is one of the world’s leading NGOs incomes. In India, Nestlé has established a As of 2010, more than 20 companies and one
committed to the economic, social and Women’s Dairy Development program, which business school participated in the group at the
political empowerment of women and employs veterinarians and agronomists to level of their CEOs or senior executives. They
promotion of their human rights. Walmart and provide female dairy farmers with advice on include (in alphabetical order): Accenture (USA);
Vital Voices aim to support thousands of various production and animal healthcare Belcorp (Peru); Boeing Central and Eastern
emerging women entrepreneurs and small issues. Farmers are also supported in growing Europe (Poland); Carlson (USA); Cisco Systems
business owners through a combination of their operations through subsidies to purchase (USA); Ernst & Young (USA); ExxonMobil (USA);
leadership training, mentoring, networking milking machines and help in procuring loans. Finansbank (Turkey); Goldman Sachs (USA);
and information on how to access finance and In Pakistan, Nestlé has partnered with UNDP to Grupo Inter-Quimica (Dominican Republic);
technology. An estimated 3,000 women in establish the Community Empowerment Heidrick & Struggles (USA); Hindustan Lever
Latin America and the Caribbean are expected through Livestock Development and Credit (India); INSEAD (France); McKinsey & Company
to benefit from the program in the first year. program (CELDAC). The program provides (USA); Nike (USA); Norfund (Norway);
training in basic livestock healthcare and PricewaterhouseCoopers (USA); Shalakany Law
management, milk production and extension Office (Egypt); Sun Media Investment Holdings
services, and facilitates access to microfinance. (China); Sungjoo Group (Korea and Germany);
Tupperware Brands Corp (USA); and Women’s
Private Equity Fund (South Africa).

(iii) Investing in youth entrepreneurs
Youth constitute another crucial demographic group that offers both high-risks and high potential in
terms of poverty alleviation and human security in parts of Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Youth
are usually defined as aged 15-25, although the cohort is often older in developing and post-conflict
countries. Over the next decade, about 1.2 billion young people will enter the global labor market –
the largest entry pool in history – and the vast majority of them will be in developing economies. In
parts of the Middle East and Africa over 60% of the population is under the age of 25.111
These young people will play a crucial role in the world’s ability or failure to meet the challenges of the
21st century. As the UN’s High Level Panel on Youth Employment has noted, “Across the globe, they
are making important contributions as innovators, entrepreneurs, productive workers, consumers,
citizens and members of civil society. They are at the forefront of the information and communications
technology revolution. They are artists and athletes…In short young people are an asset.”112
Yet, millions of young people have their aspirations and opportunities crushed at an early age by a
combination of poverty, lack of education, lack of access to economic opportunity, discrimination on
the basis of religion, ethnicity or gender, and the trauma of facing armed conflicts, exploitation and
abuse. Even those who are fortunate enough to receive some education often find it impossible to get
jobs in the formal economy and they face particularly high obstacles to self-employment and
entrepreneurship. Despite the burgeoning of micro-enterprise initiatives around the world, for example,
very few of these offer targeted services to youth, whether they are necessity or opportunity
entrepreneurs.
The challenge is daunting, especially in developing countries. According to the International Labor
Organisation and International Youth Foundation, there are: 100 million young people who are unable
to find work today and as a result of the global recession, the number of jobless youth increased by 8.5
million from 2008 to 2009 – the largest year-to-year increase in youth unemployment in at least a
decade.113 There is enormous need to support market-driven approaches to job training and skills
development, invest in high potential youth entrepreneurs, both social and commercial entrepreneurs,
and to use information technology and multi-sector partnerships to scale effective youth employment
and enterprise programs.
The challenge of youth economic empowerment is finally gaining the attention it deserves from
policy makers, business executives and civic leaders. The World Bank’s World Development Report
2007, for example, focused on this important subject for the first time in the bank’s history. In the
past few decades a number of innovative networks and partnerships between NGOs, companies,
foundations, donor agencies and governments have been established to focus on youth enterprise,
either as a dedicated approach or as part of a broader youth development framework. Some examples
are briefly profiled in Box 24.

Box 24: Corporate partnerships to invest in youth entrepreneurs
The International Youth Foundation – The ImagineNations Group – ING is a Youth Business International – YBI works
Founded in 1990 with support from the global alliance of social entrepreneurs, with a variety of partners to establish
Kellogg Foundation, IYF operates in over 70 investors, financial institutions, national-level programs that support youth
countries through a network of some 175 corporations and media working together entrepreneurship, typically for young
partner organizations. It supports programs with young people to influence public people between the ages of 18 and 30.
with young people focused on the areas of policy and to catalyze innovative and These programs share a common approach
education, employability, enterprise scalable programs in the areas of youth based on a combination of start-up
development, health and youth leadership entrepreneurship. In the Middle East, for funding in the form of a loan without the
and engagement. Since 1990, about 12 example, it is a founding partner of need for guarantees and business
million young people have benefited Silatech, a youth employment and mentoring. In many cases the funding is
from these programs. IYF works with a entrepreneurship initiative that is working provided by a both public and private
wide variety of companies, foundations, in several countries across the region to funds, including from the banking sector.
civil society organizations and improve policy, data and access to capital, Local business people, who share their
intergovernmental agencies to identify markets, jobs and IT-skills for young skills and experiences on a volunteer basis,
and support existing youth programs that people. It has helped to establish the usually provide the mentoring to the
can be strengthened and ‘scaled-up’. Youth Investment Trust of Zambia and in young entrepreneurs. The program also
Its “Framework for Effective Programming” Indonesia, has worked with local business aims to share international lessons in the
evaluates programs around the world for leaders and the World Bank to create Y area of youth entrepreneurship and to
impact and effectiveness, highlighting outh MicroBank, which will provide access influence the policy agenda. It is currently
initiatives that are working to “demonstrably to capital for youth-led enterprises. working with local partners in over 40
improve the lives of young people.” ImagineNations is also working with countries around the world. Since it
The organization has established strategic Mercy Corps and others, with support was founded in 2000, Youth Business
alliances with a number of large companies from the Cisco Foundation and the Global International has reached 97,000 young
and corporate foundations to support Partnership for Youth Investment (GPYI) entrepreneurs. It helps about 7,000 a year
youth entrepreneurship and IT-enabled of the World Bank, to develop the to start new businesses and initial
skills development. These include Nokia, ImagineNations Network (INN). This is evaluation indicates that some 72 percent
Microsoft, Nike, General Electric, Samsung, a global technology portal for young of the entrepreneurs supported are still in
Intel, Starbucks, Pearson, Alcatel-Lucent, entrepreneurs to connect with each other business after three years. YBI’s goal is to
Aramex, Johnson & Johnson, Wrigley, to share ideas, develop business plans, support 100,000 new young entrepreneurs
Cisco, Kelloggs, Deutsche Bank, Gap Inc., obtain financing, conduct e-transactions, annually by 2020, and help to create more
Coca-Cola and Caterpillar, among others. get/be a mentor. than 1 million new jobs

Box 24: Corporate partnerships to invest in youth entrepreneurs continued
Junior Achievement Worldwide – LiveWire – Established in 1982 by Shell HP LIFE – The HP Learning Initiative for
For almost a century JA has focused on as an awards program to encourage Entrepreneurs (LIFE) is a key pillar of the
increasing work readiness, entrepreneurship entrepreneurship in the UK, LiveWire has company’s Social Innovation program,
and financial literacy, by bringing together grown into a global program supported by which aims to leverage corporate skills,
business practitioners, educators, Royal Dutch Shell. It aims “to provide technology and grants to support
volunteers and students. With 33 programs support and access to guidance to young education, entrepreneurship and
for students in primary and secondary entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs” innovation. HP LIFE is a global training
school, Junior Achievement teaches between the ages of 18 and 30. LiveWire program that helps students, recent
leadership, teamwork, and critical thinking partners with local schools, businesses and graduates, young entrepreneurs and social
skills, to facilitate transitions from school to NGOs to support entrepreneurs through innovators to develop essential IT and
the business world. Third parties undertake the process of starting their own business. business skills. The company partners with
independent evaluations of the impact of From assistance in building business more than 200 organizations in over 45
JA’s initiatives. In 2008, over 300,000 Junior plans to ongoing mentoring from local countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle
Achievement volunteers taught about practitioners, LiveWire is a holistic program East and the Americas to implement the
370,000 classes to nearly 10 million that works to follow entrepreneurs through program. Key partners include the
students in 123 countries. Its Middle- the challenges and successes of starting Education Development Center, the Micro-
Eastern network, INJAZ Al-Arab, is on the ones business. To make content locally Enterprise Acceleration Institute, ORT and
ground in 12 countries across the Middle relevant, each LiveWire program partners the United Nations Industrial Development
East and North Africa. Established in 1999 with local organizations to tailor its Organization (UNIDO). The goal is to reach
by a young woman entrepreneur Soraya endeavors to “its host country’s own mix of more than 500,000 people by the end of
Solti, INJAZ’s partners include: opportunities, culture and situation.” Since 2010.
Flip Media, WEF Arab Business Council, its creation, LiveWire has supported more
Young Arab Leaders, Young Presidents’ than 1 million young people to start their The Mastercard Foundation –
Organization, Hill & Knowlton. own business. It is operational in 23 Established as an independent, private
The program’s sponsors: the Skoll countries, and has facilitated the creation foundation with over US$3 billion in assets
Foundation, Citigroup, USAID, Exxon, GE, of more than 2800 enterprises and some at the time of Mastercard’s initial public
YPO, NCB, Young Arab Leaders, Qatar 9,000 new jobs globally. One of LiveWire’s offering in 2006, the goal of the Mastercard
Financial Center, Shell, Intel, Amwal, participants in Oman has started a training Foundation is to “enable people living in
Alghanim Industries, bank of new york institute (Etihad Training Institute) to help poverty to improve their lives – and the
mellon, degremont suez, paltel group, other Omanis develop skills, showing how lives of their families and communities – by
Nasser Bin Khaled & Sons, HSBC, Abraaj the economic empowerment of one expanding their access to microfinance and
Capital, Bin Zayed Group, Banawi Industrial entrepreneurial person can impact dozens education.” One of the foundation’s major
Group, Schwab Foundation for Social of others in a local community. areas of focus is youth entrepreneurs and
Entrepreneurship, Middle East Partnership helping young people to make the
Initiative, and Eskadenia Software. Since its transition to adulthood and decent
inception, INJAZ al-Arab programs have livelihoods. The foundation works in
reached more than 500,000 students and partnership with more than 20
engaged 10,000 volunteers. microfinance intermediaries and NGOs to
enable youth to access microfinance,
combined with access to technology,
mentoring, training, life skills and other
education.
Source: Adapted from Nelson, Jane. Operating in Insecure Environments, Chpt 9 in Brainard, Lael and Chollet Derek (eds) “Too Poor for Peace? Global Poverty,
Conflict, and Security in the 21st Century.” Brookings Institution Press, 2007.

2. Scaling the impact of social entrepreneurs
The emergence of the field of social entrepreneurship over the past two decades has been an important
driver of new market-based approaches to poverty alleviation. A 2008 report by Duke University states:
“New concepts are introduced all the time. Some never catch on. Others experience great popularity for
a period, but then decline and are viewed as passing fads. A few concepts have staying power and
sustained impact. In rare cases, a new concept serves as a foundation for a whole new field of practice
and knowledge. Social entrepreneurship has the potential to be one of those rare field-creating
concepts.”114
The concept of social entrepreneurship was initially popularized by the pioneering work of Bill
Drayton, founder of Ashoka. He and others were inspired by the growing evidence of entrepreneurial
individuals who were spearheading viable and scalable solutions to social and environmental
challenges. The Skoll, Schwab, Lemelson and Omidyar Foundations, among others, have also played
an essential role in promoting the concept and practice of social entrepreneurship by identifying,
funding and networking social entrepreneurs and supporting other field-building activities. Between
them, these organizations have helped to support and scale the impact of several thousand social
entrepreneurs around the world.
Professor Gregory Dees of Duke University observes in his paper, The Meaning of Social
Entreprenuership, “We have always had social entrepreneurs even of we did not call them that. They
originally built many of the great institutions we now take for granted. However, the new name is
important in that it implies a blurring of sector boundaries. In addition to innovative for-profit
ventures, social entrepreneurship can include social purpose business ventures, such as for-profit
community development banks, and hybrid organizations mixing not-for-profit and for-profit
elements, such as homeless shelters that start businesses to train and employ their residents. The new
language helps to broaden the playing field. Social entrepreneurs look for the most effective methods of
serving their social missions.”115 The diagram below summarizes some of these modalities of operation.
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
Philanthropic Leveraged Enterprising Hybrid model Social business Commercial

/charitable, and nonprofit nonprofit business/
nonprofit [An organization with two legal [For-profit legal corporations
organizations [Nonprofit legal [Nonprofit legal entities: for-profit and non entity]
entity] entity] profit OR [For-profit legal
[Nonprofit legal A company with entity]
entity] A financially A financially An organization registered a social mission
sustainable sustainable under a hybrid legal entity, Generates
Relies on nonprofit nonprofit such as in the United States Reinvests 50% revenues and
donations, and Britain] or more of its maximizes profits
grants and Relying entirely Generates some revenues back into to shareholders
subsidies on strategic income, making it An organization with a social its core activities
entirely partnerships for more sustainable mission
sustainability and strategic
Financially sustainable through
its own income-generation
activities
Source: Abdou, Ehaab et al, Social Entrepreneurship In The Middle East, Brookings, 2010 (adapted from Schwab Foundation).

Notwithstanding the challenges of measuring social impact, it is fair to say that the work of social
entrepreneurs has improved the lives of millions of people. A number of them are profiled throughout
this report. They are playing vital roles in poverty alleviation in one or more of the following ways:
• Development and delivery of essential products and services: Directly delivering products and
services to the poor as producers and consumers in ways that are more affordable, reliable and/or
accessible than was previously possible. Many social entrepreneurs are working in the areas of
health, education, financial services, energy, housing, and water and sanitation.
• Value chain intermediation: Making value chains and market-based solutions to poverty
alleviation work more effectively by serving as market-aggregators and market-makers and/or
providing financial services, technical assistance, and information to local enterprises,
cooperatives and networks that are directly reaching the poor. Some social enterprises also offer
networking opportunities and matchmaking services.
• Systems change: Driving broader system-wide transformation in tackling a particular challenge

and/or changing the enabling environment for addressing that challenge. Research by Ashoka
shows that within five years of launching their enterprise or being elected as a fellow, some 76
percent of Ashoka Fellows have changes the pattern in their field on a national basis. They have
changed systems in the following ways: through market dynamics and value chains; through
business social congruence; through changes in public policy and industry norms; or through
promoting a culture of changemaking and entrepreneurship.116
In many of these cases, market-based solutions and market forces have been central to the
entrepreneur’s success. Some of the ways in which social enterprises are scaling their impact include:
• Organic growth of the social enterprise, though there will likely be a limit to the rate of growth
and the scale realizable;
• Mutually agreed replication or competitive copying of their business models and approaches;
• Buy-outs by larger entities, including corporations (which could stimulate broader competitive
copying and industry influence);
• Governments adopting the social entrepreneur’s idea into public policy; or
• Via a burgeoning variety of collaborative models and platforms with other social enterprises,
business partners and/or other development actors such as governments, donors and foundations.
Box 25 provides two ‘scaling models’ that offer useful frameworks for thinking about the
interventions and support needed to scale either the size or reach of social enterprises. Research on
the pathways to scale of social entrepreneurs has shown that the ‘scaling’ process requires a
combination of both individual organizational capabilities and alliances with other actors in what
both Volans Ventures and Duke University term the ‘external ecosystem’. Therefore, any efforts to
scale the impact of social entrepreneurs as a key modality for tackling poverty need to consider both
their individual capacities and growth and the broader system that nurtures them, in much the same
way that more commercially-driven entrepreneurs are supported and scaled. In short, for social
entrepreneurs, scaling happens through many of the same dynamic processes of competition and
collaboration that drive the growth of commercial entrepreneurs.

Box 25: From start-up to scale-up: Pathways to greater social impact
Volans Ventures has developed the Paul Bloom and Aaron Chatterji of Duke ● Earnings-Generation –
following 5-Stage ‘Pathways to Scale’ University have developed another The effectiveness with which the
model, illustrating how social model that posits seven drivers – or organization generates a stream of
entrepreneurs, companies, investors and organizational capabilities – SCALERS – revenue that exceeds its expenses.
governments both collaborate and that can stimulate scaling by a social ● Replicating – The effectiveness with
compete to scale innovative solutions to entrepreneurial organization. which the organization can reproduce
social and environmental challenges: They are as follows: the programs and initiatives that it has
● Eureka! – Opportunity is revealed via the ● Staffing – The effectiveness of the originated.
growing dysfunctions of the existing organization at filling its labor needs, ● Stimulating Market Forces –
order including its managerial posts, with The effectiveness with which the
● Experiment – Innovators and people who have the requisite skills for organization can create incentives that
entrepreneurs begin to experiment the needed positions, whether they be encourages people or institutions to
during a period of trial and error paid staff or volunteers. pursue private interests while also
● Enterprise – Investors and managers ● Communicating – The effectiveness serving the public good.
build new business models, creating new with which the organization is able to
forms of value persuade key stakeholders that its
● Ecosystem – Critical mass is achieved change strategy is worth adopting
through alliances and imitation and/or supporting.
● Economy – The economic system flips to ● Alliance-Building – The effectiveness
a more sustainable state driving market, with which the organization has forged
institutional and/or policy partnerships, coalitions, joint ventures,
transformation. and other linkage to bring about desired
social changes.
● Lobbying – The effectiveness with
which the organization is able to
advocate for government actions that
work in its favor.
Sources: The Phoenix Economy: 50 Pioneers in the Business of Social Innovation. Volans Ventures Ltd., 2009
Bloom, Paul.N and Chatterji, Aaron, K. Scaling Social Entrepreneurial Impact: Working Draft. Duke University, 2009.
Box 26 provides three examples of well-known social enterprises that are also playing a central role
in identifying and scaling the work of other social entrepreneurs; Ashoka, PATH and TechnoServe.
Other examples of ‘intermediary’ social enterprises that are profiled in this report and are achieving
scale in areas such as financing small and growing businesses and/or strengthening essential value
chains in areas such as food, energy, health and nutrition include: Grameen, the Acumen Fund, Root
Capital, Endeavor, VillageReach, and Transfair.

Box 26: Social entrepreneurs taking development impact to scale
Ashoka Innovations in Agriculture Ashoka’s approach is an important and

Initiative useful one in identifying, supporting and
Ashoka, one of the world’s leading accelerating the impact of such potential
social entrepreneur intermediaries has leaders. Ashoka is now rigorously screening
identified and supported over 2,000 social social entrepreneurs and identifying 100
entrepreneurs in more than 60 countries new Ashoka Fellows whose ideas and
and across numerous sectors. Ashoka does action will catalyze sustainable systems
not fund projects but rather bets on people change in agriculture. Ashoka will support
with innovative ideas that are “system- these Fellows financially and technically so
changing.” Their people-centric approach is they can each have an impact on an
reflected in their rigorous globe scanning average of 5,000 -10,000 small holder
approach to seek out the most promising farmers. Ashoka will also stimulate
new ideas and people behind them, and in collaboration among the entrepreneurs
the complementary processes that Ashoka through regional meetings, workshops,
calls “Venture/Fellowship”, the open and joint projects, and will work to capture
innovation web-based competitions (such and spread the most successful innovations.
as the Changemakers Competition) and
social entrepreneur community dialogues/ One such agricultural fellow already within
engagement. Since its inception Ashoka the Ashoka network is Pranjal Baruah.
has demonstrated that a small and direct He has developed the market for
investment in the most promising mushrooms in Assam – working to
individuals can seed and enhance powerful stimulate demand for mushrooms,
and transformational ideas and can directly creating a brand name and mushroom
influence hundreds of thousands of products that are sought after, and
individuals working in international simultaneously encouraging small farmers
development. to adopt mushroom cultivation. His venture
has grown over 1,000 percent in just eight
In 2008, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation years. Additionally, by using federated
made a five-year grant to Ashoka. The grant schemes, land-to-lab strategies and training
enables Ashoka to identify and support and support for “mushroom entrepreneurs”,
outstanding social entrepreneurs in the field Pranjal has reduced farmer exploitation and
of agriculture. The goal of the Ashoka created new livelihood opportunities for
Innovations in Agricultural Initiative is to thousands of unemployed youth and
achieve an entrepreneurial revolution in landless families in Assam.
smallholder agriculture and non-farm
economic development in Africa and India
by identifying and supporting social
"Changemakers" (social entrepreneurs)
who innovate within the agricultural
development sector.
Africa and India need a new generation of

agricultural leaders to ensure that the
potential of new technologies and
approaches have the desired impact on
small farmers and their communities –
Source: Ashoka And The Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation

Box 26: Social entrepreneurs taking development impact to scale continued
PATH – A Catalyst for Global Health right. However, PATH’s multidisciplinary safe water needs of low-income households,
PATH is an international nonprofit approach puts it firmly into the category of test products, and measure the
organization that creates sustainable, intermediary institutions that catalyze project's impact; other nonprofit and
culturally relevant solutions, enabling systems change. This is evidenced by nongovernmental organizations to
communities worldwide to break PATH’s approach, which is premised on collaborate and build on a history of safe
longstanding cycles of poor health. bringing cutting edge technology to water initiatives and to share information
Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, historically neglected challenges, bringing derived from this project; and governments
PATH now has more than 800 staff together people and organizations with the and policymakers to ensure that solutions
members, offices in 28 cities in 19 countries, necessary skills and expertise to collaborate are useful and sustainable in their
and program activities in more than 70 and jointly problem solve, working in constituent communities. Together with
countries. PATH collaborates with diverse partnership with organizations across the these partners PATH will develop the tools,
public- and private-sector partners to public and private sectors necessary to guidelines and performance standards that
develop and provide appropriate health strengthen critical health value chains, will enable others to replicate the work in
technologies and strategies that improve and consulting with the individuals and other countries and contexts. As a result,
global health and well-being. PATH communities it seeks to help so that PATH is working as a disruptive innovator, a
improves the health of people around the solutions are appropriate and acceptable. field builder, a partnership and collaboration
world by: supporting new ideas through broker, a market maker, and supporting
inception, development, and testing; In addition to projects and private sector knowledge management efforts to lift many
paving the way for introduction in low- partnerships focused on developing and actors within the household water market.
resource countries; and working with introducing particular health products, PATH Some of the consumer research, technology
governments and communities to integrate has also implemented projects across the platforms, and distribution strategies that
and expand the most successful ideas. health value chain and sought to make PATH is developing in partnership with
broader industries more inclusive. For example, others, could prove transformative for the
PATH was formed in the mid-1970s by three in 2006 PATH began working to expand the household water treatment market and may
researchers – Gordon Duncan, Rich market for household water treatment to have lessons for other inclusive market
Mahoney, and Gordon Perkin – to bridge low income consumers. The project development efforts.
between public health researchers, who objectives are to: (1) develop sustainable
were developing products, field staff who market strategies for commercial provision
were working with communities on the of HWTS products to underserved populations
ground, and private industry, who seemed in a variety of low-resource settings;
to have been left out of the equation (2) stimulate and expand a commercial
altogether. PATH’s initial focus was on market for HWTS water treatment in one
making sure couples around the world had country; and (3) assess the effectiveness,
access to condoms, birth control pills, sustainability and scalability of a commercial
intrauterine devices, and other modern market for HWTS provision, and to define
forms of pregnancy prevention. However, operational plans for market development,
the success of this initial design set PATH up product introduction, and replication in
to become an extraordinary intermediary other countries by a variety of actors.
institution able to catalyze, introduce and These are clearly market development and
integrate a broad array of health building functions that will require extensive
innovations into global health systems. collaboration and partnership to ensure
success and sustainability of our work.
PATH has many innovators within it that Project partners include: commercial
are responsible for product innovations partners to refine product design,
and patents, and can rightfully be manufacturing, distribution, and promotion;
considered a social entrepreneur in its own research institutions to gain knowledge on
Sources: PATH

Box 26: Scaling business solutions to poverty
TechnoServe was established in 1968 by capabilities and achieve greater scale and
an American businessman to provide impact. In addition to its use of partnerships, Building businesses and industries
technology to the rural poor in developing three other characteristics of the In addition to working with individual
countries to improve their productivity. Over TechnoServe model that help it to scale its entrepreneurs and helping them to build
the past decade it has evolved into a market- impact are its focus on developing their own businesses, TechnoServe also
driven, business-oriented social enterprise entrepreneurs who also have the ability to helps them to organize through producer
that focuses on helping entrepreneurial men be local leaders and role models in their groups and industry associations to have
and women in rural areas of some 30 communities and industries; its strategy of greater economic impact and political voice.
developing countries to build small and building both individual entrepreneurs as Increasingly the organization is taking a
growing businesses that create economic well as the value chains or industries in value chain or cluster approach that aims to
opportunity to improve livelihoods and help which they are operating; and its build or strengthen an entire value chain or
transform the lives of their families and commitment to supporting broader field- industry in specific locations. It undertakes
communities. It is working with a variety of building activities within the countries where market and industry research, value chain
corporations, development agencies, private it operates and globally. analysis and strategic planning, working with
foundations, NGOs and government bodies producer associations and industry groups,
to empower thousands of smallholder Developing entrepreneurs and leaders large corporations, governments and both
farmers and rural entrepreneurs along TechnoServe implements entrepreneurship public and private donors to achieve scale. In
agricultural value chains in Latin America, development and training programs to help certain cases it supports local industry
Africa and India. In 2009, the organization entrepreneurial men and women to either groups to engage in public policy dialogue
reports that it worked with more than 2,140 establish, strengthen or expand businesses – and advocacy to influence the broader
businesses to create jobs, income and new mostly small and medium-sized enterprises enabling environment.
opportunity for nearly 1.4 million people. with the potential to grow – while aiming to
It estimates that these businesses earned foster a broader culture of entrepreneurship Supporting field-building activities
US$189 million in revenues and US$27 in the locations where it works. It runs TechnoServe is also working to scale its
million in profits. They employed 53,900 national business plan competitions in 14 impact by supporting broader field-building
employees paying US$20 million in wages countries, working with local partners from efforts for small and growing businesses and
and purchased about US$62 million worth of the business, financial, academic and agricultural value chains. It has been active
products from over 200,000 small-scale government sectors who help to identify, ion the creation of the Aspen Network of
suppliers. advise and screen applicants and then Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) and in
mentor and facilitate access to capital for efforts by a number of public and private
TechnoServe focuses on identifying and those with the most potential. Local trainers donors to develop more integrated value
working with rural entrepreneurs who have and business mentors help entrepreneurs chain approaches to increasing smallholder
the potential to raise productivity, employ to identify unmet market demand, farmer productivity and incomes in
the latest relevant technology, produce high- uncover high-value products and business developing countries.
value products for local or export markets, opportunities and produce to the quality and
integrate into corporate value chains and standards necessary to serve customer TechnoServe is active in a variety of agri-
significantly raise jobs and incomes in a needs, using the Internet and sophisticated business projects, ranging from staple crops
manner that has a positive impact on marketing research and technologies where to export food commodities such as
poverty. At the heart of its strategy is a possible. cashews, cocoa, coffee, cotton, dairy,
commitment to inclusive markets and pro- horticulture and fruit, livestock and feed, and
poor growth. The organization employs staff Efforts are also made to strengthen the tea. It uses a robust evaluation system and is
with business, consulting and agricultural leadership skills of the entrepreneurs so that starting to replicate successful programs in
expertise, some 90 percent of whom are they can engage proactively and different countries and engage with new
citizens of the countries in which it works. constructively in public policy dialogues, industries.
They work in partnership with companies serve as a voice for local business and take a
and other groups to leverage resources and lead on issues of corporate responsibility.

As outlined in the section on large corporations, there is untapped potential for greater
alliances between social enterprises and large companies, both on a commercial and social
investment basis. The social businesses that Grameen Bank is establishing as joint ventures
with large corporations are one model that offers particular potential. Grameen Danone Foods
Ltd., for example, is producing an affordable, nutrient fortified yoghurt in Bangladesh,
purchasing the milk from local farmers, creating local livelihoods in the production, and selling
the products door-to-door through a sales force of women micro-entrepreneurs. In another
joint venture Grameen is working with French environmental services company Veolia to build
and operate several water treatment plants in some of the poorest villages in Bangladesh. Pfizer
and BASF are two other multinational corporations that are developing joint ventures with
Grameen in the area of healthcare delivery. In all cases, the goal is to combine social mission
with market forces to achieve greater scale and more sustained impact than would be possible
through a traditional donor or philanthropic model.
The concept and practice of social entrepreneurship are still evolving and much debate remains
around definitions and measures of performance. This is especially the case with respect to the
distinction between commercial entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, given that the
boundaries between the two are often blurred. On the one hand, a growing number of
commercial entrepreneurs are now measuring, managing and enhancing their broader social
and environmental contributions in the course of pursuing financial value creation. On the
other hand, a growing number of social entrepreneurs are developing market-based and
sometimes for-profit business models to pursue their explicit goals of social and environmental
change.
Regardless of motivations and models, the new approaches to development that are being driven
by social entrepreneurs have potential. The financial, technical and managerial resources that
they are mobilizing to solve development challenges – increasingly in partnership with more
traditional foundations, public donors, governments and large corporations – offer an exciting
area of innovation for poverty alleviation. Public and private funders of social entrepreneurs
would be wise to think about how effectively and efficiently they are allocating capital to these
entrepreneurs. They should also look for opportunities to support and scale social entrepreneurs
who are based in developing countries and to explore how market-based solutions can be better
aligned with social missions.
As John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan observe in their 2008 book The Power of Unreasonable
People:
“…periods of great change are built on intense experimentation and, often, high
failure rates. Our reading of the evidence suggests that the work of these innovators
and entrepreneurs heralds a new phase in the evolution of business, markets and
capitalism itself. The mainstream players who heed the lessons from these innovators’
experiences will find new opportunities to fulfill unmet needs in the vast underserved
markets of the twenty-first century.
Think of it this way: whatever they may intend, these entrepreneurs are doing early

market research on some of the biggest opportunities of the coming decades. In
attempting to bridge the great divides between privileged populations and the poor,
they address the critical challenges where traditional markets fail. But, as we shall see,
they cannot tackle market failures on their own. Instead, their efforts need to be
supported by all levels of government, by business, by the financial markets, and by
civil society organizations and ordinary citizens – that is, by each and every one of
us.”117

3. Empowering social intrapreneurs
Most of the literature on entrepreneurship focuses on entrepreneurs who start and/or lead their own
commercial or social enterprises. Yet, individuals and small teams working within large companies or
development institutions can also play a vitally important entrepreneurial role. The previous section
on large corporations highlighted the opportunities for companies to innovate in order to directly
serve the poor. Where corporations have done this effectively there have often been internal leaders
who have catalyzed, developed and/or scaled these innovative new approaches and technologies to
explicitly deliver market-based solutions to poverty.
As The Economist argued in its review of Elkington and Hartigan’s book on social entrepreneurs, “The
greatest agents for sustainable change are unlikely to be [social entrepreneurs], interesting though
they are. …They are much more likely to be the entirely reasonable people, often working for large
companies, who see ways to create better products or reach new markets, and have the resources to
do so.”118 It is likely that both sets of people will play a crucial role in driving social and environmental
change. Yet, there is no doubt that entrepreneurial individuals and teams working within larger
organizations and networks have a potentially important and to-date untapped role to play.
The term ‘intrapraneur’ was coined by Professor Gifford Pinchot in the mid-1980s and in 1987
entered the American Heritage Dictionary with the following definition, “A person within a large
corporation who takes direct responsibility for turning an idea into a profitable finished product
through assertive risk-taking and innovation.”119
Pinchot later commented, “I’ve made an interesting discovery since I wrote Intrapreneuring. I used
to think potential intrapreneurs were commonplace that they were hard to find because they were in
hiding. But I have found they are more rare in most large organizations than the 10 percent who are
entrepreneurial in the population at large. There is a scarcity of people who are brave enough to take
on the intrapreneurial role: therefore, we have to lower the barriers and increase the rewards.”120
There is a vast literature related to how large companies and other institutions support intrapraneurs
and innovation generally. Much less research has been done on effective models to identify, support
and scale the contribution of social intrapraneurs who are trying to find viable solutions, either
commercial or hybrid models, to tackle global poverty and to include the poor more effectively in
corporate value chains as producers, consumers and employees.
In 2008, SustainAbility, IDEO and the Skoll Foundation, with support from Allianz, published “The
Social Intrapraneur: A Field Guide for Corporate Changemakers”, which offers one of the best
summaries of to-date of the potential of this group of entrepreneurial individuals, who it describes as
people who are effective at:
“creating and delivering new business models. They compel their host corporations to
look outside their comfort zones – to see both the strategic risks and profound
opportunities that exist beyond the purview of traditional business units. They are not
satisfied with suboptimal equilibriums, where markets work well for some, but not at all

for others. Their adept opposable minds exist to juggle dilemmas and catalyze new visions,
products, services and solutions – some of which may fall below the radar today, but will
eventually enable a scale of change that delivers value to society and business well into the
future,” and, “they work inside major corporations or organizations to develop and
promote practical solutions to social or environmental challenges where progress is
currently stalled by market failures.”121
These individuals are in essence what Bill Gates has termed ‘creative capitalists’ – using the principles,
the architecture and the organizations of modern capitalism and the immense resources, networks
and incentives that it is able to mobilize to solve the big global challenges of our time. 122
There is untapped potential to support social intrapreneurs, both from within the organizations
where they operate and through building peer networks and communities of practice beyond
individual organizations. There is also an opportunity to allocate greater resources to training the next
generation of social intrapraneurs and socials entrepreneurs in universities and business schools, some
examples of which are profiled in Part Three.
(i) Empowering intrapraneurs within their own companies

Companies can support social intrapreneurs within their own businesses in the following ways to
help scale market-based solutions to poverty alleviation or environmental sustainability:
• Identify individuals and institutionalize social innovation: In addition to identifying,
supporting and celebrating individual social innovators and risk-takers, companies can also create
institutional structures, incentives, reward and recognition programs, and in many cases dedicated
financial and technical assistance to support the work of social intrapraneurs.
• Lead through senior champions: There is almost always active and publicly articulated senior-
level support, often at the level of the chief executive or chairman, with senior business unit
leaders often serving as sponsors of successful social intrapreneurs.
• Establish teams of innovators: The majority of effective social intrapraneurs work in teams –
sometimes in a dedicated unit and sometimes in a network across the company.
• Innovate through employee volunteering programs: Some companies are using more
sophisticated and competence-led approaches to employee engagement and volunteering to build
a cadre of future business leaders who are also social intrapraneurs. Examples of some leading
initiatives in this area were profiled in the section on corporate philanthropy and volunteering.
• Establish awards and incentive funds: Some companies are encouraging social intrapraneurship
and eco-innovation through annual awards or the creation of social venture funds and challenge
initiatives within the mainstream business.
Examples of five of these approaches are illustrated in Box 27. There is potential for all companies to
develop similar tools and structures to support social intrapraneurs and to incubate and scale new
approaches to tackling global challenges and poverty alleviation.

Box 27: Corporate structures and tools to empower social intrapraneurs
A global award program: DuPont A start-up venture unit: An internal sustainability challenge
Sustainable Growth Excellence Award ReutersMarket Light fund: Dow Chemical’s Global Challenges
This award was founded in 2004 to In 2006, Thomson Reuters set up Reuters Initiative
recognize and empower DuPont Market Light (RML) as a commercially The company has made a public
employees who have “created shareholder viable business unit targeted to provide commitment that “By 2015, Dow will
and societal value while reducing the timely and affordable information to achieve at least three breakthroughs that
environmental footprint along our value farmers, initially in India, on crop prices, will significantly improve the world’s ability
chains.” Representatives from stakeholder weather, sources of finance, government to solve the challenges of: affordable and
groups, including employees, customers, schemes and so on. The idea was inspired adequate food supply; decent housing;
suppliers, and broader society review by a Reuters employee and its energy & climate change; sustainable water
applications and determine winners. In implementation spearheaded by social supplies; or improved personal health and
2007, the 13 winners accounted for energy intraprenuer Amit Mehra, with support safety.” Breakthrough technologies include
savings and reduction of greenhouse gas from the company’s CEO. The initiative was new, unique chemistry; a significant new
emissions equivalent to removing over based on 18 months of market research, manufacturing process for existing
276,000 vehicles from the road. They also concept tests, prototyping and market products; or new business models and
“reduced water use by over 800 million trials, by the Reuters team. To make it methods of delivery for existing products.
gallons per year… representing cost viable as a start-up RML was incubated The “challenge platforms” were chosen
savings of over 35 million USD per year by the company’s main Venture Board, because of their connection to macro
and expected new revenues of US$ chaired by its CEO. Now in operation market trends and existing Dow capabilities
41million in the next few years.” RML has its own governance structure, which increased the likelihood for
The Sustainable Growth Excellence Award personnel policies and salary scale, while developing successful new or enhanced
includes a $5000 grant, and “seeks to still benefiting from access to the world products and technologies that can help
honor those teams and individuals who class technology and resources of Thomson solve these critical world challenges. In
have made significant contributions Reuters. The service provided to farmers is creating this goal, Dow was heavily
toward DuPont meeting it’s mission and available on a subscription basis and is influenced by the United Nation’s
vision.” The company has honored 49 accessible on all the mobile networks in Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
teams thus far (with usually about 12 different funding packages. It currently which are focused on developing countries.
winners annually). covers information on over 150 crop types Teams are encouraged to work across
and nearly 1,000 markets across India and functional, geographic and business unit
in less than three years has reached an boundaries to develop new ideas and the
estimated 2 million farmers. company is utilizing both traditional R&D
funding as well as its internal venture
capital fund to support the program.

Box 27: Corporate structures and tools to empower social intrapraneurs continued
A dedicated business unit: Accenture A company-wide social innovation A targeted unit: Anglo Zimele
Development Partnerships network: Tetra Pak’s Food for In South Africa, mining giant Anglo
Accenture Development Partnerships has Development Office American has set up a dedicated unit for
been established as a separate social This market-oriented network was enterprise development and economic
business unit within Accenture to provide established in 2001, in partnership with empowerment. The unit, called Anglo
strategic advice, project management sister company DaLaval, to serve as a Zimele, is headed by a full-time Managing
support, technology skills and partnership catalyst, provide technical assistance and Director and chaired by the Executive
brokerage services to nongovernmental funding, and leverage partnerships along Director of Anglo American South Africa.
organizations, foundations and donor the dairy and milk value chain. It consists of Zimele comprises four funds, each with a
organizations operating in the a core team in the company’s head- professional fund manager and staff.
development sector, with the aim to quarters in Stockholm and a network of The oldest fund, the Supply Chain Fund,
helping these organizations to improve colleagues based in business units around targets black-owned small and medium
their own performance and to increase the world. Specialists are located in Asia, enterprises with potential to become Anglo
their social and economic development the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, American suppliers. The fund looks for
impact. Founded by social intrapreneur Gib and there are Food for Development firms that are already commercially viable
Bulloch, with strong senior management representatives in most of Tetra Pak’s so it can focus on generating significant
support, ADP’s projects are staffed by market companies. The FfD Office works future growth using a hands-on, incubator-
managers selected from its consulting in partnership with a variety of external style approach – offering loan and equity
and technology practices through a partners on a variety of projects ranging financing, training, and information about
competitive selection process who work in from school feeding programs, which are procurement opportunities with the
the unit for varying periods of time usually more philanthropic in nature, to company. The Supply Chain Fund has
three to twelve months. The business agricultural and dairy development financed more than 150 businesses since
model is based on a ‘3 way contribution’ projects focused on making the milk value it was established in 1989.
by the company which covers overhead chain more inclusive, sustainable and
costs and charges a lower margin on fees, nutritious. Projects include training for The Anglo Khula Mining Fund is a
the employees involved who take a salary smallholder farmers, equipment financing partnership with government focused on
cut, and a client contribution, allowing for and food product development at the farm junior mining, supporting small, black-
a reduced fee structure which makes the level to support for local processing plants owned companies formed to explore
services more accessible to nonprofit and market development strategies. mining deposits. In addition to loan and
organizations. ADP also provides a The global school milk and school feeding equity financing and general business skills
mechanism for engaging Accenture’s program has been in existence in some training, the fund offers targeted technical
commercial clients in development form for more than 45 years. In 2007, an assistance based on Anglo American’s
initiatives, for example by helping them to estimated 45 million school children in mining expertise. The Communities Fund
partner with nonprofit organizations. over 50 countries, some 22 million in finances entrepreneurs in the vicinity of
Established in 2003, ADP has completed developing countries, received nutritional Anglo American mines. These entrepreneurs
more than 200 projects spanning 54 support. In addition to working closely with also have access to training, coaching, and
countries with over 45 different client its own business units and sister company business services like printing and
organizations, including a significant Dalaval, the Food for Development office telecommunications through a network of
proportion of the leading international also works with Tetra Pak’s major 13 Small Business Hubs. The Olwazini Fund,
non-government organizations and donor customers who process, package and Anglo Zimele’s newest fund, targets
agencies. Recent projects include work distribute food, as well development historically disadvantaged groups like
with Enablis, the government of Guyana, partners in government and civil society. women, youth, and the disabled with
NetHope, PLAN International, UNICEF, entrepreneurship training and small
Oxfam, and Save the Children. business loans for promising graduates.

(ii) Building peer networks across companies
Beyond individual companies there are a number of initiatives underway to select and network
corporate social intrapraneurs across different companies. Examples include:
• The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has convened and supported a year-
long ‘Future Leaders Program’ since 2002. Member companies nominate high-potential leaders
in their companies who work together with their counterparts from other countries and industry
sectors on a sustainability project selected by the group and aimed at, “enhancing their leadership
and professional skills while gaining understanding of how to apply sustainability principles back
in their own companies.”123 In 2009 the Future Leaders Team focused on inclusive business
models to serve the poor and developed a learning tool for companies called the ‘Inclusive
Business Challenge.’ The program now has an active alumni network of over 250 sustainability
leaders spread through some of the world’s largest and most influential corporations.
• The Aspen Institute’s Business in Society program launched a ‘First Movers Fellowship
Program’ in 2009 aimed at identifying and supporting social intrapraneurs from major
corporations. The program looks for what it describes as: “accomplished innovators recognized as
high potential performers in their companies. And they have a compelling idea about a new
product, service, business process or model they urgently want to implement that will help their
companies develop a culture in which business success is defined in financial, social and
environmental terms.”124 Over the course of a year, the Fellows come together in four seminars
built around the themes of reflection, innovation, community, and leadership, and then work
with each other and with teams of mentors in their companies to develop and implement
breakthrough strategies to create profitable business growth as well as positive social change.
At the same time, a growing number of universities and business schools are developing courses,
internships and multi-disciplinary field projects aimed at training future leaders with a combination
of both business and management skills and knowledge of key development challenges and market
failures. A few of these are profiled in Section Three of the report.
As it becomes increasingly clear that market-based solutions and private sector resources will have a
crucial role to play in helping to tackle key development and climate change challenges, there is a
growing need for global corporations to take explicit actions to identify, support and develop a new
generation of business leaders and social intrapraneurs who can develop profitable solutions to
addressing some of these challenges. This calls for a combination of:
• Leadership development programs
• Internal awards and other incentives
• Internal social venture and challenge funds
• Dedicated business units
• Corporate foundations that support social innovation
• Cross-company innovation teams
• Cross-company peer networks

• Support for outstanding young managers to participate in external social innovation and
sustainability networks.
The establishment of dedicated business units and/or social venture funds to incubate and support
social intrapreneurs offers particular potential. Some of the most successful corporate efforts in
building inclusive business models and/or tackling development challenges have been achieved
through such units and through the social intrapreneurs and innovators who work in them.
In addition to the examples profiled in Box 27, other examples include Monitor Inclusive Markets
in India, which in addition to research is also undertaking a variety of catalytic activities to build the
low-income housing market in several major Indian cities, and the Danone Communities Fund, and
Base-of-the Pyramid Unit which is profiled in the section on private financiers.
Agribusiness cooperative Land O’Lakes has one of the most established units of this kind. Its Land
O’Lakes International Development division was established as a not-for-profit unit in 1981, with
the goal of taking lessons from the company’s core business experience and applying them to support
smallholder farmers in developing countries. It has worked closely with USAID and other partners
to support agricultural productivity and competitiveness projects, development of rural enterprises
and farmer cooperatives, food system and safety projects, nutrition, health and food security in over
70 developing countries.
In summary, there needs to be a focus on supporting both individuals and strengthening institutional
structures and social innovation ecosystems. For the companies and other organizations that take this
approach, the potential is great to discover entrepreneurial new approaches, technologies, products
and services to serve the poor.

The ability to participate in capital markets and gain affordable and reliable access to finance is a
common foundation for almost every successful development outcome whether at the household or
community level, or at the level of entire value chains and nations.
The past two decades have been characterized by dramatic changes and innovation in the field of
development finance and the international capital markets more broadly. We have witnessed the
emergence of new asset classes, players and financing mechanisms. There has been the creation of
non-traditional public-private and social-commercial funding coalitions. And the transformational
impact of the convergence between information and communications technology (ICT) and
financial intermediation. These developments have facilitated nothing short of a revolution in
finance from the emergence of ‘24-hour global trading’ that shifts trillions of institutional dollars
around the globe daily to ‘mobile money’ services for the poor that facilitate individual access to ten
dollars or less in remote rural communities.
Some of these financial innovations have led to major advances in financing for development and
poverty alleviation, which have the potential to scale further and benefit more people. Diverse
examples include: the microfinance movement; the Equator Principles for responsible project finance
in developing countries; the International Financing Facility for Immunization; ‘vaccine bonds’;
solidarity borrowing; private equity in low-income markets; and the emerging field of carbon finance.
The landscape offers a kaleidoscope of new financing instruments with the potential to promote
economic growth, protect the environment and alleviate poverty.
At the same time, the global financial crisis starkly demonstrated the risks and costs associated with
such a complex and interdependent system. It is often the most vulnerable economic actors that
suffer when financial innovation and transformation outpaces the ability of public accountability
mechanisms, national regulators and international institutions to keep up with the rate and
complexity of change. As the crisis has unfolded, it has often been the poorest households in each
country and the poorest countries that have carried the burden of human costs.
Despite the economic and social costs of the financial crisis, there is still enormous potential and need
to more effectively leverage private finance to support development and poverty alleviation. The
World Bank concluded in its 2009 report, Innovative Financing for Development: “…it is worth
reiterating that financing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) would require increasing the
investment rate above the domestic saving rate, and the financing gap has to be bridged with
additional financing from abroad. Official aid alone will not be sufficient for this purpose. The
private sector has to become the engine of growth and employment generation in poor countries, and
official aid efforts must catalyze innovative funding solutions for the private sector.”125
Clearly, formal sector, profit-driven financing of projects, companies, governments, and even
consumers in developing countries is nothing new. Many of the world’s major multinational banks
and insurance companies have longstanding engagement in these countries. These include on-the-
ground operations, including in some cases retail networks dating back more than a 100 years, and
decades of experience in providing trade finance, project finance and other banking services to

developing country governments and companies. At the same time, the waves of privatization and
market liberalization that followed political change in much of Central and Eastern Europe, Asia,
Latin America and Africa in the 1990s, also dramatically increased the number, diversity and depth
of domestic for-profit financial institutions in many transition and developing economies.
As such, private financiers have been engaged in developing countries for many years. Overall their
contribution has been essential to financing economic growth and to funding both the public and
private sectors in many of these countries. There is no question, however, that the record hasn’t always
been positive. Even prior to the global crisis there have been other devastating financial crises that
have exacerbated poverty. In most cases these have been driven by some combination of government
and financial sector irresponsibility and weak regulatory oversight in both developed and emerging
markets. There have also been examples of financial deals at the project level – especially in the case
of large-scale infrastructure projects – that have exacerbated poverty or created other negative social
and environmental impacts.
Even when the impacts of private financing at the macro- or project-level have been broadly positive,
the benefits have not always – some would argue rarely – ‘trickled down’ to either expand opportunity
or access to financial services for the poor, or to directly improve their quality of life in other ways.
As is now well-recorded, millions of people in developing countries lack any direct access at all to
affordable and reliable formal sector financial services.
Leaders in the private financial sector and key international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the
IFC and regional development banks, have started to actively address these challenges over the past
decade. They are looking explicitly at ways to:
• Develop sustainable and scalable market-based solutions for delivering financial services directly
to the poor and to invest in the microfinance intermediaries that serve them;
• Invest in small and growing businesses, especially the type of high-potential opportunity
entrepreneurs profiled in the section on entrepreneurship;
• Take local corporate champions to scale, enabling them to grow both domestically in their own
countries and across borders; and
• Engage in efforts to leverage additional private finance in a manner that enhances the broader
contributions that for-profit financial institutions can make to poverty alleviation and to
achieving the MDGs.
The following pages provide a broad overview of these four areas as pathways for mobilizing
additional private finance to explicitly support poverty alleviation and development. Each of these
areas has a burgeoning and increasingly sophisticated community of practice. These communities
of practice are already populated by a diverse range of for-profit financial companies such as banks,
institutional investors, and insurance companies, and by donors and IFIs, philanthropists, social
enterprises, and nonprofit but market-based financial intermediaries. The different financial
actors, instruments and markets that are evolving in each area have also been covered
comprehensively in other reports. The purpose of this section is not to provide an in-depth
analysis, but rather highlight some of the ways in which formal sector, market-oriented private

financiers, working alone or in partnership with other development actors, can play a vital
leadership role.
Prior to looking at each of the four areas of action, it is worth saying something about the field of
hybrid financing that has started to emerge over the past decade. The groundbreaking work that is
occurring around the concepts of Impact Investing and Blended Value Capital, led by groups such as
the Rockefeller Foundation, World Economic Forum, Monitor and IFC, and inspired by innovative
financiers, is introduced in Box 28. It is being driven by a combination of socially responsible and
sustainability investors, venture capitalists, asset managers, insurers, bankers, philanthropic
foundations, international financial institutions, social enterprises that act as financial intermediaries,
and community-based financial enterprises.
Many of the examples covered in the following section are some variation of impact investing or
‘blended value’ approaches aimed at mobilizing private finance to support poverty alleviation and
other development goals.
The examples focus on the following four categories of direct financial service provision and
intermediation, although there is some overlap and blurring of boundaries between these categories,
and increasingly between the different types of financial service provider, instruments and asset classes
within them:
2. Investing in small and growing businesses
3. Scaling emerging market corporate ‘champions’
4. Leveraging additional private finance for poverty alleviation

BOX 28: The rise of ‘Blended Value Capital’ and ‘Impact Investing’
“There are moments in history when the needs Defining ‘Blended Value Investments’ and environmentally motivated, and are willing
of an age prompt lasting, positive innovation ‘Impact Investing to give up some financial return in their
in finance – from ideas as big as the invention ‘Blended Value’ Investments can be defined investments to achieve these goals or the
as those that explicitly include social and/or growing number of philanthropists, other
of money, to the creation of new institutions
environmental factors into investment grant-making entities or social enterprises
such as banks and insurance firms, the
decisions. Research supported by the who are seeking to harness market-
development of new products and services Rockefeller Foundation, World Economic mechanisms to achieve social or
such as mortgages, pensions and mutual Forum and IFC concludes: “Financial returns environmental benefits.”
funds. Evidence suggests that many thousands in blended value investments may be at risk- ● “Ying-Yang” Deals: Those that combine
of people and institutions around the globe adjusted market rates or below market rates. capital from financial first and impact
These types of investments inhabit a space first investors working together on the
believe our era needs a new type of investing.
between philanthropy, where no financial same deal, and sometimes including
They are already experimenting with it, and
return is expected, and pure financial philanthropists of public sector funding,
many of them continue even in the midst of a investments, where social considerations are in order to enable deals and projects that
financial and credit crisis. That’s why the idea not a factor and financial profit is maximized.” could not happen without the blending
of using profit-seeking investment to generate of different types of capital with different
social and environmental good is moving from The Monitor Institute, concluding a study motivations and requirements in terms of
a periphery of activist investors to the core of conducted with support from the Rockefeller performance.
Foundation and others, defines ‘Impact These different approaches are illustrated
mainstream financial institutions.”
Investing’ as: “Actively placing capital in over the page.
Investing for Social and Environmental Impact,
businesses and funds that generate social
Monitor Institute , 2009
and/or environmental good and at least Types of ‘Impact Investing’
return nominal principal to the investor.” In operational terms ‘Impact Investing’
includes a wide and growing range of
In their 2009 report Monitor Institute investment activities and fields of practice
provides a useful framework for considering such as: community development funds;
three segments of investors that are driving clean technology; microfinance; financing for
the impact investing movement: small and growing businesses; and global
● Financial First Investors, who aim to public-private financial mechanisms such as
optimize financial returns with a floor for those that have emerged over the past
social or environmental impact: “These decade in the areas of global health, the
may either be commercial investors who environment and infrastructure.
are seeking out sub-sectors in their
portfolios that offer market-rate returns The size of ‘Impact Investing’
while achieving some social or As a nascent and rapidly changing field that
environmental goal (i.e. clean technology) is composed of a wide range of actors, asset
or commercial investors responding to classes, motivations and investment models –
regulations, tax policies or voluntary some who identify with the field, others who
guidelines and performance standards may not – it is difficult to offer a precise
requiring them to take social and/or figure for the amount of assets that are being
environmental risk or opportunity into invested around the world with the explicit
consideration in their mainstream goal of generating both social and
business.” environmental value as well as financial
● Impact First Investors, who seek to return. Monitor comment: “… a good guess
optimize social or environmental impact is that the total size of the market could be as
with a floor for financial returns: “These are big as US$500 billion within the next
investors who are primarily socially or decade.” This is still very small compared to

BOX 28: The rise of ‘Blended Value Capital’ and ‘Impact Investing’ continued
the total universe of global managed assets, ‘industry-defining’ funds, to support for new their development footprint or the positive
some US$50 trillion, but in addition to types of intermediaries, to the establishment development multipliers that result from the
philanthropic giving, which in the US-alone of field-building platforms and networks to activities of their regular day-to-day business,
Monitor estimates to be about US$300 work on common metrics and standards, much the same can be said of the financial
billion, and global social screening and share good practices, and pool efforts and community.
shareholder advocacy by socially responsible resources.
investment (SRI) funds, estimated at close to While the financial crisis has demonstrated
US$7 trillion, the amount of funds that are As one of the pioneers in supporting this the very obvious negative impacts of short-
explicitly aiming to achieve positive social field of endeavor, in 2009, the Rockefeller term investment horizons, weak regulation,
and environmental outcomes is substantial. Foundation partnered with others to launch lack of accountability and bad decision-
a collaborative initiative called the Global making (in some cases unethical and illegal
The future of ‘Impact Investing’ Impact Investing Network (GIIN), which is decisions), more work needs to be done
The organizations and thought-leaders that playing a vital field-building role. on better understanding the broader
have driven the work on both ‘blended value social, environmental and development
capital’ and ‘impact investing’ agree broadly What about the social and environmental contributions of the mainstream financial
on the obstacles to scaling these investment impact of the ‘other’ US$50 trillion? sector. At a minimum, more needs to be done
approaches – lack of effective intermediation, One can argue that a sizable percentage by regulators, stock exchanges and by private
lack of enabling infrastructure, lack of of the US$50 trillion of globally managed sector investors, bankers and insurers
common performance metrics, and lack of assets that are not aiming explicitly to achieve themselves to take broader social and
sufficient absorptive capacity for capital. positive social and environmental outcomes, environmental risks into consideration when
Likewise, there is general agreement on what but rather to maximize financial returns, also undertaking major financial transactions.
is required to move these approaches from have substantial social and environmental Important strides have been taken in this
the margins of the financial sector to the impacts – both positive and negative. context in recent years through initiatives
mainstream. Proposals range from the In the same way that remarkably few global such as the Equator Principles.
creation of what Monitor describes as corporations tell a compelling story about
HIGH
Source: Investing for Social & Environmental Impact, Monitor Institute, 2009
FINANCIAL FIRST
Solely INVESTORS
profit-maximizing Optimize financial returns
with an impact floor
investing
IMPACT FIRST
Target financial return
INVESTORS
Optimize social or
envionmental impact
with a financial floor
FINANCIAL FLOOR
“YIN-YANG” DEALS
IMPACT FLOOR
Philanthropy
NONE
NONE Target social and/or environmental impact HIGH
Sources: Investing for Social and Environmental Impact: A design for catalyzing an emerging industry, The Monitor Institute, 2009 (www.impactinvestingnetworking.org).
Blended Value Investing: Capital Opportunities for Social and Environmental Impact, The World Economic Forum, 2006. Private Investment for Social Goals: Building the Blended
Value Capital Market, The World Economic Forum, IFC and Rockefeller Foundation, 2005

According to the World Bank, “Nearly 3 billion people in developing countries have little or no
access to formal financial services that can help them increase their incomes and improve their lives.
Access to a range of financial services – savings, loans, micro-insurance and money transfers – enables
poor families to invest in enterprise and in better nutrition, improved living conditions, and the
health and education of their children.”126
A key challenge is to develop viable business models to deliver such services to the poor in a manner
that is affordable, reliable and sustainable, and capable of going to scale. As the Indian-based ICICI
Foundation for Inclusive Growth states:
“Access to comprehensive financial services is an essential part of the development
process. Financial services enable individuals and enterprises to allocate their resources
most productively by allowing them to better manage risk (e.g. buy insurance) and
take advantage of future opportunities (e.g. saving today to build capital for
tomorrow).”127
(i) Meeting the financial needs of the poor

Financial services serve a number of different purposes in the lives of the poor, the way they do for
the rich:
• Production
– Inventory to resell (street hawker, kiosk owner)
– Raw materials for value-added processing (food vendor, artisan)
– Inputs for agricultural production (smallholder farmers)
– Equipment (all of the above)
• Consumption
– Day-to-day purchases like food, transportation
– Larger investments such as housing, vehicle, electrical appliance
– Loans to support education
• Risk management
– To sustain productive activities and be able to meet critical consumption needs in the event of
crises such as illness, accident, death, theft, drought, flood, or other natural disaster
There is a compelling case to be made that the need for a variety of affordable and reliable financial
services is even more acute for the poor, because their incomes are low and erratic.

As the authors note in Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day:
“…it is striking how many commonalities we found among our households, despite the
differences in their environments [rural villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India
and South Africa]. Every household in our 250-strong sample, even the very poorest,
held both savings and debt of some sort. No household used fewer than four types of
instrument during the year: in Bangladesh the average number of different types of
instruments used was just under 10, in India just over eight, and in South Africa, 10.
These numbers refer to the type of instruments used: the number of times these
instruments were used in the year was of course much greater. In Bangladesh, for
example, the 42 households between them used just one instrument – the interest-free
loan – almost 300 times in the year.
… Of all the commonalities, the most fundamental is that the households are coping
with incomes that are not just low, but also irregular and unpredictable, and that too
few financial instruments are available to effectively manage these uneven flows. It is a
“triple whammy”: low incomes; irregularity and unpredictability; and a lack of tools.”128
Portfolios of the Poor goes on to conclude,

“…we distinguish three key services that are greatly in demand but often inadequately
provided. Offering solutions to these key services give microfinance providers three big
opportunities:
1. Helping poor households manage money on a day-to-day basis
2. Helping poor households build savings over the long-term
3. Helping poor households borrow for all uses.
In some places, providing insurance will also provide a big opportunity, but the diaries
remind us that from a household’s perspective what matters is being able to manage
risk, not being insured per se.”129
A range of private financiers are now involved in delivering these financial services to the poor, either
directly or through intermediaries such as microfinance institutions (MFIs). They include:
• Financial corporations, from commercial banks and institutional investors to insurance and
leasing companies, as well as other companies that are building more inclusive value chains in
sectors such as food and beverage, extractives and tourism, and as purchasers or retailers are
finding it necessary to finance their micro-suppliers and customers. These corporations are
supporting microfinance initiatives through a combination of their core business operations and
their philanthropic and social investment activities.
• There has also been growth in the number and reach of social enterprises and community-based
organizations that are developing market-based solutions to provide either finance or a
combination of finance and support services to micro and small-scale producers and to poor
consumers, either on a for-profit basis or through using hybrid, ‘blended-value’ approaches.

Together these private financial actors are re-tooling existing financial instruments and asset classes
to serve the poor both directly and through wholesale options. Some are also exploring totally new
business models and modes of collaboration with each other and with donors, governments and
foundations. The latter group of development actors is helping to seed market innovation, strengthen
financial intermediaries and other key institutions, and build the fields of both microfinance and
small business finance more generally.
The following table provides a very small illustrative sample of some of the market-based approaches
that are emerging to meet the different financial needs of the poor.
Many private financiers are more interested in providing micro-finance services for some needs than
for others. The majority of the microfinance initiatives to-date has focused attention on micro-credit
and on supporting micro-enterprise. Private financiers, even the socially motivated ones, often prefer
to support productive activities rather than consumption. Housing microfinance providers, for
example, would rather their loans not be used for weddings, funerals, tuitions or shoes for the
children of their borrowers. But money is fungible and it isn’t totally possible to target. The poor are
both producers and consumers and they are using all the tools and strategies available to them to
manage both sides of this coin simultaneously.
As the authors of Portfolios of the Poor point out:

“ …many microfinance providers still prefer their borrowers to use their loans for just
one purpose – micro-enterprise. Where this is enforced, clients cannot borrow for other
vital uses even when they have the cash flow to service the loans. Our own research in
Bangladesh shows that many loans ostensibly taken for micro-enterprises are used for
other purposes. It is time for microfinance not merely to face up to this reality, but to
embrace the opportunity it represents. By offering general-purpose loans, matched in
value and structure to the cash flow of poor households, microfinance would open up
the biggest single market it is likely to find among the poor (especially the urban poor
who tend to be waged rather than self-employed), and one that would be greatly
appreciated by most of our diary households.”130

Illustrative examples of market-based microfinance services
SERVICE EXAMPLE
Diverse microfinance services Indian microfinance institution BASIX has provided working capital loans to the rural and urban poor
since 1996. In 2001, BASIX realized that credit was necessary but not sufficient for the creation of
livelihoods. Now, the institution provides a range of financial services including credit, savings,
insurance, and remittances; agricultural and business development services; and institutional
development services. Today BASIX has more than 600,000 microcredit customers, 200,000 savings
customers, and one million insurance customers.131
Investment capital Tribanco, the financial services arm of Brazilian white goods distributor Grupo Martins, provides credit
for store improvements like technology, lighting, and displays to the hundreds of thousands of tiny
retail shops in Martins’ customer network. While other banks shy away from such shops, Tribanco
dedicates over 80% of its lending to them and finds that their investments generally more than pay for
themselves. In addition, Tribanco offers its clients the opportunity to issue their own, branded credit
cards to their shoppers – a huge point of pride for these small retailers (see below).132
Micro-Franchising The Healthstore Foundation is a nonprofit organization supported by philanthropists and companies.
It is working in partnership with Management Sciences for Health (MSH) to implement a franchising
model that supports over 80 for-profit Child and Family Wellness Shops (CFWs), which are micro-drug
stores, operating in rural areas of Kenya, often in busy market centers. The network operates two
franchise models – basic drug shops owned and operated by community health workers and clinics,
owned and operated by nurses. The model uses key elements of successful franchising – uniform
systems and training; careful selection of locations and franchisees; and strict quality control. The local
health micro-entrepreneurs benefit from the brand, training, logistics support and lower costs of
medicine facilitated by the network’s combined purchasing power.133
Consumer credit As indicated above, Tribanco also offers consumer credit to its clients’ patrons. Participating retailers are
not responsible for non-payment on the part of their shoppers, but they have incentives to help ensure that
shoppers repay – the better the overall repayment rate, the smaller the fee Tribanco charges. Late payment
is not infrequent, but non-payment is only about 5%. Tribanco is now the biggest issuer of private label
credit cards in Brazil. For many of its cardholders, this is their first credit card, which helps them establish and
build credit histories, paving the way for further financial sector inclusion.134
Grupo Elektra, a Mexican retailer of household appliances, has provided consumer credit for many
years to the more than 70 million Mexicans at the base of the pyramid it counts among its customers.
Building on this experience, Elektra added services like savings and remittances, and in 2002 began to
provide these customers – many of whom could not access traditional banks – the full range of financial
services through a new financial services arm, Banco Azteca. Azteca now counts over 15 million bank
accounts.135
Housing microfinance Mexican cement giant CEMEX’s Patrimonio Hoy model provides housing microfinance using a
consumer credit-like model. The model consists of a 70+ week payment plan in which participants
make weekly payments of 120 pesos for construction materials, including a 12.5% fee. After five weeks,
participants receive their first installment of materials worth 10 weeks of payments. Participants who
pay on time can speed up deliveries in subsequent cycles, e.g. receiving the second 10-week installment
after only two weeks of payments. Those who do not pay face ostracism from their peers, an effective
deterrent.136

Illustrative examples of market-based microfinance services continued
SERVICE EXAMPLE
Housing microfinance In contrast with Patrimonio Hoy, Grameen Bank’s housing microfinance offer looks more like a micro
continued mortgage. Grameen offers four housing loan products, ranging from pre-basic ($100 with a 3-year
repayment period) to complete ($200-400 with a 10-year repayment period). The latter is most popular,
and borrowers will often complement their loans with their own savings, often in equal or greater
amounts. Grameen charges 8% annual interest on housing loans, compared with 20% on income
generation loans. All Grameen loans are paid back in weekly installments.137
Micro-Leasing In Tanzania, Sero Lease and Finance Limited (SELFINA) is a for-profit micro-leasing company that
provides finance, business training and other economic empowerment services to over 10,000 clients,
most of whom are low income rural women. Its micro ;eases help them to acquire assets that they can
either use to create or add economic value to through their micro-enterprises or use as collateral to
support further business growth. For women with a good credit record, the company has started to
offer larger business expansion loans.138
In Rwanda Vision Finance, the financial arm of World Vision International, leases bicycles to coffee
farmers who bring their produce to market manually. The bicycles are durable with eight gears and
shelves specially designed to carry heavy loads. They cost approximately $140, and payments are
spread over the course of a year. IFC, which co-designed the program, is helping develop other leasing
models in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Senegal, and Tanzania.139
Micro-Insurance SwissRe, one of the world’s leading global reinsurers, is experimenting with a number of micro-
insurance products and partners in the areas of agriculture and health. In Malawi, for example, it is
working with MicroEnsure (a microinsurance intermediary), a consortium of local primary insurers, a
farmers’ association and several MFIs to explore different models for delivering index-based weather
insurance to the farmers. In Pakistan it is working with a local insurer, the Aga Khan Agency for
Microfinance and local MFIs to introduce commercially marketed insurance to reduce household
vulnerability against risks such as death, illness and loss of livestock. In Ethiopia it is working with Oxfam
and others to provide smallholder farmers with a financial package of risk reduction, crop insurance and
credit to combine efforts to increase productivity and manage climate risk.140
LeapFrog Insurance was established in 2007 by former Managing Director of Ashoka, Andrew Kuper
and others, as a dedicated microinsurance fund. It aims to deliver strong returns to its investors by
investing in businesses that deliver insurance services to some 25 million vulnerable people in Africa
and Asia. To date the fund has raised over US$130 million in capital from a variety of major banks,
institutional investors, foundations and donor agencies. In addition to investing in microinsurance
businesses, it operates LeapFrog Labs, a grant-funded technical assistance facility that works with
companies to expand the quality and reach of their microinsurance products.141
Savings In Ghana, for a fee, traditional microfinanciers called “susu collectors” gather their clients’ savings on a daily
or weekly basis and return them at the end of the month, thus acting as mobile savings accounts.
More recently, the susu collectors have begun working with Barclays Bank through the Ghana National
Association of Susu Collectors. Barclays has provided training on record keeping and financial
management to the collectors and their clients, and also created an investment account, which allows
clients’ deposits to be used for on-lending. More than 400 collectors now participate, collecting more than
$4.5 million and offering loans of $400,000 since the program began – with a 100% repayment rate.142

Illustrative examples of market-based microfinance services continued
SERVICE EXAMPLE
Savings continued Ashoka Fellow Salomon Raydán’s community-run Bankomunal model also takes savings to the next
level, turning it into active investment. When community members have a little extra cash, they deposit
it with the Bankomunal, which then lends to community members who need a little extra cash – with
interest, so that savers earn a return on their money. Next time a depositor needs a bit of cash, he or she
can take a loan. The Bankomunal thus aggregates erratic cash flows at the individual level to smooth
cash flows at the community level. Bankomunales are run by community leaders and depositors get to
vote on key decisions. Because loans are given among neighbors, repayment rates are near perfect.
More than 80 Bankomunales have been established in Venezuela with others throughout Latin
America.143
(ii) Harnessing information and communications technology to scale impact

One of the big ‘game-changers’ in the microfinance movement and the field of poverty alleviation
more generally has been the use of information technology to improve the reach, cost-effectiveness
and profitability of delivering financial services to the poor. Some examples of its impact are outlined
in Box 29.
The rise of mobile money and branchless banking has been particularly important in countries as
disparate as Afghanistan, Kenya, South Africa, and the Philippines, mobile phone users can now use
their phones for transactions and services ranging from purchases to remittances to bill payments to
payroll deposits. In lower income markets, users typically “deposit” cash into their mobile money
accounts at authorized agents ranging from mobile phone shops to roadside kiosks, and then manage
transfers in and out via text message. In higher income markets like Japan, where consumers have
bank accounts, Internet access, and near field communication-enabled phones, they can load their
accounts via credit card and pay by touching their phones to point-of-sale devices.
As mobile money spreads, it will have significant implications for economies across the board –
generating significant savings compared with the use of cash. But in the poverty alleviation context,
it is mobile money’s potential to facilitate financial sector and overall market inclusion that makes it
so exciting. By 2012, the number of people with mobile phones is expected to exceed the number of
people with bank accounts by 1.7 billion, up from one billion today.144
As a recent CGAP report states, “notwithstanding recent hype, branchless banking for the poor is at
an early stage of development.”145 The number of deployed mobile money initiatives doubled
between the 2008 and 2009 ‘Mobile Money Annual Summits’, reaching more than 120. The small
number of examples given below illustrate the potential. If providers “continue learning about their
consumers, especially in unbanked segments; pay attention to the business drivers for greater
collaboration; and deepen the business-government dialogue on enabling environments for growth,”
mobile money should “reach critical mass, fulfilling its potential as a market opportunity and as an
instrument of poverty alleviation.”146

Box 29: The scaling power of ICT: From financial data management to mobile money
Technology has played a critical role in expanding access to a full range of microfinance services to hundreds of millions of people
living in poverty around the world. For example:
Equity Bank in Kenya transformed itself from FINO – Financial Information Network and Smart Communications, Philippines:
a struggling mortgage bank in 1992 to the Operations Ltd – uses biometric-enabled, Reaching more than 38 million subscribers in
Microfinance Bank of the Year in 2009 in part smart card-based solutions to provide the Philippines, Smart offers a variety of mobile
with the help of a computerized management financial services to semi-urban and rural commerce services that allow individuals to
information system it launched in 2000 and populations in India. Working for banks, pay bills, shop online, transact remittances
upgraded in 2005 to accommodate many microfinance institutions, insurance from workers abroad and disburse or repay
more users and access channels like ATMs companies, and government agencies, FINO microfinance loans. Alex Ibasco, Group Head of
and retail points of sale. The bank also sources customers using a network of agents, New Business Streams at Smart
introduced a network of over 30 mobile provides customers with client-branded Communications, says, “Smart has no illusion it
banks in the form of all terrain four wheel smart cards, and enables customers to can build everything. Instead, we take a
drive vehicles, manned by bank employees interact with clients via mobile point-of- strategy of inclusion, inviting people to come in
and security staff, and equipped with solar- transaction devices. On the back end, FINO and create businesses out of areas where there
powered computerized systems, printers and aggregates and maintains data transferred are gaps. We think of ourselves as a horizontal
scanners to check ID documents, and in from those devices on its or its clients’ core infrastructure enabler and we look for people
constant communication with the branches systems. This method of financial service that think vertically. Creating businesses out of
via GPS and VHF radio. The bank now counts delivery has brought the cost down to the gaps – that is the only way.”151
more than one million customers, over 30 approximately a quarter of the cost of
percent of all bank accounts in Kenya.147 existing alternatives, enabling the company ZAP, Tanzania: ZAP is the mobile commercial
to enroll over five million customers since service of Zain, the Middle East and Africa
M-PESA, Kenya: M-PESA was the pioneering 2006.149 mobile network operator that purchased
mobile money service that demonstrated the Celtel. ZAP was launched in early 2009 as a
immense potential of such a system for the Roshan, Afghanistan: Roshan is the largest stored value account in partnership with a
poor. It was launched in 2007 by Kenya-based telecommunications outfit in Afghanistan. It number of international and regional banks,
Safricom, and Vodafone, following a pilot in supports M-PAISA, which allows transactional in particular Citibank and Standard Chartered
2005 supported with challenge funding from banking via mobile phone. With 1100 Bank. Within a year it had more than 12
the UK’s Department for International employees, Roshan is one of the largest million customers across seven African
Development. M-PESA allows recipients to companies in Afghanistan, and the country’s countries (Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana, Sierra
transfer money using mobile phones. It is largest taxpayer, contributing $146 million in Leone, Niger, Malawi and Kenya) where some
supported by over 11,000 agents throughout taxes through 2008. The company’s network 80 percent of the population is unbanked.
Kenya, many of them small retail shops, cyber extends to all 34 provinces in Afghanistan The service is supported on all handsets,
cafes, petrol stations and supermarkets, as and is in 230 cities and towns. The company including the low cost handsets (ULCH) which
well as banks. As of 2010, M-PESA had worked hard to develop the local human Zain is rolling out in Africa.
more than 18 million subscribers, having capital that would help build a sustainable
experienced a 53 percent growth rate from company. In an article in the MIT journal WING, Cambodia: WING, a subsidiary of ANZ
the previous year. It has also launched an Innovations, Roshan CEO Karim Khoja wrote, Bank, introduced mobile money services in
international money transfer service, with “When we began, we needed a plethora of January 2009 in Cambodia, a country of 14.5
potential for supporting remittances. In a engineers to build our network. Initially, over million people the vast majority of whom are
report on the growing power of mobile 10,000 people applied for jobs, but none unbanked. WING customers can send money
money, The Economist noted that “roughly were qualified. Given his limited options, our to other customers and non-customers alike
$2 million is transferred through the system chief technology officer hired anyone who using 10-digit PIN codes which can be
each day,” and that “in rural households that could speak some English and turn on a redeemed for cash at any of 600-odd cash
have adopted mobile money, incomes have computer. So we learned that we would have in/out points around the country. In only
increased by 5-30 percent.”148 to provide on-the-job training.”150 eight months, WING acquired more than
33,000 customers, 68 percent of whom were
previously unbanked.152

(iii) Building the field of microfinance
Even with the use of e-enabled business models, most for-profit financial institutions and other large
companies that are trying to include the poor as producers and consumers along their value chains,
find it difficult to sustain and scale economically viable approaches to financing the poor. This is
especially the case when it comes to microfinance. Many have adopted a ‘wholesale’ approach by
funding and working in partnership with microfinance institutions (MFIs). These are for-profit and
nonprofit organizations that are usually dedicated to serving the poor and better equipped to directly
reach them with affordable and reliable financial services.
In the decade from the early 1990s to mid-2005 microfinance institutions showed dramatic growth
in size, number and efficiency. The leaders among them demonstrated the commercial viability of
microfinance services. In 2004 with the assistance of a partial credit guarantee from the IFC,
Fianceria Compartmos a Mexican microfinance intermediary launched a US$44 million bond
program. This earned the 2004 Latin Finance Deal of the Year award as well as the 2006 Financial
Times Sustainable Deal of the Year. In 2007, Forbes magazine, one of the media bastions of capitalism,
produced its first-ever list of the World’s Top 50 Microfinance Institutions (MFIs), selected from 641
micro-credit providers.153 Although not without controversy, these two events were symbolic
milestones in the transition of microfinance from a largely nonprofit, publicly or philanthropically-
funded field to a commercially-viable asset class. One that is driven increasingly by profitable market-
oriented microfinance intermediaries (MFIs) and by business models capable of attracting and
leveraging not only public and philanthropic funds but also commercial investment.
These MFIs have been able to increase the size, diversity and reach of their loan portfolios, lower their
operating costs, improve their risk management, enhance their efficiency, increase their returns on
equity and assets, and strengthen their broader contributions to development largely as a result of a
coordinated field-building effort. This effort has been driven by pioneering NGOs, social enterprises
and socially responsible investors in the microfinance field such as Grameen Bank, BRAC,
ACCION, FINCA, SEWA, Opportunity International, Unitus, Triodos Bank, ShoreBank, Calvert
and Women’s World Banking. It has been supported by a small vanguard of international financial
institutions, corporations, foundations, bilateral donors and governments. The concerted field-
building has included:
• The provision of financing and business development services, especially training to MFIs to
improve their on-the-ground management capacity
• The ability to harness information technology
Advocacy for improved regulatory and legal frameworks
• Collaborative research
• Peer networking and other field-building efforts.
The Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) has played an essential leadership role. It
was created in 1995 by the World Bank, with support from public donors and a few private financiers
such as Citi. Today, while still housed at the World Bank, it operates as an independent policy and
research center dedicated to advancing financial access for the world’s poor. Governed by a multi-
stakeholder board, CGAP is supported by over 30 development agencies and private foundations

who share a common mission to alleviate poverty. It “provides market intelligence, promotes
standards, develops innovative solutions and offers advisory services to governments, microfinance
providers, donors, and investors.”154
With funding from the Citi and Deutsche Bank Foundations, the Omidyar Network and the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, CGAP has helped to create the independent Microfinance Information
Exchange, Inc. (MIX), which is a business information provider dedicated to providing objective
data and analysis on microfinance providers. It has partnered with the Open Society Institute to
establish the Microfinance Management Institute, aimed at building the capacity of professionals
and academics around the world who are working in the field of microfinance. And it has worked
with GTZ, the ILO and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, among others, to
create the Access to Insurance Initiative, which aims to grow financial inclusion in the insurance
sphere by enhancing the capacity of policy-makers, regulators and supervisors. The Council of
Microfinance Equity Funds is another field-building forum established in the past decade. It brings
together about 25 leading microfinance equity investors to share lessons, enhance the financial and
social performance of their investments, support research and develop best practices and industry
standards.
Individual private banks and insurance companies have also played a vital ‘field-building’ role in the
global microfinance movement. At a national level a growing number of commercial banks in
developing countries are providing guarantees and other financial services to MFIs. Some are
delivering microfinance services directly themselves, as Equity Bank in Kenya, ECOBANK in West
Africa, ACLEDA bank in Asia, and BancoSol in Bolivia, among others are doing. Brief examples of
several multinational corporations that have played a role globally are as follows:
Citi does business in over 100 countries, with some 200 million customer accounts. It was one of the
first large commercial banks to see the potential of the microfinance movement. Over the past decade
its engagement has transitioned from being purely philanthropic to the establishment of a mainstream
business unit, Citi Microfinance, that provides a combination of commercial financing and technical
assistance to MFIs. Combining the different resources and mandates of the corporate foundation and
this business unit, along with the company’s wider corporate citizenship and employee engagement
activities has enabled Citi to support a wide range of field-building activities. To date, the bank has
helped to fund and in many cases scale over 100 MFIs in some 35 countries. It has also been
instrumental in facilitating the commercialization of some of these MFIs. It has helped to capitalize a
variety of capacity-building funds with partners such as ACCION. Citi was also a major sponsor of
the influential Year of MicroCredit in 2005 and has been an active advocate on policy reform in the
field of microfinance. The Citi Foundation has granted more than US$70 million to some 350
microfinance programs and organizations in nearly 60 countries over the past decade. In 2007, the
foundation created the Citi Network Strengthening Program. This is a collaborative effort among the
Small Enterprise Education and Promotion network (SEEP), 12 regional and national microfinance
networks and Citi employees. It is aimed at enabling these networks to strengthen their organizational
capacity and to help their members increase outreach to serve more people.

Deutsche Bank is another multinational commercial bank with a presence in over 70 countries that
has played an important intermediation and field-building role in microfinance. Since 1997 it has
lent to over 100 institutions in close to 50 countries and enabled the provision of microfinance funds
that total some US$1.2 billion. Its engagement has ranged from philanthropic support to the
provision of specialized investment banking services that aim to deliver both profitability and social
return. It was the first bank to offer an investment fund for microfinance and as of 2010 manages
several funds in this field along a spectrum of commercial and social investments. The Global
Commercial Microfinance Consortium is an US$80.6 million fund created by Deutsche Bank in
2005 with partners that include three development agencies, 14 institutional investors and 12
venture philanthropists. It provides long-term, local currency funding at commercial rates to
established MFIs. The Deutsche Bank Start-Up Fund provides loan capital and guarantees to early-
stage, privately funded and commercially oriented MFIs to support their portfolio growth and to
help strengthen their governance and financing capacity. It is capitalized through grants and soft
funding. The Deutsche Bank Microcredit Development Fund (DB MDF), which is also capitalized
through grants and soft funding, helps established MFIs to achieve scale and sustainability by
providing catalytic funds as collateral to attract resources on a leveraged basis from local commercial
banks. DB Microfinance Invest No. 1 is a EUR60 million fund that provides capital strengthening
Tier 2 compliant subordinated debt to MFIs and serves as a microfinance investment vehicle for
German investors. It is capitalized through investments from Deutsche Bank, KfW (the German
government development bank), high-net worth individuals, pension funds and foundations. In
2009, Deutsche Bank worked with FINCA International to structure, place and manage the FINCA
Microfinance Fund B.V. The US$21.2 million fund was about 100 percent oversubscribed and is
funded solely by private sector investors. It is the first microfinance network subordinated-debt deal,
which will enable FINCA affiliates in seven countries to on-lend an estimated US$100 million in
additional loan capital and to make investments in staff, branches and other infrastructure to expand
microfinance lending and deposit-taking in these countries.
SwissRe is one of the world’s largest and most diversified reinsurers, providing a range of reinsurance
products, insurance-based corporate finance solutions and risk management services. Created in
1863, over the past decade the company has been a pioneer in addressing the financial risks of climate
change and in exploring micro-insurance services. It is now looking at the convergence between these
two areas. It is partnering with a variety of MFIs, development NGOs and academic institutions to
develop risk transfer solutions to help poor communities, small businesses and smallholder farmers
reduce their vulnerability to climate change. For example, in 2004, SwissRe worked with a local
Indian insurer and the World Bank to help launch one of India’s first programs to use weather-
index based insurance. Today, the company is structuring and pricing a number of such products
and cooperating with direct insurers who then sell them on to farmers via their own agents or in
partnership with NGOs, community self-help groups, microfinance institutions and rural banks.
In 2007, SwissRe launched its Climate Adaptation Development Programme, which aims to
develop a more comprehensive risk transfer market for the effects of adverse weather in
developing countries. One of its first partnerships has been with the Millennium Promise
Alliance and the Earth Institute at Columbia University to develop innovative climate risk indices
and weather derivative contracts for 12 Millennium Village clusters in Africa. To date, the

initiative has provided up to US$2 million of cover, protecting about 150,000 farmers and their
families against drought-related food shortages. Some other examples of its work on
microinsurance are provided in Box 29.
Allianz is an integrated financial services provider serving approximately 75 million customers in

about 70 countries. It has a strong international presence in insurance and is one of the world’s
largest asset managers. Over the past decade, it has started to work in partnership with microfinance
institutions, cooperatives, non-governmental organizations and women’s self-help groups, to deliver
a range of microinsurance products to low-income households and micro-enterprises. The company
started to provide microinsurance as a humanitarian response after the Asian tsunami in 2004. At
the time, Bajaj Allianz partnered with CARE International in India to deliver a package covering
basic risks of accident, death, loss of household assets, natural disasters and fire. Since 2004, the
company has established a microinsurance business offer, which it sees as having a strong social
business case in the short to medium-term, as well as being an investment in a longer-term
commercial business. By mid-2010, Allianz and its partners were providing microinsurance to some
3.8 million customers most of them in Asia. In addition to India and Indonesia, it had started to
build microinsurance markets in Cameroon, Colombia, Egypt, the Ivory Coast, Madagascar and
Senegal. Building on their initial offering of a simple loan-coverage life product, the company is
now offering a variety of products supported by the expertise of local partners and the use of
information technology. These include life-insurance with a savings component, services to help
families regularly save for their children’s education, community-based mutual health insurance,
and cattle insurance and risk management tools for smallholder farmer cooperatives. In addition to
the usual ‘business model’ challenges of providing microfinance such as achieving high volumes,
efficient processes and simple, standardized products, Allianz and its local partners have also had to
use creative communications and social marketing initiatives to build awareness, knowledge and
trust of insurance products among low-income households and communities. Their research in
India, for example, showed that 90 percent of the Allianz microinsurance customer base had never
even heard of insurance.
In summary, the growth in microfinance over the past decade has underpinned a burgeoning of
innovative new products, business models, mindsets and collaborative approaches to delivering
market-driven financial services directly to the poor. The scale and economic viability of these
approaches has been enhanced in recent years by systematic field-building efforts, investments in
market-driven microfinance institutions and by innovative ICT platforms and cellular phones that
have made it possible to reach millions of people.
Added to this, the award of the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize to Grameen Bank and its founder
Muhammad Yunus has raised public awareness of microfinance as a viable and inspiring approach
to tackling poverty and to empowering women from Bangladesh to the United States. It has caught
the public imagination, unlocking increased amounts of donor funds and both investments and
philanthropic contributions from the general public.

Microfinance is not without its skeptics or critics. Criticism and opposition are usually focused on
one of the following areas:
• Questions about the financial viability, scale and sustainability of microfinance institutions;
• Debate about the effectiveness of microfinance in alleviating poverty and delivering sustained
improvements in the lives of the poor, and the related lack of consistent metrics to measure its
impact; and
• Concerns that the growth in for-profit microfinance institutions and lack of regulation of the
burgeoning microfinance industry have led to unreasonably high interest rates and exploitation
of the poor.
In 2010, actions taken by the Indian state government of Andhra Pradesh in response to a spate in
suicides by indebted farmers halted debt repayments, creating serious challenges for the
microfinance industry in India and questions for the field more broadly. Commercial viability of
microfinance institutions is important for ensuring their sustainability and ability to scale, and the
growing numbers of both nonprofit and for-profit microfinance institutions have demonstrated
their ability to serve the poor more efficiently and at lower costs than informal money-lenders or
most bureaucratic public sector programs. At the same time, as the microfinance industry matures
and continues to grow beyond the 200 million people currently served, there is recognition by
industry leaders of the need for sound policy frameworks and regulation and ongoing efforts by the
industry to measure impact, set common standards and be vigilant in terms of responsible business
practices and accountability.
Empirically measuring financial returns and social impact remains a challenge. A report by
economist Kathleen Odell for the Grameen Foundation reviews ten of the most important studies
on microfinance over the past five years. It concludes that,
“The research into the impact of microfinance that has emerged over the last five years
offers some encouraging results. There is evidence from a number of studies (using a
variety of methodologies across different settings) suggesting that microfinance is good
for micro-business. This result is observed across different microfinance services,
including microcredit and micro-savings instruments. Based on the studies the overall
effect on the incomes and poverty rates of microfinance clients is less clear, as are the
effects of microfinance on measures of social well-being, such as education, health and
women’s empowerment.”155
While this assessment is cautious, there is a need to keep focused on making micro-finance services
as responsive to their client needs as possible, and scaling and sustaining them. A joint paper by
several leading microfinance intermediaries on the impact of microfinance offers a useful summary
of the contribution it can make to empowering the poor and to building more inclusive financial
systems and societies. This is summarized in Box 30.

Box 30: Assessing the impact of microfinance:
Excerpt from a statement by leading microfinance organizations
The real impact of microfinance lies in its Making productivity-enhancing Microfinance takes effort to understand, and
ability to create inclusive financial systems
and inclusive societies–-societies where the
5
investments: Clients can improve their
businesses using credit or savings for
patience to exercise. It is but one mechanism
in the toolkit of global poverty alleviation –
individual is not shut out of what that society investments such as sewing machines, although one that has clearly demonstrated
has to offer. We believe that microfinance refrigerators or farm tools. scale, sustainability, results, and enormous
specifically allows households and enterprises further potential.
to benefit from financial inclusion in seven Leveraging assets: The poor own assets,
“
distinct, although related, ways: 6
but without recognition by the formal
sector, they cannot leverage them, as
Signed,
ACCION International
Facilitating economic transactions: Hernando de Soto has argued. Allowing poor FINCA
1 Lack of payment services mean
microentrepreneurs often travel long
households, particularly the women who run
them, to borrow against these assets helps
Grameen Foundation
Opportunity International
distances and wait in line to make them capture the existing financial Unitus
transactions, which is time-consuming and value, facilitating long-term investments. Women’s World Banking
risky. Mobile payment services can both save
time and reduce risk. Building economic citizenship:
Managing day-to-day resources: Low-

7
Financial services foster independence.
Microfinance can helpclients to grow more
2 income families can use credit and savings self-confident and, with that economic
to tap into past or future income, helping citizenship, to step out and become involved
them to both take advantage of immediate in local government, garnering the respect of
opportunities or, for example, to their communities.
survive the annual ‘hungry season.’
We need to be reasonable and measured in
Accessing services that improve quality our claims for what microfinance can
3 of life: Financial services give families
access to education, healthcare and other
accomplish. To thrive, microfinance requires a
host of favorable conditions, including a
necessities that improve quality of life, sympathetic regulatory environment, political
through such tools as school fee loans, stability, mission-driven practitioners, cost-
health insurance and home-improvement effective delivery, capital adequacy and –
loans. most of all – clients ready and able to
leverage its services.
Protecting against vulnerability:
4 Savings, credit and insurance provide
sustainable and low-cost coping strategies.
Nor can microfinance be reduced to a sound
bite. A host of critical and complex issues
If a household loses a source of income, must be consistently considered and
it might not have to withdraw a child thoughtfully debated, including consumer
from school, sell a valuable asset, or fall protection, fair lending, transparency,
deeper into poverty. acceptable profits, measureable impact, and
capital-market investment, to name but a
few. ‘Financial access’ and ‘building inclusive
societies’ are more forthright terms to
describe what microfinance delivers, without
risking either simplification or exaggeration.
Source: This text is taken verbatim from ‘Measuring the Impact of Microfinance: Our Perspective’ – a joint statement by Accion, Finca, Grameen Foundation, Opportunity
International, Unitus, and Women’s World Banking

2. Investing in small and growing businesses
The goal of improving access to finance for small businesses in developing countries has been a fixture
on the international development and aid agenda for many more years than microfinance. Yet, to date
it has struggled to gain traction even within the development community, let alone capture the public
imagination or attract finance from private financial institutions, corporations and foundations –
whether at commercial market rates, below-market rates or through philanthropic grants.
When it comes to financial services, the small businesses that play such an essential role in job
creation and wealth generation are increasingly dubbed, “The Missing Middle” – they are considered
too large to receive services that are targeted at micro-enterprises and too small for corporate finance.
i) Meeting the financial needs of small and growing businesses

Both access to finance – whether debt, equity or quasi-equity – and the cost of finance is a challenge
for most small enterprises in developing countries. This is the case even for the high-impact,
opportunity entrepreneurs described in the section on entrepreneurship, which offer the greatest
hope of raising productivity and employment levels. When there have been programs to support
these high-potential small enterprises, all too often they have offered the wrong type or combination
of products and business development services. In many cases this is because they have been supply-
led and donor or government-driven rather than demand-led and market-based.
Patricof and Sunderland argue, “Donors need to face the reality that the young companies that can
really move the needle on innovation, inspiration, and employment need high-risk, reasonably-sized
equity investments to grow, not the limited doles of short term, high interest debt currently
provided.”156 They observe that the type of long-term, permanent equity capital provided to young
growth companies in developed countries by Angel investors and venture capitalists is almost
impossible for similar companies to access in developing countries.
CAPITAL NEEDED
Venture Capital
Private Equity
Banks
$1MM
Missing Middle
$10K
Rural
Finance
Gap
Microfinance Institutions
$0 LOCATION
URBAN RURAL
Source: Enterprise Development and Microfinance, December, 2008 Closing the gap: Reaching the missing middle and rural poor through
value chain finance, Brian Milder

Citing challenges such as weak managerial capacity, business environment risks, limited exit
opportunities, high transaction costs, limited deal flow and currency risk, they argue that, “The
combination of these factors makes SME investing in growth-oriented companies in developing
countries difficult, if not impossible, to justify in commercial terms.”157 They are among a growing
number of investment practitioners calling on donors, governments and private sector financial
institutions to explore new financing models that, “take into account the high risks, high transaction
costs, low volume, and below market rates of return endemic to the sector.”158
The UN Commission on the Private Sector and Development concurs with this challenge. Like Patricof
and Sunderland, it argues that a web of factors is at work, not just lack of capital. Related challenges
cited by the commission include: weak property rights; lack of enforcement of contracts; lack of
bankruptcy laws, further increasing the risk to investors; poor financial institutions with limited
interest and lending skills for entering this market; lack of reliable credit information agencies and
disclosure requirements; illiquid capital markets and lack of exit opportunities; and lack of skill and
will on the part of SME entrepreneurs themselves for receiving risk capital.159
While these obstacles are not insurmountable, most of them require new approaches and a balance
between government-supported interventions, market-driven incentives, and ‘blended value’
investment approaches. In particular, there is growing recognition that more market-based and
demand-driven business models are needed for financing and supporting small enterprises. This is
rather than the direct, supply-side and subsidized provision of finance and services by governments
and donors that have tended to characterize many traditional small enterprise development programs.
(ii) Building market-based small business intermediaries

A number of market-oriented intermediary organizations have demonstrated their ability to
effectively identify ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs, and to help them access the right types and
combinations of growth capital and support services that they need to grow. Box 31 illustrates
examples of some of these market-based approaches. These intermediary organizations and others
like them, especially those that are starting to emerge in developing countries themselves, require the
same kind of field-building and scaling support that has been so effective in the microfinance
industry in terms of enabling for-profit or at least economically sustainable MFIs to increase in both
number and scale.
In 2008, a group of investors, philanthropic foundations, and intermediaries joined forces to

establish the Aspen Network for Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE), a collaborative initiative
with the explicit goal of overcoming some of the major market barriers that SGBs face in accessing
financing and business development services and thereby helping to build both the size and the
financial performance and development impact of the SGB sector. At its launch in 2008, ANDE had
identified an estimated 150 organizations providing approximately US$4 billion in capital and
services to small and growing business in developing countries. In the space of two years ANDE had
over 100 members operating in some 130 countries. Box 31 profiles six of these organizations.

BOX 31: Market-oriented social enterprises financing small and growing business
Small Enterprise Assistance Funds (SEAF) – E+Co – Established in 1994, E+Co provides Root Capital – Established in 1999, Root
Established in 1989, SEAF is one of the debt and equity seed and growth capital Capital provides capital and business training
pioneers in providing growth capital, both alongside business development services to to small-scale producers and rural grassroots
debt and equity, and operational support to small and growing clean energy businesses in businesses operating in environmentally
small locally-owned enterprises with high over 20 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin sensitive areas in 30 countries in Latin
growth potential in more than 30 emerging America. It has over 150 enterprises in its America and Africa. It employs a three-
economies. Initially established a private portfolio, including solar, wind, biogas, LPG, pronged strategy of rural finance, business
investment subsidiary of the development hydro, and its investments range from advice and field building. It provides both
nonprofit CARE with funding from USAID, US$25,000 to US$1,000,000. E+Co raises short-term working loans and longer-term
today SEAF operates as an independent capital through a combination of investments to producers of sustainable
entity that manages funds in a variety of philanthropic and development agency coffee and increasingly cocoa, handicrafts,
countries and industry sectors and includes grants, loans, and equity. Once locally-based ecotourism, fruits, spices, nuts, honey and
international finance institutions, local investment officers have identified energy- fisheries. For many of its loans Root Capital
pension funds, banks, insurance companies related enterprises that use affordable and uses future sales contracts from companies
and foundations among its investors. It also reliable technologies, demonstrate sound such as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
provides entrepreneurs with business management, and have the potential to grow Marks & Spencer, Starbuck and Whole Foods
development training and technical and to deliver social and environmental as a form of collateral. The buyer orders
assistance through the Center for benefits, investments are analyzed and produce from the grassroots business, Root
Entrepreneurship and Executive approved by an independent Investment Capital then makes a loan with the purchase
Development. Since its establishment SEAF Committee. This consists of experts in the order as collateral, once the goods are
has managed 26 funds and invested in over areas of finance, international development shipped the buyer pays Root Capital, which
300 emerging market enterprises. In addition and clean energy technology. In addition to them remits payment to the grassroots
to realizing positive returns for its public and playing a vital intermediation role in business, net of loan principal and interest.
private investors, it has demonstrated how its supporting enterprise development, local In addition, Root Capital offers a financial
portfolio companies have been able to create income generation and poverty alleviation in education program for these grassroots
both business value and development low-income communities, E+Co’s model has businesses. It advises local financial
impact. Independent research has shown that also delivered clean energy to over 4 million institutions on how to enter rural markets
each enterprise in SEAF’s portfolio supports people. It plans to increase this number to 20 and plays an active role in fostering the field
an average of 331 other local businesses, and million by 2012 and 100 million by 2020. of small business finance. As of May 2010,
sells to approximately 500 business Through carbon monetization, E+Co is Root Capital had reached 400,000
customers and/or 2400 individual end-users. developing an innovative new source of smallholder farmers and artisans through its
Many enterprises in the portfolio play an funding, while also cutting carbon emissions. 282 borrower enterprises and disbursed
important aggregator role, making it easier It has created a wholly owned subsidiary, US$200 million in loans, with a 99 percent
for other small enterprises to enter formal E+Carbon, that identifies high impact repayment rate from borrowers. In 2009, it
value chains and markets. projects and works with local enterprises received one of the first program-related
to meet data collection and carbon investments from the agricultural
documentation requirements to meet third development initiative at the Bill & Melinda
part approval by initiatives such as the Gates Foundation. This combines a six-year,
Voluntary Carbon Standard, Gold Standard US$10 million PRI, which Root Capital will use
and Clean Development Mechanism. Through as loan capital to scale its operations to reach
a strategic relationship, E+Carbon sells all of some 500,000 rural households in Africa, and
the offsets generated to Goldman Sachs. a US$4 million operating grant, which will
The carbon revenues earned help to mitigate support Root Capital’s five-year growth plan
E+Co’s investment risk. and goal to achieve a financially sustainable
lending portfolio by 2013.

BOX 31: Market-oriented social enterprises financing small and growing business continued
Acumen Fund – Acumen Fund was GroFin – Established in 2003, GroFin is Grassroots Business Fund – The Grassroots
incorporated as a nonprofit venture fund in an African-based finance and business Business Fund (GBF) was established as an
2001, with seed capital from the Rockefeller development company supporting small and independent institution in 2008, after four
Foundation, Cisco Systems Foundation and growing businesses through a combination years of incubation as the Grassroots Business
three individual philanthropists. It leverages of seed and growth capital, business Initiative of the International Finance
philanthropic capital to make disciplined loan development advice and mentorship. As of Corporation (IFC). GBF targets for-profit small
or equity investments to early-stage enterprises mid-2010, GroFin had over US$250 million and medium enterprises with explicit social
that serve low-income consumers, with the aim under management. It operates in South missions, with the goal of creating
of yielding both social and financial returns. Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, sustainable economic opportunities and
Any financial returns are recycled into new Tanzania, Rwanda and Oman, with plans to access to basic services for millions of people
investments. Its investment portfolio focuses on expand to a further five African markets over living at the base of the pyramid.
enterprises that deliver affordable and reliable the next three years and raise its capital base GBF’s approach includes both patient
access to healthcare, water, housing, alternative to US$ 400 million. Since 2004, it has investment and capacity-building support
energy or agricultural inputs through innovative identified, funded and partnered with over intended to help its portfolio companies
and market-oriented business models. Acumen 180 enterprises, all of them in the formal grow to scale. On the investment side, the
defines patient capital as having the following sector, providing either start-up or expansion fund offers equity, quasi-equity, and debt in
characteristics: long time horizons for the capital ranging from US$50,000 to amounts ranging from $250,000 to $1
investment; risk-tolerance; a goal of maximizing US$1,000,000, and a range of support million, typically for periods of about five
social, rather than financial, returns; providing services and networks. These enterprises years. The fund can also offer short-term
management support to help new business have created or maintained over 5,000 jobs, working capital loans of between $40,000
models thrive; and the flexibility to seek more than a quarter of whom are women, and $150,000 through a separate SME Export
partnerships with governments and and benefited close to an estimated 41,000 Facility. On the capacity-building side, fund
corporations through subsidy and co- people. As measured since 2008, women also staff work with portfolio companies to
investment, when doing so may be beneficial to own some 27 percent of the enterprises. improve overall management as well as
low-income consumers. It makes commitments GroFin has advised all the enterprises in its governance structures and planning and
of patient capital to high potential enterprises portfolio on implementing environmental, reporting processes. GBF’s capacity-building
in the range of US$300,000 to US$2,500,000 social and governance policies and helped services are generally grant-funded and
with payback or exit aimed for within five to them to adopt new technologies and provided free of charge.So far, GBF has
seven years. To-date Acumen Fund has made management systems. GroFin’s partnership- committed $7 million to 31 companies in 12
investments in over 30 enterprises in India, based approach to working with the countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, in
Kenya, Pakistan, Tanzania, the United Kingdom enterprises in its portfolio has also helped sectors such as agribusiness, financial
and United States. Acumen is now supported promote the adoption of new technologies services, information technology, and energy.
by a diverse network of individual and and management systems. Together, they are Collectively, these companies are estimated
institutional investors who support its work playing an active field-building role with to have helped create entrepreneurial
through donations that range from US$25 to other intermediaries to raise global opportunities for 425,000 people and
over US$5,000,000. In 2007, it established the awareness and funds for small and growing improved access to services for over four
Acumen Fund Fellows Program to provide businesses. Other investors include million.
one-year leadership development opportunities international finance institutions and
to high-potential social entrepreneurs. corporate foundations. Several public and
Acumen has also been a leader in pioneering commercial African banks have also
performance metrics to assess the impact of its partnered with GroFin, such as Absa Bank,
own portfolio and is supporting the collaborative Bank of Africa, Commercial Bank of Africa,
initiative to develop Impact Reporting and Diamond Bank, DFCU Bank and the African
Investment Standards for the field. Development Bank.

3. Scaling emerging market ‘champions’
As outlined in the section on entrepreneurship, opportunity entrepreneurs constitute only a small

percentage of all entrepreneurs in developing countries. And of these opportunity entrepreneurs, only
a small number have the potential to grow from small or medium enterprises into large companies
and into regional or even global business champions. Those that do grow can have a transformational
impact on the sectors and regions in which they operate – both in terms of economic growth and in
some cases poverty alleviation.
Rooted in local cultures and contexts, and often led by local business leaders who have a sense of civic
responsibility as well as entrepreneurial flair, these emerging market corporate champions offer
enormous potential for development. They include long-established emerging market corporations
that already have a global presence and a reputation for corporate responsibility, such as Tata, Ayala,
SABMiller, Anglo American, Odebrecht and Vale. They also include relatively new leaders such as
Celtel now Zain), Bharti, MTN, Globeleq, Infosys, ICICI Bank, Equity Bank, and Ecobank. In
addition, there are the rapidly emerging players from China. The individuals who lead these
emerging global corporations represent a new generation of business and development actors. Many
of them focus on both financial returns and broader social and environmental impact.
The success of these emerging ‘business and development’ champions will obviously depend in part
on the availability of growth capital, both debt and equity, from foreign and domestic financial
institutions. As outlined in the previous section, equity is important for most growth-oriented small
companies. The role of private equity is likely to be especially important when it comes to taking
these larger emerging market champions to scale. In fact, this particular group of private financiers
itself represents one of the most interesting new groups of actors in international development. Even
with the economic downturn it is one of the fastest growing, not only in terms of the number and
reach of firms and funds, but potentially also in terms of development impact.
In 2004, for example, a few firms created ‘The Emerging Markets Private Equity Association’
(EMPEA) with the belief that: “private equity and venture capital can be critical drivers of economic
growth in emerging markets while simultaneously generating strong returns for investors.”160 Less
than five years after its creation EMPEA has more than 250 members, represented in more than 50
countries and with nearly US$500 billion under management focused on high-potential companies
in the emerging markets of Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. Over 75
percent of these firms or funds have been established since 2000.161 Even those that are part of older
commercial banks or fund management entities such as Africa’s Absa Bank and Standard Bank have
been created as specialized units only in the last five to ten years. Even in the face of the global
financial crisis, although fund-raising slowed for emerging markets-dedicated equity funds,
investment activity was comparatively strong. According to EMEA, “emerging markets captured 26
percent of global private equity investment in 2009, versus only 7 percent in 2004, with US$ 22.1
billion invested across 674 deals.”162 While Asia captured much of the funds, there is growing interest
in Africa.

One of the interesting characteristics of several leading emerging-market private equity funds is their
publicly stated commitment to pursue not only highly competitive financial returns, but also broader
development goals. To date little empirical analysis has been undertaken on their actual impact on
broader development goals, but this is an area that warrants more attention.
A few of the broader development contributions from three of the leading firms are summarized in
Box 32. As one of them, Emerging Capital Partners (ECP) comments:
“Our portfolio companies have provided cell phones in Sierra Leone and Malawi,
flights to Mali, employ thousands of rural workers in Chad and Congo Brazzaville,
provide fertilizers to small Moroccan farms and construct affordable housing in
Cameroon. The ECP team believes that the fund’s greatest impact on African
development comes from proving that financial investors can achieve high returns in
Africa in an honest, fully transparent manner.”163
Another firm, Actis, states in its corporate mission statement ‘The Power of Positive Capital’:
“We are committed to promoting the sustainable growth of the private sector in
emerging markets. Our aim is to ensure tat the capital we raise and manage makes a
lasting, tangible and positive difference in the countries in which we operate by creating
opportunity for the companies in which we invest as well as their stakeholders. Our
focus on responsible investment not only seeks to create long-term value for investee
companies and investors, it simultaneously helps the private sector to deliver on its
responsibility to make a positive contribution to society.”164
In essence, many of these firms are the type of ‘Financial First Investors, with a floor for social and
environmental impact’ described in Box 32. A few have grown out of social enterprises or socially
responsible investors. There is also a blurring of lines between some of these emerging-market private
equity firms and the ‘small and growing business’ intermediaries profiled in Box 31 – even if the
former have more assets under management and are making larger investments in companies that
have mostly grown beyond the small and medium size category. A number of these private equity
firms have been established by former commercial bankers, who spent time working in developing
countries. And, financial experts who have previously worked in development agencies or
international financial institutions are leading others. They are a group of private financiers and
development actors worth watching and enabling.

BOX 32: Combining business growth and development: The experience of three private equity leaders in Africa
The following examples offer snapshots of three private equity leaders in Africa and some of their African investments. In almost all cases they are
providing the African companies in their portfolios with a combination of equity investments, management experience and skills, corporate
governance advice, access to regional and global networks and cross-border expansion opportunities, and explicit requirements for ethical, social and
environmental performance. they are helping to achieve local value creation, growth and competitiveness, but also supporting the development of
local management capacity and the implementation of good governance, social and environmental standards. All of these are important foundations
for poverty alleviation. In some cases, depending on the sector and companies in the portfolio, such as microfinance intermediaries, mobile phone
operators or distributed energy providers, it is possible to point to direct services to the poor.
Actis: Initially part of the UK Government’s Aureos: Established in July 2001, Aureos is a Emerging Capital Partners (ECP) ECP has been
CDC (Commonwealth Development private equity fund management company investing in Africa since 1999 and was the first private
Corporation), Actis was spun-out as an headquartered in Mauritius, which specializes in equity group to raise more than US$1.6 billion for
independent and privately controlled fund providing expansion and buy-out capital to investment in companies across the continent. At the end
manager in 2004, with a dedicated focus on unlisted mid-cap businesses across Africa, Asia of 2009 it had six private equity funds focused on Africa,
private equity, infrastructure and real estate and Latin America. As of the end of 2009, Aureos investments in more than 40 African countries
investments in emerging markets. By the end had some US$1.2 billion under management in in all major regions of the continent, over 50 investments,
of 2009, it had raised over US$7.4 billion in over 50 developing countries and 16 regional 20 exits and a portfolio of remaining transactions.
funds, and was currently invested in over 70 private equity funds – with plans to increase to The company is explicit about its profit orientation with
emerging market companies, with its private US$1.5 billion under management in 2010. an eye to also achieving positive development impact. It
equity portfolio returning an average of over 3 Despite the economic downturn, during 2009 states: “ECP’s primary objective is to maximize shareholder
times invested equity to investors in the last 10 Aureos initiated the establishment of a value by achieving superior financial results. However,
years. Some of its major success stories have US$400million pan-Africa Fund (with over ECP also identified as ancillary goals the building of
also had a demonstrable impact on poverty US$300 million raised by year-end) and a Pan- sustainable businesses, adopting ‘best in industry’ levels of
alleviation in addition to creating impressive Africa Healthcare Fund with committed capital corporate governance and transparency, contributing to
financial returns for investors. They include: of US$75 million in first close. The firm’s own sustainable development by attracting private capital to
investors include a combination of donor Africa and increasing private sector participation in African
● Celtel, now Zain: As of 2010, the company agencies and international finance institutions, economies.” ECP was also an early investor in Celtel.
operated 15 networks and served over 37 commercial banks, pension funds, foundations Two of the other African companies in its portfolio are:
million customers across Africa bringing and high net worth individuals. It aims to not
mobile telephony and all its benefits to some only achieve Internal Rates of Return of 15% to ● MTN: Launched in South Africa in 1994, just over a
of the continent’s poorest communities as 20% plus in dollars, but is also, “Insists that decade later the telecommunications provider MTN has
well as its wealthiest. Celtel’s founder Mo every portfolio company in which it invests core operations in 15 countries in Africa and 6 in the
Ibrahim has moved on to become an complies with Aureos’ Business Principles and Middle East, with close to 100 million recorded
internationally recognized philanthropist and Environmental and Social Management System”, subscribers. Over the past decade, ECP has supported
advocate for better governance in Africa, with a, “dedicated team of experts supporting the MTN’s expansion in a number of African countries from
including being the founder of the Mo portfolio companies in achieving international Cote d’Ivoire top Rwanda. At the same time that MTN
Ibrahim Good Governance Index and Prize. standards for good business practices.” has grown its business footprint in Africa and extended
And, Actis exited its Celtel investment in May One example is: the reach and affordability of mobile services, it has
2005 in a trade sale at more than four times gained a reputation as a leading corporate citizen on
its initial investment. ● Uganda Microfinance Ltd (UML): Established the continent, recognized by a number of national
initially as a non-governmental organization in awards from most respected company, to preferred
● Globeleq: Established in 2002 on a platform 1997, Uganda Microfinance Union (UMU), a employer to best corporate tax payer in different
of existing power assets , the company has US$1 million debt and equity investment by African countries.
combined impressive financial returns, with the Aureos East Africa Fund enabled UMU to
the spread of efficient operating systems, transition into UML in August 2005 – a fully- ● Ecobank: Incoporated in Togo just over rwo decades
good corporate governance, health and fledged and regulated for-profit micro-deposit ago, today EcoBank operates as a Pan-African Bank Sources: Company interviews, websites and materials
safety standards and the generation of taking institution. It offers savings and loans across 28 countries, with listings on several Weste
electricity in developing countries. products to low-income clients, approximately African stock exchanges, over 140,000 shareholders,
In Tanzania, through its acquisition of half of whom are women, with a variety of many of them African and some 11,000 employees.
Songas, its is supplying more reliable and informal collateral conditions an flexible ECP’s West Africa Growth Fund invested in Ecobank’s
lower cost electricity to thousands of repayment schedules. At the end of 2009, UML efforts to expand its services to wholesale and retail
households and businesses, and in was serving xx customers with these customers. In recent years the bank has partnered with
Bangladesh it is now supplying nearly a third microfinance services. Aureos is working with organizations such as ACCION to expand its services to
of the country’s power. In 2007, Actis sold a UML to improve internal management systems small and micro-enterprises and in 2009, it partnered
large number of the company’s assets and controls, corporate governance and with USAID and Western Union to launch the Africa
returning US$1 billion to investors and information technology and is building an Diaspora Marketplace, which is aimed at attracting,
creating the foundation for future experience base to expand its investment funding and otherwise supporting business proposals
commitment to the infrastructure sector. portfolio in other microfinance intermediaries from African diaspora wanting to support enterprises
elsewhere in Africa. back in their home countries.

4. Leveraging additional private finance for poverty alleviation
The previous sections outlined examples of private financiers that are delivering microfinance services to
previously un-banked people, investing in small and growing businesses, and providing private equity,
expertise and networks to enable larger business champions in developing countries to scale. There is
potential to increase both the quantity and quality of private capital going to finance these three market
segments, all of which are essential drivers of development and poverty alleviation.
There are other important ways in which private financiers can support key development goals. These
include ongoing engagement in more traditional forms of development finance from trade and project
finance, to servicing public sector financing needs. In addition, over recent years there have been innovative
developments in several other areas of private financing for development and the creation of a variety of non-
traditional funding partnerships. These have been aimed at either increasing the quantity of private funds
going explicitly to support development goals and/or improving their quality, not only in terms of efficiency
and return on investment, but also in terms of their social, environmental and governance performance. The
following section summarizes three of these evolving approaches:
• Mobilizing individual donors and investors to support development
• Improving environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of investments in
developing countries
• Participating in global public funds and financing mechanisms.
(i) Mobilizing individual donors and investors to support development

Private financial institutions and funds can serve as an efficient and reliable mechanism for channeling
money from wealthier individuals to people, organizations or projects in low-income communities. They
can also help to raise public awareness about development issues and the opportunities that exist for
individuals to make investments and donations in developing countries.
There are long-standing pioneers in this area. Shorebank International and the Calvert Foundation in the
United States and Triodos Bank in Europe are all accredited financial institutions with a long tradition of
offering their retail clients and depositors opportunities to invest in, donate to or otherwise support financial
institutions and enterprises in developing countries. They have also played a leadership role in strengthening
the capacity of developing country financial institutions and building the field of socially responsible
investing.
Established in 1973, ShoreBank was the first community development and environmental banking
corporation in the United States. It publicly reports its performance against a triple bottom line of financial
performance, dollars invested in priority communities, minority-owned businesses, faith-based and
nonprofit organizations, and dollars loaned to finance activities that contribute to healthier environments,
what it calls ‘conservation loans’. Nearly 5,000 individuals, corporations and nonprofit organizations place
deposits in ShoreBank’s financial institutions, including the ability to invest in Development Deposits and
EcoDeposits, market-rate, federally insured bank deposits and accounts, which support the bank’s loans to
low-income communities and income generating conservation projects. In 1988, Shorebank International
was established to provide consulting services to financial institutions, governments, foundations and

communities around the world working to improve financial inclusion in low-income economic
environments. Among others, it played a role in advising Grameen Bank when it converted from a
nonprofit organization to a bank. In 2003, ShoreCap International and ShoreCap Exchange were
created to invest equity capital and provide capacity building support to financial institutions in Asia,
Africa and Eastern Europe that deliver microfinance, small business finance and housing finance. The
bank’s depositors, investors and donors make this work possible.
The Calvert Foundation was incorporated in 1988 as an independent, nonprofit corporation and
expanded its reach and mandate in 1995 with support from the Calvert Group and the Ford,
McArthur and Mott Foundations. The Calvert Foundation describes its mission as follows:165
“ To maximize the flow of capital to disadvantaged communities in order to create a
more equitable and sustainable society. By creating innovative financial products and
services, we have made it possible for everyday people, not just institutions, to
participate in financial instruments that directly serve communities. It’s a win-win. You
can lift people out of poverty through an investment that also earns a financial return.”
As of mid-2010, Calvert Foundation had nearly US$200 million invested in some 250 community
organizations in all 50 US states and over 100 countries. Its portfolio includes affordable housing,
microfinance, fair trade coffee, small business development and essential community facilities. Over
6,500 investors and supporters have helped it to finance about 25,000 cooperatives, social enterprises
and community facilities in the United States internationally. The foundation offers individuals
opportunities to make investments and donations through a variety of financial instruments ranging
from Community Investment Notes, the first financial product of their kind when they were
launched in 1995 to the Calvert Giving Fund, launched in 2001 as the first Socially Responsible and
Community Investment Donor Advised Fund. In 2007, Calvert became the first security issuer on
the eBay company MicroPlace, which connected individual investors to community investment
online for the first time.
Founded in the Netherlands in 1980, Triodos Bank is a fully licensed independent bank and
investment manager, owned by public shareholders and lending only to organizations and businesses
with social and environmental objectives. It now also has branches and/or funds in Belgium, the
United Kingdom, Spain, Luxembourg and Germany. The bank’s shareholders, depositors and retail
investment clients play a crucial role in enabling it to lend to socially and environmentally active
businesses, nonprofit organizations, fair trade initiatives and what it terms as north-south
cooperation. In 1995, for example, the Hivos-Triodos Fund was created in partnership with the
Dutch donor organization Hivos. Depositors in Triodos Bank can open a North-South Account and
the money funds the Hivos-Triodos Fund, which then invests in projects in developing countries,
with security provided by private guarantors and Hivos. In 2002 the bank created the Fair Share
Fund offering private individuals and institutions an opportunity to invest in microfinance
institutions, and in 2008, it launched the Triodos Sustainable Trade Fund, which provides trade
finance to certified organic and fair trade producers in developing countries and emerging markets.
The bank has declared a modest dividend for its shareholders since 1985. Its retail customers are not
only paid a return on their deposits or investments, but also have access to an online tool, launched

in the Netherlands and the UK in 2009, which enables them to obtain information on the
organizations that Triodos has funded. Customers with savings accounts and deposits are also offered
the opportunity to donate part of the interest they receive to charity. At the height of the global
financial crisis, Triodos Bank won the Financial Times 2009 Sustainable Bank of the Year Award,
beating some 165 entrants from 42 countries.
Learning from the work of these and other pioneers, a number of other private institutions and
initiatives have started to mobilize development finance from the general public, often in partnership
with existing banks or investment companies, non-governmental organizations and development
agencies. These initiatives have catalyzed money from individual donors, investors and members of
diaspora communities to fund a variety of development projects, and in some cases to fund specific
communities and even specific micro-entrepreneurs. More traditional philanthropic programs that
channel money from individual donors to support development projects, such as sponsoring children
and disaster relief appeals are also becoming increasingly sophisticated and market-driven in their
fund-raising and marketing efforts. Many are using information technology and social media
platforms, including text messaging, to raise their profile, expand their reach, tailor their products,
improve their accountability and dramatically increase both their efficiency and scale.
The Keystone initiative uses the term ‘online philanthropy markets’ or ‘online social investment
markets’ or platforms to describe these new Internet enabled approaches.
In its 2008 report, Online Philanthropy Markets: From ‘Feel-Good’ Giving to Effective Social Investing?
Keystone states,
“online philanthropy market is a term in progress. It describes an Internet phenomenon
through which individual citizens and institutions can engage with citizen-led
organizations and micro-entrepreneurs all over the world to invest their money, time or
expertise to improve human and environmental wellbeing. Beyond this core purpose,
the variety of goals, organizational permutations and ways of working is almost
limitless.”166
The report provides a useful summary of the following major online giving platforms: Beautiful
Foundation; Bring Light; MyC4; CanadaHelps; Changing the Present; Charity Aid Foundation;
Conexion Colombia; DonorEdge; DonorsChoose; Give2Asia; GiveIndia; GlobalGiving; Greater
Good South Africa; HelpArgentina; Just Give; Justgiving; Kiva; MissionFish; Modest Needs;
Network for Good; Social Stock Exchange; South African Social Investment Exchange; and Wildlife
Direct. It outlines the following five key opportunities offered by these rapidly evolving platforms to
mobilize more and better resources for development:
• They enable donors, whether individuals or institutions, to become investors in social change and
development rather than providers of short-term relief;
• Recipients, whether NGOs, citizen groups or individuals, can use the combined power of
multimedia, social networks and the Internet to communicate the contribution of their work and
provide credible, accessible and engaging reporting to existing and potential donors and supporters;

• Organizations can reach and interact with donors and supporters far beyond their normal reach
through Web 2.0 technologies and at a fraction of the cost that such engagement used to cost;
• Communities of interest can be built around specific ideas or causes with the potential to increase
the amount of people engaged and resources mobilized and to transform one-off donations into
long term relationships and mutual benefit;
• Donors can be linked directly to ultimate beneficiaries.167
The Keystone report offers a cautionary note. It makes the point that, “more giving and more
resources for development does not necessarily translate into more effective solutions to our social
and environmental problems.”168 In particular, it emphasizes the need for common approaches for
measuring and reporting on impact and for greater sharing of information and performance data.
Box 33 provides six different examples of for-profit and non-profit private financial intermediaries
that are raising and transferring funds, both philanthropy and investments, from individuals in
wealthy countries and communities to meet a variety of development goals, such as enterprise
development, health and education in developing countries and communities.

Box 33: Mobilizing individual donors and investors for development
Mobilizing on-line lending to micro- Mobilizing private and institutional Mobilizing shareholders and investors for
entrepreneurs: Kiva.org investors for development: social business: danone.communities fund
Created in 2005, Kiva.org provides an online responsAbility AG Danone has been a pioneer in embedding
platform that enables internet lenders to Based in Switzerland, responsAbility Social social and environmental goals into its core
connect with entrepreneurs around the world Investments AG is a social investment business operations and creating funds,
who are served by approved microfinance company that uses investments to empower incentives and business units to build more
institutions. Kiva works through over 120 field people at the base of the economic pyramid. inclusive and sustainable business models.
partners located in over 50 countries. They It offers a range of investment options that It has also enabled individual and institutional
range from well-established microfinance enable private and institutional investors to investors to get engaged through the creation
institutions to small community organizations. invest in areas such as microfinance, small of the danone.communities fund. In 2006 it
Information about each field partner is posted and medium business finance, fair trade, entered into a partnership with the Grameen
on Kiva’s website, including their countries of healthcare, education and independent media Bank to launch Grameen Danone Foods, which
operation, a risk rating, the length of time they in developing and emerging economies. As a has established a yogurt plant in Bangladesh to
have worked with Kiva, the total loans they professionally managed investment firm, it create local jobs and produce fortified yogurt
have made, their delinquency and default aims to provide investors with a reasonable that provides critical nutrients to children sold
rates, and their current fundraising status. financial return while also enabling positive at affordable prices. In 2007, with the support
The field partners identify entrepreneurs, vet social development. responsAbility AG was of its shareholders, Danone launched the
their application, disburse the loans and collect founded in 2003, with initial capital of danone.communities fund. It is structured
payment. Profiles and photos of individual US$5.6million. Its founding organizations as a mutual fund managed and marketed
entrepreneurs are also posted on the website. and shareholders included: Bank Baumann independently by the Credit Agricole group,
Lenders select a field partner to support & Cie, Banquiers, Credit Suisse, Raiffeisen with the following mandate: to expand
by using PayPal or credit cards. Once Switzerland, Andromeda Fund B.V., the Swiss Grameen Danone Foods by building additional
entrepreneurs repay the loans, lenders may State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), plants in Bangladesh; to finance other social
lend to another entrepreneur, donate the funds Swiss Re, the Ethos and NEST collective businesses that benefit consumers at the base
back to Kiva or withdraw their funds. foundations and the charity Swissaid, among of the pyramid – specifically those that support
In addition to working through field partners, others. By 2010, responsAbility was advising Danone’s vision of “bringing health through
Kiva leverages over 40 corporate partnerships more than $850 million in over 300 institutions food to a majority of people”; to use these
to achieve its mission. Paypal provides Kiva in some 60 countries across its suite of funds. innovative business models to partner with
with access to technology, research, workplace Through its Global Microfinance Fund, which local stakeholders and NGOs, combining their
solutions and employee volunteers, while Kiva was the first microfinance fund in Switzerland know-how with Danone’s; and to build a
utilizes PayPal payment solutions to transfer to be authorized for public sale in 2004, community of investors and other partners
funds across the globe. In addition to a $1 responsAbility has been one of the pioneers in committed to achieving social progress through
million grant, E&Y is also working with Kiva to building the field of microfinance investment. investment and market-based approaches. In
improve transparency of its microlending More broadly, responsAbility is active in the 2009, the fund made investments in Laiterie du
process. Other business partners include debate on private funding for development Berger, a small business in Senegal that collects
Google, VISA, Chevron, Microsoft, Intel, and in exploring methodologies for integrated and processes milk from some 600 Peul herders,
Cisco, Sams Club, OliverWyman, Facebook, public reporting on social and financial supplying fresh milk and products to local
YouTube, MySpace, Moodys, Starbucks investment performance. A key feature of the consumers; and 1001 Fontaines in Cambodia,
and AmericanExpress, among others. As of responsAbility AG governance and business an association co-founded with Francois
October 2010, Kiva had facilitated more than model is the collaboration between major Jacquenoud to treat, bottle and distribute clean
$160 million in microloans, with a 98 percent Swiss private financial institutions and the water to up to 80,000 people. In 2009, a large
repayment rate. Some 480,000 Kiva users had Swiss government’s development cooperation majority of Danone’s shareholders approved
funded a loan and the average total amount agencies. This is a model that could be the creation of a new 100 million Euro fund, the
loaned per Kiva lender (including reloaned replicated in other donor countries. Danone Ecosystem Fund, which will support
funds) was about US$ 214, with minimum loan projects to create sustainable jobs in the
amounts being US$25 per lender. About company’s ecosystem among agricultural
425,000 entrepreneurs had received a loan producers, suppliers, distributors and regions
through Kiva, of whom about 80 percent were around the company’s plants and facilities.
women.

Box 33: Mobilizing individual donors and investors for development continued
Mobilizing private investors to buy ‘vaccine Mobilizing travelers to support UNITAID: Mobilizing bank customers to select social
bonds’: HSBC and Daiwa supporting GAVI MassiveGood projects: Caja Navarra (CAN)
Vaccine Bonds enable individual and MassiveGood was launched in 2010 to raise Caja Navarra (CAN) is a Spanish-based savings
institutional investors to invest in government- voluntary micro-contributions in the range of bank, established in its current form in 2000.
backed instruments with the proceeds going US$2 from individuals when they are making In 2004 it introduced a business model that it
to purchase vaccines to immunize children in travel-related purchases. Created by the describes as ‘civic banking’, which enables
poor countries against preventable and life- Millennium Foundation for Innovative Finance the bank’s customers to play a key role in
threatening diseases. The International for Health in partnership with leaders in the determining how their savings are invested,
Finance Facility for Immunization, IFFIm, global travel and tourism industry, the selecting what local and global social projects
operates as a funding partner for the GAVI initiative enables individual travelers to help are supported by the bank and getting actively
Alliance. It is a multi-laterally supported fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria and to improve engaged in volunteering and community
institution, with the World Bank serving as its maternal health and reduce child mortality. activities through the bank’s branches and
financial adviser and treasury manager, and They can do so by making a simple online communications platforms. The model is
registered as a UK-based charity. It issues micro-donation every time they buy a plane called “You Choose: You Decide” and aims to
bonds (with maturity ranging from 2 to 20 ticket, reserve a hotel room or rent a car. In empower what it calls its ‘citizen customers’ in
years) and delivers the capital to GAVI to invest addition, the technology-enabled platform a number of innovative ways. All customers
in immunization stock and delivery. Money helps to raise awareness and provides a social have Civic Accounts and can direct 30 percent
raised by IFFIm bonds enables GAVI to purchase network that helps travelers to connect with of the profit that the bank has made from
vaccines, and strengthen delivery chains by each other. The micro-contributions go to them each year to social projects either
rehabilitating health clinics, training health UNITAID, which is funded primarily through a identified by the bank or of their own choice.
workers, improving cold chains needed to levy on air tickets and contributions from 29 A number of these projects are in developing
store vaccines, and paying local health workers governments and the Bill & Melinda Gates countries such as Madagascar and the
to administer the vaccines. The bonds are Foundation. UNITAID then channels funds to Democratic Republic of the Congo. In 2009,
backed by governments such as the UK, France, partners such as UNICEF, the Clinton some 90 percent of the bank’s customers
Norway, Spain, Italy, Sweden and South Africa, Foundation and the World Health chose a project. The bank hosts and funds
and have a Triple-A rating. In November 2006, Organization that are delivering essential meeting points in selected cities and Banca
IFFIm issued the first US$1 billion in bonds to treatments, diagnostics and health services in Civica Networks that bring together its
institutional investors, with Goldman Sachs and over 90 countries. The potential is enormous, customers with social organizations both
Deutsche Bank as the lead managers of the with an estimated 2 billion air passengers physically and online. Its branches are
offering, which was fully subscribed within a every year, plus millions of hotel bookings and increasingly becoming community centers
day. In 2008, Hong Kong Shanghai Bank (HSBC) care rentals. MassiveGood is strongly where customers not only conduct banking
and Daiwa Securities Group led public offers in supported by the Global Distribution Systems business, but can also socialize. Customers are
the United Kingdom and Japan respectively, that manage airline reservation networks, informed about and participate in the process
which enabled individual or retail investors in leading travel management companies such that tracks where their money is invested and
these two countries to purchase ‘vaccine as American Express Travel, Carlson Wagonlit have some say in determining the bonuses of
bonds’, as well as institutional investors. HSBC, and BCD Travel and online booking tools. the bank’s executives. In 2009, the bank
for example, had a limited period offer for Facebook, YouTube and Twitter also provide gained some 48,000 new customers, entered
retail investors to invest in The Vaccine platforms to inform travelers about into a merger agreement with several other
Investment Plan and Vaccine Investment ISA, MassiveGood. In June 2010, MassiveGood leading savings banks in Spain, and started to
which provided a fixed return with a tax- partnered with the Global Business Coalition expand internationally, initially to the United
efficient option, while also supporting a on HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria to launch States and with plans for other countries.
humanitarian cause. According to GAVI, every MassiveGood Corporate. Companies will be
1,000 British pounds invested in these vaccine able to use their travel management systems
bonds helped to immunize some 130 children to set up accounts – both through online tool
against five life-threatening diseases. Funds and offline travel agents – that will give them
raised via IFFIm will help protect more than the choice of making contributions
500 million children over the coming decade – themselves, enabling their employees to do so
saving an estimated 10 million lives over time. every time they travel, or both.

(ii) Improving environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of
financial institutions
As has been the case in the corporate sector more generally, large financial institutions are facing
pressure from a variety of stakeholders and at the same time recognizing business opportunities to
improve and publicly report on the social, environmental and governance (ESG) performance of
their core business. This includes their banking, investment, insurance and advisory activities in
developing countries. As the IFC has noted:
“Sustainability is now increasingly recognized as central to the growth of emerging
market economies. For the private sector, this represents both a demand for greater
social and environmental responsibility as well as a new landscape of business
opportunity. The financial sector has been slow to respond to this trend but is now
emerging as an important driver across all sectors in an economy.”169
Given the vital intermediation role that financial institutions play in any economy, their ability to
drive improved social, environmental and governance performance through their clients is enormous.
Stakeholder engagement on sustainable finance in developing economies has focused on four main
areas. First, have been demands for more responsible financial standards and better social and
environmental risk management across asset classes, especially in fragile states or countries with weak
governance. Second, has been encouragement and growing opportunities for financial institutions
already operating in or head-quartered in developing countries to innovate in order to be more
inclusive in terms of serving the poor and/or more green in terms of funding environmentally
sustainable projects and clean technologies. Third, have been calls for financial institutions that are
not investing in developing countries, especially pension finds and other institutional investors, to
become more active in the area of development finance. And fourth, there has been a growing focus
on how private sector players can help to improve the enabling environment and build financial
infrastructure to promote sustainability in developing countries. Examples of private financial
institutions that have played a leadership role in these areas have been provided throughout this
section. A few additional examples are illustrated in the following pages.
Implementing more responsible ESG standards: There have been growing demands over the past
decade for private financial institutions to mitigate the negative impacts that their activities might
have on local communities, livelihoods, human rights and the environment in developing countries.
Areas of concern have included the financing of natural resource extraction and major infrastructure
projects such as dams, pipelines and roads and the role of private financial institutions in facilitating
conflict, corruption and money laundering and the transfer of public funds to private bank accounts
in other countries. A growing number of banks, insurers and institutional investors, including those
with head-quarters in developing countries have started to implement policies, management systems
and public reporting in these areas and in some cases in the area of human rights. These are complex
and usually systemic challenges where collaborative action has been particularly important in terms
of achieving scale, leveling the playing field and tackling the problem of ‘free-riders’.
A number of multi-stakeholder initiatives have been developed to promote voluntary standards in

development-focused finance. Intergovernmental institutions have convened some of the major

initiatives, although leadership on the part of the financial institutions has been crucial to their
establishment and implementation. Some of them are focused only on the financial sector and targeted
at a particular financing challenge. The Equator Principles, for example, are a set of voluntary
standards for project finance based on the social and environmental performance standards of the
International Finance Corporation. Launched in 2003 by ten banks, they have now been adopted by
more than 60 banks, which between them account for an estimated 80 percent of project finance in
developing countries. In less than a decade they have become a financial industry benchmark for
determining, assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing. The
Wolfsberg Principles have been established by eleven of the world’s largest international private banks
to tackle money laundering. The UNEP Finance Initiative convened by the United Nations
Environment Programme works with some 200 banks, insurers and investment institutions to
promote environmentally sustainable practices. And the UN Principles for Responsible Investment,
backed by the UN Global Compact and UNEP, have been developed and supported by a network of
international investors, most with activities in developing countries. As of October 2010 over 800
investment institutions from 45 countries had become signatories.
There are also initiatives focused on promoting responsible standards in other industry sectors that
have a major impact on development and poverty alleviation, in which financial institutions are
playing an active leadership role. Examples include the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative,
the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and the Pharma Futures project.
Innovating to deliver more inclusive and sustainable finance: As illustrated earlier in this section,
pioneering financial institutions such as ShoreBank, Triodos and Calvert, have a longstanding record
in this area, including some activities in developing countries. Equally, a small but growing number
of banks and other financial institutions based in developing countries have pioneered product,
process and business model innovations in inclusive and sustainable finance. Some of the emerging
market banks that have been nominated for the annual IFC and Financial Times Sustainable Banking
Awards are profiled in Box 34. Five areas of opportunity that have been identified by the IFC are the
financing of energy efficiency and renewable energy, cleaner production, biodiversity conservation
and banking services to low-income and under-served groups. Examples of these opportunities are
illustrated in the table on page 196. As outlined earlier in the report, the convergence of
communications technology and financial services has been particularly important in fundamentally
changing the economics of what is possible in terms of more inclusive banking. The emerging area
of carbon finance and its links with development finance is outlined briefly in the next section.
Increasing socially responsible investment directed at emerging markets: The vast majority of
funds under management through socially responsible investment options are invested in developed
economies. A small percentage of these funds are starting to move into emerging markets driven in
large part by growing investment opportunities in these markets generally. Several NGOs and
foundations in Europe and the United States are partnering with fund managers to encourage this
trend and to raise awareness on the opportunities to achieve investment returns in these markets
while also delivering positive development outcomes. The rapidly evolving field of impact investing
and the work of the Global Impact Investing Network is helping to drive momentum.

In September 2010, the Rockefeller, Cordes and Calvert Foundations, together with Giving Assets
created the “Global Impact 50”. Launched at the Clinton Global Initiative, this will be the first ever
index of the top 50 impact investment fund managers that deliver social and environmental value in
addition to financial returns, including in the areas of microfinance, community development and
fair trade. The index will provide information to investors and their financial advisors on leading
fund managers in the field covering their social and financial performance, their investment strategies
and areas where capital is invested. The overall aim is to build the market for impact investment
capital, at least some of which will be invested in developing countries.
In the UK, Oxfam partnered with Insight Investment in 2008 to launch a joint project called “Better
Returns in a Better World”, which aims to raise awareness of the contribution that institutional
investors could make to poverty alleviation in developing countries. The project considers the
potential contribution of investors in three areas: as allocators of capital; as influences on the policies
and practices of the companies they invest in (especially transnational companies which operate in
developing countries); and as influencers of public policy.
Helping to build financial infrastructure for sustainability: Private financial institutions can
support better ESG performance in developing countries by helping to strengthen corporate
governance and financial regulations. They can also help to build the financial infrastructure that is
needed to drive more inclusive and sustainable markets such as stock exchange indices, capacity
building facilities, investment funds and rating agencies. The examples of the Socially Responsible
Investment Index on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and the Bovespa Corporate Sustainability
Index in Brazil are profiled in Part Three of the report. A number of the banks, investors and
microfinance intermediaries profiled in this report have also been active in helping to establish rating
agencies and industry standards for SME finance and microfinance in developing countries.
Participants in the UNEP Finance Initiative have been active in promoting sustainability banking in
Africa through conferences and workshops, provision of tools and the development of funds and
capacity-building facilities.
One example of such leadership has been the launch of the African Carbon Asset Development
(ACAD) facility in 2009 through a partnership between Standard Bank, UNEP and the German
Federal Ministry of the Environment (BMU) to catalyze carbon finance markets in Africa. ACAD is
providing grant funding and technical assistance to build the necessary knowledge and skills and to
help cut transaction costs for African companies to access carbon markets and credits. It is also
delivering training on carbon finance for African-based financial institutions. In 2010, ACAD
funded seven projects in Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Mozambique, and Rwanda. They included
energy production from biomass and waste gas, LED-powered lighting, waste collection and
composting, wind power, hydro power, and conversion to cleaner energy in manufacturing – helping
both to develop low-carbon businesses while also creating jobs. Such a facility, with a private sector
financial institution providing a secretariat, identifying and generating deal flow and disbursing
funds and with public donors providing funding and technical assistance could be used in numerous
other locations and to address other development and sustainability issues.

Banking products and financing mechanisms that promote social and environmental sustainability:
Examples researched by the International Finance Corporation
SUPPORTING
OPPORTUNITIES ENERGY RENEWABLE CLEANER BIODIVERSITY UNDERSERVED
EFFICIENCY ENERGY PRODUCTION CONSERVATION SOCIAL GROUPS EXAMPLES
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ON THE DEPOSITORS’ SIDE
✓ ✓ “Environmental” affinity credit cards and
savings accounts; social and environmental
investment funds. These products are usually
targeted to specific environmentally/socially
sustainable aspects or areas
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ON THE BORROWERS’ SIDE
LOANS with a ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Loans to promote sustainable energy, energy
sustainability focus efficiency, or biodiversity conservation, or to
finance sustainable supply chain management.
LEASING with a ✓ ✓ ✓ Leasing for sustainable projects, such as for
sustainability focus equipment that is energy-efficient or is used
to generate renewable energy (solar panels,
micro hydro turbines).
CARBON FINANCE ✓ ✓ ✓ Projects in various areas, such as promoting
renewable energy to displace fossil fuels;
switching from fuels with high to low GHG
intensity, which reduce green house gas
emissions.
MICROCREDIT ✓ Micro loans or micro leasing to under-
privileged groups (such as indigenous women,
people in rural areas); banks can cooperate
with NGOs and microfinance organizations to
channel resources to these areas more effectively.
HOUSING FINANCE ✓ ✓ Affordable housing programs; “green”
mortgages that provide financing to build or
renovate homes in a way that increases
efficiency of energy use; mortgages to small
businesses or individual entrepreneurs.
SUSTAINABLE ✓ ✓ Financing buyers of or suppliers of various
SUPPLY CHAIN FINANCE products (coffee, timber, non-timber forest
products) at different stages in the supply chain
(including SMEs) to facilitate more sustainable
practices in agriculture, forestry, and other
sectors, and to protect biodiversity
SECURITIZATION IN ✓ ✓ Securitization of projects that are low-profit
SUSTAINABLE AREAS allows banks to cover previously uninsurable
risks using the capital market (alternative risk
financing) or to bring forward future cash flows
(asset-backed securitization).
ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Insurance coverage for certain types of
LIABILITY INSURANCE social and environmental liabilities/damage.
ADVISORY SERVICES ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strengthening organizational capacity of
bank’s clients and governments to meet their
needs for information and knowledge related
to social and environmental sustainability.
This is particularly important for SMEs.
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS ✓ ✓ Charitable donations; cultural and social finds
to support children, education, sports,
environmental protection, and the like.
Source: Koskelo, Jyrki I. and Kyte, Rachel. Banking on Sustainability: Financing Environmental and Social Opportunities in Emerging Markets, IFC, table adapted from Jeucken (2001).

Box 34: Leading emerging markets sustainable banks
Examples researched by the International Finance Corporation
Created in 2005, the Financial Times Sustainable Banking Awards, in partnership with the IFC, recognize banks and other financial
institutions that have shown leadership and innovation in integrating environmental, social and governance considerations into their
business. Over the past five years the following are examples of emerging markets banks that have been nominated at least two times and
have either won or been runners-up and regional winners of the ‘Emerging Markets Sustainable Bank of the Year’ award.
Nedbank, South Africa – One of the four Access Bank, Nigeria – In addition to Banco Real, Brazil – Banco Santander, Brazil:
largest banking groups in South Africa, implementing environmental criteria into its Having purchased the former Banco Real, an
Nedbank was the first African adopter of the lending business, Access Bank has developed established leader in sustainability banking,
Equator Principles for managing social and a comprehensive Gender Empowerment Banco Santander has become one of the
environmental risks in project management. Program aimed at providing financial services largest private banks in Brazil. In 2009 it made
It has partnered with the Worldwide Wildlife and technical assistance to women sustainability a core driver of its future
Fund (WWF) in South Africa to develop sector entrepreneurs in Nigeria. Since 2006 it has growth strategy and operating practices.
specific environmental and social guidelines partnered with the Nigerian Stock Exchange Sustainability extends across the bank’s risk
for the provision of finance and was the first on a national essay competition aimed at management system to the provision of a
South African bank to commit to achieving improving financial literacy among youth. variety of social and environmental banking
carbon neutrality. The bank also offers a The bank has established a cross-functional products and services to institutional,
range of inclusive banking products for low- corporate responsibility committee drawing commercial and retail clients. Some 37,000
income and underserved markets. from the heads of its business units and bank employees in the retail area have
major functions, and appointed an undergone training on sustainable banking
Equity Bank, Kenya – Equity Bank has independent external adviser as part of its and the bank has also been a leader in SME
become Kenya’s largest bank by number of social and environmental governance and lending, internet banking and support for
accounts (close to 4 million account holders) public reporting process. international sustainability guidelines and
and in the top three by market capitalization. standards.
It has harnessed information technology and Itaú Unibanco, Brazil – Itaú Unibanco has
an innovative hybrid business model that has played a leadership role both globally and in Industrial Development Bank of Turkey
enabled it to combine characteristics of a Brazil in implementing and promoting the (TSKB): Established in 1950, TSKB has been
microfinance intermediary and a commercial Equator Principles, the Carbon Disclosure a player in different stages of Turkey’s
bank capable of delivering commercially Project, the Brazilian Green House Gas economic development and is now a leader
viable, but affordable and accessible banking Protocol Program and the Principles for in incorporating environmental and social
services to the previously unbanked. Responsible Investment. In 2002, it was one criteria into its management systems,
The bank has also integrated social an of the first Brazilian banks to implement a corporate culture and banking services.
environmental criteria into its corporate social and environmental risk management The bank is the largest lender in the country
strategy and training programs and supports system and to publicly disclose information in the area of environmental and renewable
financial literacy training and education. on its sustainability performance. It has energy loans. It was the first Turkish bank
developed an eight point Sustainability to be certified with the ISO-14001
commitment that sets out priorities for environmental management system
guiding the bank’s business operations and standard, the first to publicly commit to
interaction with clients. It has established a becoming carbon neutral and the first to
microfinance program, operates a social produce a public sustainability report based
investment fund and offers its retail on international reporting guidelines.
customers the opportunity to purchase
environmental credit cards, which channel
part of the annual fee and a small percentage
of charged purchases to support
environmental NGOs.
Source: Company materials and submissions to the FT Sustainable Banking Awards

Box 34: Leading emerging markets sustainable banks continued
Industrial Bank, China – Industrial Bank was YES Bank, India – YES Bank is a commercial
founded in Fujian Province in1988 as bank that has established specialized
one of the first joint-stock commercial banks business units to deliver social and
approved by the State Council and People’s environmentally targeted banking products
Bank of China. It has made a commitment to and services, with a focus on what it terms
sustainability part of its core value proposition the ‘Future Industries of India’. It has a unit
and a key element of its future growth focused on agribusiness, rural and social
strategy. The bank has implemented a social banking, which works with partners to
and environmental risk management system overcome ‘last mile challenges’ in delivering
and offers financial products and services to rural financial services, including insurance.
companies that focus on delivering solutions It has a dedicated sustainable investment
to sustainability challenges in China. This banking unit that provides investment
includes finance for environmentally efficient advisory services to social and alternative
buildings and homes, as well as other energy ventures and was the first Indian
commercial lending. signatory to the Carbon Disclosure Project.
The bank has partnered with ACCION to
ACLEDA Bank, Cambodia – The Association establish a microfinance program. And it
of Cambodian Local Economic Development engages its clients and other stakeholders in
Agencies (ACLEDA) was established in 1993 community development and philanthropy
as an NGO to deliver microfinance to programs working with local NGOs .
refugees. In 2003, with support from the IFC,
it was re-licensed as a commercial bank and BRAC Bank, Bangladesh – Building on the
has become one of the country’s largest experience and lessons of BRAC, one of the
lenders and banking networks. In addition world’s pioneers in microfinance, BRAC Bank
to the IFC, the bank’s owners include the Limited (BBL) was established in 2001 with a
Triodos Fair Share Fund and Dutch focus on delivering financial services to small
development bank FMO, as well as and medium enterprises. Its shareholders
Cambodian shareholders, including include BRAC, ShoreCap Intenational and IFC.
bank staff. It has also implemented an The bank has a variety of initiatives in
environmental and social risk management renewable energy and waste management,
system. support for women entrepreneurs,
agricultural SME finance and programs to
provide both financial literacy training but
also health, safety and environment training
to SME clients. It has become one of the
fastest growing banks in Bangladesh and the
largest lender to SMEs through a variety of
branches, local access points and a growing
internet-banking business. The bank is one of
the 11 founder members of the Global
Alliance for Banking on Values.
Source: Company materials and submissions to the FT Sustainable Banking Awards

(iii) Participating in global funds and financing mechanisms
Over recent decades, especially since the International Conference on Financing for Development in
2002, there has been growing interest in exploring the role of private financial institutions, large
corporations and private foundations in working with governments to design and finance global
funds and innovative financing mechanisms for the provision of certain global public goods. The
World Bank offers the following definition: “Global public goods are aspects of development that
reach across borders: examples include the environment, public health, and international trade and
financial infrastructure. Actions are often needed that extend beyond what market systems or
individual countries can do on their own – developing new vaccines, for instance, and reducing
carbon emissions.”170
Global public goods cover a spectrum of resources, services and systems of rules and policy regimes.
These range from the stability of the international financial system and international trade, to efforts
to control international drug trafficking, crime syndicates and terrorism, to tackling the spread of
infectious diseases, protecting essential ecosystem services and addressing global climate change. As
Kemal Dervi and Sarah Puritz Milsom from Brookings note, “In all these cases there is the need to
finance capacity building, infrastructure, knowledge and equipment that facilitates the provision of
these ‘global public goods’. Because of the externalities involved, with the benefits accruing to all,
even if the public good is financed by one or a few countries, there are difficult collective action
problems affecting the provision of global public goods. …There is, therefore, an issue of reasonable
burden sharing that must be solved, for effective action to take place. The burden sharing challenge
tends to affect the relations between advanced and developing countries, as well as the relations
within each of these broad groups.”171
The responsibility for financing and providing global public goods clearly rests with governments
and debates around burden sharing are at the heart of the global governance process. At the same
time, there is growing recognition of the need to engage the private sector and in certain cases
implement market-based mechanisms to develop innovative new sources of financing for certain
global public goods. This has particularly been the case in the areas of financing certain ecosystem
services, addressing global health challenges and tackling climate change.
As the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Economic Forum have
summarized in the case of addressing global financing gaps to help developing countries adapt to
climate change, “Even under the most optimistic scenario of donor commitments, public funds will
be nowhere near sufficient to meet the investment requirements of a successful international climate
change strategy. The new framework must create mechanisms that catalyze much greater volumes of
portfolio and direct private sector investment in climate change-related activities.”172
Over the past two decades governments have created a variety of global funds ranging from the
Global Environment Facility and Global Crop Diversity Trust to the Global Fund to Fight
HIV/AIDs, TB and Malaria and the GAVI Alliance to a number of carbon funds including recent
agreement on the establishment of a Global Green Climate Fund. In all cases the focus has been on
mobilizing additional, mostly public financial resources and supporting relevant technology

transfers, capacity building and systems strengthening in developing countries. Although the
quantity and variety of private sector resources in these funds has been low compared to public
resources, there are examples where corporations and private financial institutions, in addition to
private foundations, have either made direct contributions as corporate global citizens or have helped
to design or implement market-based mechanisms to catalyze additional private resources – either
financial resources or relevant products and technologies.
A number of recent public and private initiatives and task forces such as the Taskforce on Innovative
International Financing for Health Systems established in 2008, the Millennium Foundation for
Innovative Finance for Health created in 2008, and the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory
Group on Climate Change Financing which reported in 2010, all point to the potential of market-
based solutions and incentives to catalyze additional private sector capital flows and contributions.173
The following table illustrates some of the global financing mechanisms that have been developed to
support global health research, development and delivery. Private foundations, financial institutions
and in some cases corporations have played a role in many of these examples. Box 35 provides brief
vignettes of three diverse global funds that have been supported by private sector financial
contributions over the past decade. Mobilizing private financial support for global funds and
innovative financing mechanisms to address global challenges is an area that warrants ongoing
dialogue and analysis.
Innovative mechanisms to support global health and R&D
MECHANISM PURPOSE FUNDING SOURCE EXAMPLES

Recent International Facilitate access to available treatments Donor governments, GAVI Alliance; Global Fund
health health funds for neglected diseases in low- and foundations, private to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
financing middle-income countries donations, IFFIm and Malaria
innovations
Product- Develop products for diseases that Donor governments, Aeras; IAVI; PATH; Malaria
development disproportionately affect low- and middle- foundations, private Vaccine Initiative
partnerships income countries through partnerships donations
with academia and industry
International Generate revenue for immunization Bondholders with IFFIm
finance programs and improved health systems in government and
facility resource-limited countries philanthropic backing
Advance Incentivize industry investment in Donor governments, Pneumococcal AMC
market vaccines for neglected diseases foundations
commitment
UNITAID Increase access to treatments for HIV Consumers (through Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, France,
and AIDS, TB and malaria in low- and an airline tax), donor Republic of Korea,
middle-income countries governments Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger
Source: Adapted from Innovative Financing Mechanisms to Advance Global health: past, present and Future Investments. IAVI Insights. Policy
Brief 21, June 2009.

Box 35: Examples of private contributions to donor-led global funds
The Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDs, TB and The Community Development Carbon The Global Crop Diversity Trust – This
Malaria – The Global Fund was created in Fund (CDCF) – The World Bank Group public-private trust fund was founded by the
2002 to scale and accelerate the flow of manages a portfolio of some 12 Carbon UN Food and Agricultural organization (FAO)
financial resources to large-scale programs Funds and Facilities. CDCF is differentiated and Biodiversity International, acting on
that are providing prevention, treatment and from the others by its explicit focus on the behalf of the Consultative Group on
care services for people living with HIV/AIDs, generation of community benefits in the International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
TB and malaria in low – and middle-income projects that it funds. It was launched in 2003 Hosted in Rome by FAO, it aims to secure
countries. As of March 2010, it had approved with a focus on promoting a co-benefits long-term funding for the support of gene
US$19.3 billion worth of grants to programs approach that links carbon finance to banks and crop diversity collections in
in 144 countries. The Global Fund estimates tangible poverty reduction outcomes. strategic locations around the world. As the
that by the end of 2009, nearly 5 million lives Specifically it funds small community projects Trust argues, genetic diversity of crops is
had been saved by through the programs it in poorer parts of the developing world that essential not only in tackling hunger, poverty
supports. The majority of the Fund’s combine investment in clean energy, with job and food insecurity, but is also, “…on the
resources come from governments and the creation and access to essential services such front line in adapting agriculture to climate
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but since as electricity, clean water and health. CDCF is change. It is through the use of this diversity
2004 it has started to work more with the structured as a multi-donor Trust Fund – and that we will be able to breed crops that are
private sector. The Global Fund identifies four is a public/private partnership. Nine better able to withstand the effects of higher
main ways that business and other private governments and 16 private sector temperatures, more prolonged droughts,
organizations can partner with it: making companies from Europe and Japan water-logging, stronger winds and other
monetary or in-kind contributions; participated in the first tranche, for a total extreme events.” Although a number of
supporting implementation and projects on- capitalization of US$128.6 million. The agribusiness companies are engaged in
the-ground; providing commercial goods and Norwegian energy company Statoil, for efforts to develop and disseminate new seed
services on a socially responsible basis; and example, contributed US$12.5 million, varieties in their own value chains, until
serving as a public advocate and contributor alongside 15 other European and Japanese recently there was no secure funding on a
to good governance. The largest amount of companies in the energy, oil, electricity, steel, global basis to support most of the world’s
funds to-date has been raised by Product chemical and financial sectors. The other 1,500 gene banks. Launched in 2004, the
(RED) and its partner companies, some private funders include Swiss Re, BASF, Trust aims to solve this problem by creating a
US$150 million by mid-2010, as profiled on FujiFilm, Daiwa, ENDESA, edp, gasNatural, $260 million endowment, the interest of
page 86. Another key private funder has been Gotberg Energi AB, hc energia, idemitsu, which will be used for this purpose. To date,
Chevron, which became the inaugural Global Nippon Oil, Okinawa Electric Power Company, in addition to funds from 19 donor and
Fund Corporate Champion in 2008, with an Rautaruukki, and Statkraft Carbon Invest AS. developing country governments, the Trust
initial commitment of US$30 million over As of late 2010, CDCF had committed 49 has been financially supported by grants
three years in six Asian and African percent of its funds to buy emission from ten private foundations (most notably
companies, together with implementation reductions from small-scale projects in Africa, US$29.9 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates
support. Other private sector partners include Asia and the Pacific. By developing small- Foundation), three corporations (Syngenta,
Standard Bank, Takeda Pharmaceutical scale methodologies for CDM projects and DuPont and the Grains Research and
Company, MAC AIDS Fund, Idol Gives Back, collaborating with local intermediaries such Development Corporation) and several
Comic Relief and United Against Malaria. as microfinance institutions, NGOs and small international organizations. The trust is
enterprises, CDCF aims to demonstrate how focusing on the crops identified by the
carbon finance can be applied to low-income International Treaty on Plant Genetic
communities. Resources for Food and Agriculture, as being
the most important for food security and
interdependence.
Sources: Program and corporate materials

PART THREE
Other Actors Enabling Inclusive Business
and Markets
Other actors play a crucial role in building more inclusive and sustainable markets and encouraging
private sector investment and innovation in these markets. Their role is especially important in
helping to overcome the organizational, market development and governance barriers that
impede the poor from engaging directly and fairly in formal markets and that make it too costly or
risky for private enterprises to serve these markets. From improving the enabling environment and
coordinating interventions along specific value chains to working directly with private sector
enterprises and the poor, other actors can help to both start and scale more inclusive and
sustainable business models. The following section looks briefly at the role of these other actors.
I. HELPING TO OVERCOME BARRIERS

II. GOVERNMENTS
III. BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL DONORS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
IV. PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS
V. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
VI. ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

“ Business cannot stand alone. Businesses with governments, civil society and the poor can build the
foundations for new markets. Governments must unleash the power of business by improving market
conditions where poor people live and removing barriers to their economic participation. Not-for-profit
organizations, public service providers, microfinance institutions and others already working with the
poor can collaborate and pool resources with businesses to help seize opportunities. Donors can facilitate
dialogues between businesses, governments or other partners. Socially minded investors and
philanthropists can supply the funds to make these time-intensive and uncertain ventures possible.
Business models that include the poor require broad support, but they offer gains for all.
Kemal Dervis
Director of the Global Economy and Development Program,
Brookings Former Administrator, UNDP
Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor
UNDP, 20081

Other actors, governments in particular, play a crucial role in building more inclusive and sustainable
markets and encouraging private sector investment and innovation in these markets. Their role is
especially important in helping to overcome the organizational, market development and governance
barriers that impede the poor from engaging directly and fairly in formal markets and that make it too
costly or risky for private sector companies, entrepreneurs and financiers to serve these markets. They
can increase the economic viability, the political legitimacy and the social acceptance of inclusive
business models and value chains, thereby making them more effective and scalable.
There is enormous variety and contextual differences in the roles that different actors can play. Four
broad types of intervention that have relevance for most development actors, and that can make a
particularly important contribution in overcoming barriers to more inclusive and sustainable market-
based approaches include the following:
1. Working directly with the poor to enhance their capacity and voice as producers,
employees and consumers
2. Working directly with private sector companies, entrepreneurs and financiers to start
and scale inclusive business models
3. Convening and coordinating private enterprises and other development actors at scale
4. Improving the broader enabling environment for more inclusive private sector
development.

1. Working directly with the poor to enhance their capacity and voice as
producers, employees and consumers
Governments, development agencies, foundations, trade unions, and other civil society organizations
can work directly with the poor to enable them to become more organized and better equipped as
formal sector economic actors, both individually and collectively. They can undertake a variety of
interventions or projects that make it easier for a specific group of low-income producers, consumers
or employees to engage in a particular market or value chain in a manner that protects their rights
while also expanding their opportunity and access. Undertaking more rigorous research and analysis
on the poor as economic actors and on their needs, aspirations, capacities, constraints and resource
management strategies is another area where other actors are starting to play a vital role.
Interventions to support low-income producers include helping to establish and strengthen producer
associations, cooperatives and other aggregator models to strengthen their economic effectiveness and
bargaining power and their political voice. Interventions can also include the provision of market-
oriented microfinance and small business financing, technology, infrastructure, market information
and other business development services, technical assistance, agricultural productivity inputs and
extension services for small and micro-enterprises and smallholder farmers.
Public health messages and targeted consumer awareness campaigns relating to key health and
education services and financial literacy initiatives can help low-income consumers in assessing the
relative costs and benefits of essential products and services provided by private enterprises and
making well informed purchase decisions. Consumer financing mechanisms, remittances, and
conditional cash transfer programs can also help low-income consumers overcome the ‘poverty
penalty’ related to accessing certain essential products and services, especially in the areas of
education and health.
Programs providing vocational training and workforce development opportunities that meet labor
market needs in clearly identified industries can empower the poor as potential employees in the
formal sector. Global framework agreements with trade unions and initiatives to build the capacity
of factory and farm managers and workers can also help to improve working conditions and labor
standards for low-income workers.
2. Working directly with private sector companies, entrepreneurs and

financiers to start and scale inclusive business models
Governments, development agencies, foundations, trade unions and other civil society organizations
can work directly with individual private sector enterprises or with groups of private enterprises and
business associations to help kick-start and facilitate their engagement in inclusive business models.
This can include the creation of challenge, innovation or replication funds, public-private investment
vehicles, and matching grants, loans, equity, guarantees and other risk sharing tools. It includes joint
investments in scientific research and in technology development and transfer. And it can include

prizes to encourage, promote and help to finance innovative new technologies, products, services and
business models.
Other actors can play a vital role in providing independent, evidence-based analysis and knowledge
management of what works and what does not work in starting and scaling inclusive and sustainable
business. They can undertake third-party evaluation, monitoring and endorsement of individual
business models and projects, assessments of the broader impact of business on development, and
competitive rankings and indices of corporate performance within specific industries or in relation
to specific development challenges. They can support programs that raise awareness and spread
examples of responsible business practices and inclusive business models. And they can provide
management tools, training and technical assistance to build the capacity of business people to
deliver viable market-based solutions to development challenges and to partner effectively with other
actors in this process.
Other actors can also research and deliver market information on particular low-income markets that
individual companies may not otherwise undertake to research on their own, thereby overcoming at
least some of the market intelligence and information barriers to engaging with these markets.
3. Convening and coordinating private enterprises and other development

actors at scale
Governments, foundations and certain non-governmental organizations can play a vital
matchmaking, brokering or intermediation role in bringing together diverse actors, especially private
sector competitors, to solve complex development challenges. This can be particularly effective when
it comes to building multi-stakeholder alliances and convening and coordinating the activities of key
actors along a particular value chain or within a particular location, cluster or corridor. It can also be
helpful in establishing voluntary, industry-wide initiatives to improve corporate accountability and
transparency in areas such as human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption.
In the case of convening competitors from the same industry sector, the role of other actors can be
invaluable in terms of providing a more ‘neutral space’ and a legally acceptable environment for
competitors to come together in a pre-competitive context to jointly solve systemic challenges. As
outlined in more detail in Part Four, whether these challenges involve raising the bar on responsible
business standards or making specific value chains more inclusive and sustainable, they cannot be
addressed without better coordination, often between competing interests.
The catalyzing and facilitating role of other actors is particularly important when coordinating
interventions in sectors and value chains that are most pertinent to poverty alleviation such as
agriculture and food security, health systems and nutrition, energy, water and sanitation, financial
services, working conditions in factories and farms, and climate adaptation and resilience. National
government leadership and effective global governance is also essential in leveraging and coordinating
private sector engagement in the poorest countries or regions, or in fragile states and locations that
are facing or emerging from conflict and natural disasters.

4. Improving the broader enabling environment for more inclusive private

sector development
Governments in particular have a responsibility for improving the overall framework conditions or
enabling environment for inclusive and sustainable markets and business.
At the international level, this calls for reform in international institutions and global governance
structures to better accommodate the rise of emerging market powers and non-state actors as
important players in global governance. It also calls for ongoing commitment to international
frameworks that enable better coordination of aid, trade, investment and intellectual property
regimes, and better integration of the global development and climate change agendas. And it
requires ongoing efforts to promote universal norms and standards in areas such as human rights,
labor, the environment and anti-corruption, and working with national governments, business
associations and other actors to ensure these are implemented in practice on-the-ground in factories,
farms and other workplaces and marketplaces around the world.
At a national level, creating an enabling environment includes the implementation of sound policies,
regulations and rule of law; reliable public institutions and physical and information technology
infrastructure; provision of social safety nets and welfare services; education and vocational training
systems that generate a qualified labor force; and commitment to accountability and transparency
around the use of public resources and the outcomes of public sector interventions. All of this is
necessary to enable private sector development in general. At the same time, concerted efforts by
governments and other actors in cooperation with the private sector itself need to be targeted more
explicitly at the inclusion and distribution aspects of these broad enabling environment activities in
order to “make markets work for the poor”.
The following section looks briefly at some of the ways governments; public donors, investors and
development finance institutions; philanthropic foundations; trade unions; non-governmental
organizations (NGOs); and academic and research institutions are helping to catalyze and facilitate
private sector engagement in building more inclusive and sustainable business models and markets.
This is a complex and multi-faceted topic and there is a rapidly growing body of experience and
literature relating to each of these actors and their engagement with private enterprises. The following
examples offer only a small illustrative selection of the increasingly diverse and innovative approaches
that are emerging in all sectors, with a focus on how other actors are enabling and/or engaging
directly with private sector enterprises.

II. GOVERNMENTS
Governments must take the lead. Their leadership is essential for making markets work – especially for
the poor. It is also crucial for ensuring the drive towards new models of more environmentally
sustainable, low-carbon economic growth and market development. It will be impossible to achieve
more inclusive and sustainable business and markets in the absence of good governance, no matter
how well resourced and well-intentioned non-state actors are, even the largest corporations acting
collectively.
Market failure is all too often a result of governance failure. This can range from trade policies that
disadvantage low-income countries or producers to national governments that are corrupt or lack
sufficient institutional and administrative capacity to meet the needs of their citizens. It can also
include well-intentioned public sector supply-side interventions or donor assistance programs that
distort local markets or undermine the economic viability or capacity of local producers, employees
and consumers.
At a national level, governments in every nation have ultimate responsibility for ensuring rule of law,
protecting human rights, strengthening human security, and creating the framework conditions for
inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Other actors, including private enterprises, clearly have
a growing influence on determining outcomes in all of these public policy areas, but governments
must lead. Governments also need to be responsible for setting national development priorities and
policies. These are likely to be more effective, however, if they are developed and implemented
through structured and systematic consultation with private sector and civil society actors in each
country, and if they explicitly harness resources and competencies from these non-state actors.
Governments need to create the appropriate macroeconomic conditions, policies, regulations,

institutions and incentives that will both facilitate and regulate the power of private entrepreneurship
and business innovation, and that will ensure adequate monitoring and sanction of economic
activities to build and protect public wellbeing. They need to create appropriate policies and
institutions to ensure social security and to empower the poor to participate in decision-making and
to report grievances when they are excluded or exploited.
The public sector in every country, both developed and developing, needs to improve efficiency,
accountability and transparency for its own actions and outcomes. New models of stakeholder
engagement and the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) and E-Governance
can play a valuable role in this process.
In terms of building more inclusive markets and implementing pro-poor growth strategies, the role
of national governments, and to a lesser extent regional and local governments, is especially
important in the following areas:
1. Creating an enabling environment for private sector development in general, especially small and
medium-size enterprises.
2. Directly promoting responsible, inclusive and sustainable business.

II. GOVERNMENTS
1. Creating an enabling environment for private sector development in

general, especially small and medium-size enterprises
Government actions are essential to creating an enabling environment for private sector development
that lowers the risks, costs and barriers, and raises the incentives and opportunities for competitive
and productive enterprise. Generally well-functioning markets and diverse business communities are
a necessary foundation for enabling business models and economic growth that are more explicitly
pro-poor and environmentally sustainable.
Getting the basic framework conditions right for a sound investment climate and private sector
development requires governments to:
• Ensure political and macroeconomic stability
• Implement clear business regulations, legal systems, trade, investment and competition policies
• Minimize policy uncertainty
• Strengthen local capital markets and financial institutions
• Tackle corruption and other forms of rent seeking that raise costs and distort policies and markets
• Invest in physical, social and institutional infrastructure
• Tailor policy interventions to fit local conditions and administrative capacity
• Foster the social consensus, legitimacy and public trust required to sustain policy improvements by
ensuring accountability, transparency and consultation in the design and implementation of
policies.3
Research by the World Bank Group that surveyed some 26,000 mostly firms in 53 countries and over
3,000 micro-entrepreneurs operating in the informal economy in 11 of these countries, concluded
that policy-related risks – especially policy uncertainty and macroeconomic instability – dominate
the concerns of firms operating in developing countries.4 These risks can seriously undermine the
incentives for both domestic and foreign companies to invest, innovate, upgrade and increase their
productivity, all of which are important for tackling poverty. As surveys by the World Bank, UN and
others have shown, weaknesses in government performance impose high costs on firms of all sizes,
but especially on the small enterprises that are such essential conduits for poverty alleviation.
The lead author of the team that prepared the World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment
Climate for Everyone, comments, “The survey data show that there are some systematic differences
between firms based on their size, with smaller firms generally facing the most severe constraints.
Larger firms are typically better equipped to deal with distorted financial markets (due to sources of
internal finance, assets to pledge as collateral and established reputations); to cope with poor
infrastructure through self-provision; and to cope with potential policy uncertainty through better
access to politicians and officials. One implication is that efforts to improve the overall investment
climate will tend to deliver disproportionate benefits to smaller firms. This is encouraging news,
particularly given the poor track-record of many schemes intended to confer special benefits on
smaller firms.”5

Another clear message that is evolving from research on the role of government in supporting private
sector development is that macro-economic reforms are necessary, but not sufficient. The World
Bank’s Doing Business project in particular has played a useful role in focusing the attention of
policymakers and private sector leaders on the importance of business laws and regulations. The first
report in the series, Doing Business in 2004, made the following case:
“To create [a vibrant private sector], governments around the world have implemented
wide-ranging reforms, including macro-stabilization programs, price liberalization,
privatization, and trade-barrier reductions. In many countries, however, entrepreneurial
activity remains limited, poverty high, and growth stagnant. And other countries have
spurned orthodox macro reforms and done well. How so? Although macro policies are
unquestionably important, there is a growing consensus that the quality of business
regulation and the institutions that enforce it are a major determinant of prosperity.”6
Since the launch of its first report in 2003, the Doing Business project has become one of the World
Bank’s most influential and widely used knowledge products, serving as a objective reference and
benchmark for public and private sector leaders. It has also helped to identify effective policy reforms
and facilitate the transfer of good practices between governments. The project is described in more
detail in Box 1.

BOX 1: The Doing Business project
At the outset of the Doing Business project in 2001, there was little systematic analysis across countries
of specific business laws and regulations, and no globally available indicator sets for monitoring and
comparing these microeconomic factors or analyzing their impact on economic development outcomes
such as productivity, investment, informality, employment and poverty. To address this gap, the Doing
Business project set out to, “provide an objective basis for understanding and improving the regulatory
environment for business.” As of 2010, the following ten sets of indicators were being tracked and
benchmarked, along with regulatory reforms in 183 economies:
Indicators that make up the ‘Ease of Doing Business’ ranking
Starting a business
1 Procedures, time, cost and paid-in minimum capital to open a business
Dealing with construction permits

2 Procedures, time and cost to obtain construction permits, inspections and utility connections
Employing workers
3 Difficulty of hiring index, rigidity of hours index, difficult of firing index, firing cost
Registering property
4 Procedures, time and cost to transfer commercial real estate
Getting credit
5 Strength of legal rights, depth of credit information index
Protecting investors
6 Strength of investor protection index, extent of disclosure index, extent of
director liability index and ease of shareholder suits index
Paying taxes
7 Number of tax payments, time to prepare and file tax returns, and to
pay taxes, total taxes as a share of profit before all taxes borne
Trading across borders

8 Documents, time and cost to export and import
Enforcing contracts
9 Procedures, time and cost to resolve a commercial dispute
10 Closing a business
Recovery rate in bankruptcy

The Doing Business project continued
Links between Doing Business indicators and Inclusive Business
The Doing Business project emphasizes its “Heavy regulation and weak property aspiring entrepreneurs, regardless of their
own limitations, stating that its scope is rights exclude the poor from doing connections, to operate within the rule of
limited to, “10 topics, with the specific aim business. In poor countries 40%-80% of law and to benefit from the opportunities
of measuring the regulation and red tape the economy is informal. Women, young and protections that the law provides. In
relevant to the life cycle of a domestic and low-skilled workers are hurt the this sense, Doing Business values good rules
small to medium-size firm.” As such, it does most.” as a key to social inclusion.”
not measure all aspects of the business
environment that matter to firms or • Third, reforms in business regulations can The Doing Business project is undertaking
investors, nor does it focus on regulations be measurably beneficial to economic further research to focus more directly
specific to foreign investment or assess growth and poverty reduction: The Doing on the pro-poor nature of business
the strength of the financial system and Business in 2006 report emphasized the regulations. In 2009, it undertook research
financial market regulations. Having said potential benefits of regulatory reform to in two new areas: the ease of obtaining an
this, however, there are strong correlations the poor directly, “Improving a country’s electricity connection and the level of
between the Doing Business rankings and Doing Business indicators to the level adoption in national legislation of the
more broad economic benchmarks such of the top quartile is associated with a International Labour Organisation’s core
as the World Economic Forum’s Global 9 percentage point fall in the share of labor standards, starting with a focus on
Competitiveness Index, IMD’s World GDP accounted for by informal activity. child labor. It plans to develop a worker
Competitiveness Yearbook and the OECD’s …Female and young workers would protection indicator, in close consultation
indicators of product market regulation. benefit the most from these changes. with the ILO and other stakeholders. It has
Both groups account for a large share also worked with the IFC and Vital Voices
Although the Doing Business project does of the unemployed and burdensome to undertake research specifically focused
not explicitly focus on the relationship regulations significantly affect their job on the business environment for women
between the regulatory environment for opportunities.” entrepreneurs. It is also looking at
small and medium-sized businesses and indicators related to creating an enabling
pro-poor or inclusive business, it offers Given that small and medium-size environment for smallholder agriculture.
some useful insights into this relationship: enterprises are the major drivers of job
creation, employment and growth in almost In addition to being able to benchmark the
• First, it is more difficult and costly to do all countries, and that income from self- costs and risks of doing business in one
business in poor countries than rich employment or wages provides a primary country versus another, the Doing Business
countries: The Doing Business in 2005 pathway out of poverty, it follows that project is ranking, highlighting and sharing
report stated, “Businesses in poor making it easier to operate a formal good practices in regulatory reforms that
countries face much larger regulatory business will have important implications are being undertaken by governments to
burdens than those in rich countries. for inclusion and protection of low-income create a better enabling environment for
They face 3 times the administrative producers and employees. As Doing Business private sector development. A large
costs, and nearly twice as many states, “Enabling growth – and ensuring number of these regulatory reforms offer
bureaucratic procedures and delays that poor people can participate in its relatively simple solutions that can be
associated with them. And they have benefits – requires an environment where replicated by other governments and their
fewer than half the protections of new entrants regardless of their gender or impact on economic growth and poverty
property rights of rich countries.” ethnic origin, can get started in business and reduction can be substantial.
where good firms can invest and grow,
• Second, cumbersome business regulations generating more jobs. …where regulation is
hurt the poor in particular: The Doing transparent, efficient and implemented in a
Business in 2005 report pointed out, simple way, it becomes easier for any
Sources: Doing Business project, The World Bank Group; Nelson, Jane. Building Linkages for Competitive
and Responsible Entrepreneurship. United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) and
Harvard Kennedy School. Cambridge: 2007

In summary, creating sound macroeconomic conditions, business laws and regulations, strengthening
capital markets and financial institutions, and investing in physical and social infrastructure are all
essential roles for government to play in improving the investment climate and supporting private
sector development in general.
While sound framework conditions are important for all enterprises, they are especially necessary for
the small and medium-size enterprises that are the key drivers of job creation, income generation and
poverty alleviation. Whether it is helping informal enterprises move into the formal economy or
enabling high-potential entrepreneurs to upgrade into commercial value chains, governments can
enable more inclusive private sector development through:
• Efforts to ensure that reforms to the overall investment climate or framework conditions for
private sector development take into consideration the constraints and opportunities faced by
small enterprises and do not create impediments to or biases against small enterprise - including
smallholder farmers and rural enterprises and key population groups such as women and youth
entrepreneurs.
• Provide targeted support for small enterprise development in areas such as access to finance,
business development services, small enterprise cluster development, access to markets and
business linkage initiatives. Evidence suggests that government should play a facilitative or
enabling role rather than direct service delivery role, ensuring wherever possible that these
initiatives are demand-driven, market-oriented and either private sector-led or public-private
partnerships, and that they address the lessons of previous less effective government-led, supply-
side interventions in the area of small business development.
• Efforts to ensure that small and medium-size enterprises and smallholder producer associations
and cooperatives, or their representative bodies if these exist, are more systematically consulted in
economic policymaking and public-private policy dialogues to ensure that their perspectives and
needs are better integrated into policy development and implementation, and not only the views
of large, well-connected companies.7
Different countries will have different challenges and policy areas that require particular focus, but
achieving a combination of the above conditions is necessary in all countries to ensure a suitable
investment climate for pro-poor growth. However, additional targeted actions can be taken by
governments to enable more responsible, inclusive and sustainable market-based solutions and
business models.

II. GOVERNMENTS
2. Directly promoting responsible, inclusive and sustainable business
In addition to creating a sound investment climate, governments can undertake a variety of

interventions – such as laws and regulations, fiscal instruments and incentives, procurement and
public financing requirements and supporting voluntary initiatives – in order to promote business
investment that is more responsible, inclusive and sustainable:
• Responsible in terms of private enterprises operating ethically, respecting human rights,

implementing sound labor and environmental practices, and supporting efforts to tackle
corruption, rent-seeking and short-term speculation that can undermine the economic security
and financial stability of both countries and households.
• Inclusive in terms of supporting private enterprises, both commercial firms and social enterprises,
to develop commercially viable approaches that explicitly aim to include the poor as producers,
employees and consumers.
• Sustainable in terms of supporting private enterprises to produce more with less and to reduce
their environmental footprints while meeting growing consumption and infrastructure needs.
Both inclusive and sustainable business approaches require innovations in technology, products,
services, processes and business models. Governments can play a vital role in enabling such
innovation, or at least not impeding it.
Governments play a role in determining business behavior as regulators, investors through public
funds, customers through public procurement and convenors. Box 2 provides a framework for
categorizing some of the key interventions that governments can make in promoting responsible,
inclusive and sustainable business. It outlines a wide variety of public sector interventions too
numerous to address in detail in this report, but many of these interventions offer potential for
increased policy innovation by governments in both developing and developed countries.
A 2010 study by the Bertelsmann Foundation and United Nations Global Compact has profiled
innovative public policies around the world under four categories of: awareness-raising; partnering;
soft law; and mandating. A small sample of these examples is profiled in Box 3. This study builds on
a framework developed by the World Bank Group in 2004 on the role of the public sector in
strengthening corporate social responsibility.8 To-date, however, there has been little detailed analysis
or comparative studies of different policies and regulations that governments are undertaking to
mandate or support more responsible, inclusive and sustainable business – whether in the form of
comprehensive national plans and programs or through more targeted policy instruments. This is an
area that warrants further research and analysis.

BOX 2: Promoting responsible, inclusive and sustainable business
Establishing ‘RULES OF THE • Command and control regulations – Legally binding laws and regulatory frameworks for enforcing
GAME’ responsible business practices and public disclosure of corporate performance, and protecting
intellectual property and other property rights at the local, national and international level.
• Government-driven market mechanisms – Economic instruments that create incentives for
responsible business practices and penalise bad practices. For example, taxes, grants, subsidies,
fines, fees, social and eco-labelling schemes, stock market listing criteria and indices, government
procurement, tendering and export credit schemes, environmental trading permits and enterprise
zones.
• Government support for voluntary approaches – Mechanisms and negotiated agreements
which enable voluntary action by business, such as guidelines and codes of conduct (developed by
industry itself or jointly with government and civil society actors), with systems to measure,
monitor and certify their implementation and to sanction or remediate non-compliance.
• Laws and regulations to support inclusive business models – In addition to strengthening existing
laws and regulations to make it easier to do business in the formal sector, provide greater flexibility for
private sector enterprises to establish or operate as social businesses, community interest companies,
low-profit, limited liability companies, social enterprises, cooperatives, and hybrid ‘blended value’ or
impact investors.
Building PUBLIC-PRIVATE • Public policy consultation mechanisms – Government appointed commissions, task forces,
RELATIONSHIPS councils and advisory initiatives focused on addressing socio-economic or environmental policy
issues.
• Multistakeholder Alliances – Collaborative mechanisms focused on increasing dialogue,
mobilizing resources and/or strengthening accountability between business and its stakeholders,
including governments. Often most effectively focused on a particular development challenge,
value chain, industry sector or location.
• Donor programmes for business partnerships – Specific programmes targeted at bringing the
business sector into partnership with the UN system and other multilateral and bilateral
governmental bodies to tackle key development challenges.
Mobilising PUBLIC-PRIVATE • Financial resources – Innovative funding and investment vehicles, such as government-sponsored
RESOURCES challenge, innovation and replication funds, social funds, debt swaps, public-private financing
facilities, social investment funds and indices, cause-related or social marketing, matched-giving
schemes, venture philanthropy, micro-finance intermediaries, community banks and community or
social-venture capital.
• Skills and managerial resources – Programmes that combine business and public sector skills to
support development objectives or that build future managerial and organisational skills for cross-
sector partnerships and responsible business.
• Information and advisory services – Government supported initiatives to provide companies
with information and advice on how to implement responsible, inclusive ad sustainable business
practices and to provide market information and research on specific low-income markets and
opportunities that companies may not research themselves.
Giving PUBLIC RECOGNITION • Government award programmes – Initiatives that recognize and publicise responsible business
practices.
• League tables and reputation surveys – Efforts to rank the economic, social and/or
environmental performance of companies relative to their peer group in selected geographies or
industry sectors.
Source: Adapted from Nelson, Jane. Creating the Enabling Environment: Mechanisms to promote global corporate citizenship. Executive Summary. International Business
Leaders Forum, 2000.

BOX 3: Government actions at the national level to promote corporate responsibility and private sector
engagement in development
In their report: ‘The Role of South Africa – The South African government sector. This regulation, together with other
Government in Promoting and business community have pioneered government incentives, has helped to spur the
Corporate Responsibility and several national initiatives such as the country’s growth in micro-insurance products and other
Private Sector Engagement in Black Economic Empowerment policy, which is financial services for low-income markets.
Development’, the Bertelsmann embedded in a range of mandatory and
Foundation and the UN Global voluntary measures and public procurement and
Brazil – Over the past decade the Brazilian
Compact note, “The economic crisis that so financing instruments; industry charters forGovernment has undertaken a number of
many countries have been facing has put the strategic sectors such as mining and finance,
initiatives that explicitly engage the corporate
spotlight on the need for more corporate that cover issues from job creation and sector in helping to tackle national development
responsibility and what governments can do to environmental sustainability to community challenges. One example is Fome Zero (Zero
promote it. In addition, interest in innovative social investment; joint consultation and Hunger), a federal government program to
ways to help stretch government resources for national development structures such as the promote food security and social inclusion. It
development has risen. Responsible business, as Business Trust and the National Economic operates on four main pillars: access to food,
the key driver of sustainable development, also Development and Labor Council; and an strengthening of family agriculture, income
has a lot to offer in the way of resources, emerging low-carbon national growth strategy.
generation, and social mobilization. A closely
expertise, distribution networks, personnel, and related program is the country's well-regarded
so forth.” China – In 2008, the Chinese government Bolsa Família (a Conditional Cash Transfer
issued a set of ‘Corporate Social Responsibility program that provides financial aid to poor
Drawing on lessons from both developing and Guidelines for State-Owned Enterprises’, households on the condition that their children
developed countries, the study highlights five explicitly linked to the government’s attend school and are vaccinated). Corporations,
essential corporate responsibility action areas commitment to promote a ‘harmonious society’ as well as civil society organizations are
within the public policy agenda: corporate by balancing economic growth with encouraged to participate in these efforts in a
governance; corporate reporting and disclosure; environmental sustainability and social variety of ways. They are required to meet a set
corporate community involvement and inclusion. Along with similar guidelines for of criteria to become certified partners. Some
development; responsible management and foreign invested companies in China and 100 companies are engaged. Several business
production; and responsible consumption. It guidelines for the textile and apparel sector and leadership networks and alliances have also
focuses on four main policy options for financial institutions, also issued between 2008 supported the program, such as Instituto Ethos,
governments, building on previous work by the and 2009, these send a signal of an evolving a business leadership network of over 200
World Bank: awareness raising; partnering; soft Chinese approach that is likely to be of growing Brazilian companies dedicated to promoting
law; and mandating. influence as Chinese SOEs become global corporate responsibility, and Ação Fome Zero
players and major investors in developing (Zero Hunger Action), a civic alliance of
The report profiles a number of specific policy countries. To-date, about 50 of China’s largest businesses and entrepreneurs that supports
instruments being implemented by some 20 companies have issued corporate responsibility school feeding and nutrition programs.
governments. The following vignettes offer a reports and established social and Brazil also plays a critical and growing role, in
small sample of policy initiatives being environmental departments and management the area of climate change and protecting
undertaken by four increasingly influential systems in response to these guidelines. tropical forests. The government is
governments, each with very different political spearheading a number of innovative public-
economies, but all developing their own India – In 2009, India’s Ministry of Corporate private partnerships and funds in this area.
approaches to promoting corporate Affairs released a set of voluntary corporate One example is the Amazon Fund, which is
responsibility and engaging major enterprises, responsibility guidelines, and the Indian aimed at mobilizing private and public
both private and state-owned, in national efforts government is working on a national program investments to prevent, monitor and combat
to balance economic growth and with the country’s major representative business deforestation, as well as to promote the
competitiveness with more inclusive and bodies to implement a national affirmative sustainable use of forests in the Amazon Biome.
sustainable markets: action strategy aimed at promoting greater The Fund is managed by BNDES, the Brazilian
economic inclusion of marginalized groups. The Development Bank, and has set up mechanisms
Indian government requires insurance through which companies, philanthropists and
companies to do 20 percent of their business in individuals can donate funds.
rural areas and the ‘social sector’ or informal
Sources: The Role of Governments in Promoting Corporate Responsibility and Private Sector Engagement in Development. Bertelsmann Foundation and UN Global Compact,
2010. The CSR Navigator: Public policies in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe. Bertelsmann Foundation and GTZ, 2007

In addition to working directly with business associations and private enterprises to promote more
inclusive and sustainable business, governments can play an important role in shaping business
behavior towards longer-term value creation and better social, environmental and governance (ESG)
performance through the capital markets and through fostering innovation and technology transfer.
Capital markets are an essential prerequisite, but too often a constraint on competitive business
models becoming more inclusive and sustainable at scale. In both developed and developing
countries, they focus on rewarding short-term rather than long-term performance. Most also fail to
factor social and environmental costs and benefits into resource allocation decisions alongside
financial risks and performance.
In developing countries the priority for governments is clearly to develop and strengthen basic
financial infrastructure and corporate governance standards, let alone implement environmental and
social frameworks. This includes not only establishing and building financial institutions themselves
such as banks, microfinance institutions, insurers, investors and leasing entities, but also increasing
the reliability and transparency of institutional infrastructure such as payment, remittance and
securities settlement systems, credit bureaus and collateral registries. All are essential to scaling the
development impact of private enterprise and to supporting more inclusive, pro-poor growth.
However, as the IFC and certain emerging markets such as Brazil and South Africa have
demonstrated, strengthening basic financial infrastructure can still go hand-in-hand with
implementing better environmental, social and governance standards for local capital markets and
corporations. Box 4 profiles pioneering work by the Johannesburg and Bovespa Stock Exchanges, in
partnership with government ministries and pension funds.
BOX 4: The Johannesburg Stock Exchange and Bovespa: Creating social responsibility and
sustainability indices
The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) in South Africa In Brazil, the Ministry of the Environment worked with
has operated for over 120 years and is now playing a the BM&F Bovespa Exchange, now one of the ten
growing pan-African role. In 2004 it launched the JSE largest stock exchanges in the world, together with the
Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index – the first of Brazilian Association of Pension Funds, the Brazilian
its kind in an emerging market. Working with South Association of Capital and Financial Markets Institutions,
Africa’s largest pension fund, the Government Employee the Brazilian Institute of Corporate Governance, the
Pension Fund and UK-based research organization EIRIS, Ethos Institute of Social Responsibility, and the IFC and
the index tracks some 100 companies making up 85% of to launch the Bovespa Corporate Sustainability Index in
the JSE’s market capitalization, with 61 becoming index 2005. The Center for Sustainability Studies at FGV, one
constituents in 2009. Companies are ranked on of Brazil’s leading business schools, works with the
environmental, social and governance criteria, both Bovespa exchange to assess the environmental, social
general indicators and some specific for the South and governance performance of the 200 most liquid
African context – notably, their performance on stocks. These are judged on the basis of their policies,
managing HIV/AIDS and Black Economic management systems, performance results and legal
Empowerment. compliance, with some 40-50 meeting the listing criteria
for the Bovespa Sustainability Index.
Sources: UNEP Finance Initiative; Johannesburg Stock Exchange and BM&FBovespa

Multi-stakeholder financial sector alliances that have been established in the past decade such as the
Equator Principles for project finance, the Principles for Responsible Investment, the Aspen Network
for Development Entrepreneurs, the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest and the Alliance for
Financial Inclusion, all of which are profiled in Part Four of the report, also offer potential for
achieving greater scale and systemic impact in harnessing capital markets for poverty alleviation.
The ability to transfer, adapt or locally develop innovative new technologies in areas such as
information and communications, biotechnology and low-carbon, clean technology, is another
increasingly important driver of building more inclusive and sustainable markets and business. As the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development has noted:
“successful technology transfer is not primarily about the transfer of hardware, but of the soft skills
that allow developing countries to effectively adapt, use and maintain technologies. It spurs
innovation and facilitates the flow of ideas and people. Technology transfer is most effectively
achieved through business-to-business cooperation, but it can be encouraged by governments.
…Transfers are being hindered mainly by a lack of infrastructure, a lack of capacity to absorb the
technology, and a lack of policy framework that fosters investment. Governments could help to
increase the spread of technologies by addressing these shortfalls.”9
In summary, existing policy frameworks in most countries often lack the appropriate laws,
regulations and incentives, or the administrative capacity to implement them, that are needed to
promote responsible business practices and to make it commercially viable for competitive business
models to reach the poor at scale as producers, employees and consumers or to develop and
disseminate new environmentally beneficial technologies. This is a challenge everywhere, but
especially in many developing countries, where weak or inhospitable investment climates impede
private sector development in general, let alone actively encouraging pro-poor and inclusive business
models or environmental sustainability.
There are valuable lessons to be learned, especially from some of the rapidly emerging markets such
as China, Brazil, India, Turkey and South Africa. Identifying and analyzing policy innovations that
promote inclusive and sustainable business, and where relevant replicating them between
governments is an area that warrants further support by governments, donors, foundations and
academic and research institutions.
The following section looks at the role of bilateral and multilateral donors and development finance
institutions, all of them government entities but worthy of separate review to the role of national
governments.

II. BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL DONORS AND
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS9
In their 2008 Private Sector Development Strategy, the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) made a clear case for donor intervention in markets and private sector
development. They stated:
“Just because private sector development is successful, it does not necessarily follow that
poor people benefit. Private markets can exclude the poor, especially those who have
nothing to buy or sell. Social or economic barriers can exclude groups such as ethnic
minorities, migrants or women. …It is justifiable for donors to support government
interventions in markets where there are significant failures and inefficiencies which
limit private sector growth, and prevent the participation of poor men and women.”10
Well-documented market failures and barriers identified by DFID and others include: market power
through monopoly or imperfect competition; uneven access to information or lack of information
generation; social exclusion; incomplete or ‘missing’ markets; coordination failures; and externalities
and public goods. Added to these are challenges of corruption and weak corporate and/or public
governance structures.
A 2008 study undertaken by UNDP’s Growing Inclusive Markers Initiative, offers similar
conclusions on the need for donors and other development actors to play an active role in
overcoming market failures and constraints to including the poor. Drawing on extensive research, the
study focuses on five main constraints: limited market information; ineffective regulatory
environments; inadequate physical infrastructure; missing knowledge and skills; and restricted access
to financial products and services, and illustrates ways in which private sector companies can
collaborate with other actors to overcome these.11
Most bilateral and multilateral donors and development finance institutions have increased the
quantity and the variety of their engagement with the private sector over the past decade. Motives
and mechanisms vary depending on the agencies and private sector entities in question, but the vast
majority of these efforts address one or more of the following five objectives:
• Catalyzing domestic and international private investment to drive economic growth and
opportunity: Donors have provided policy support to developing country governments to
improve the overall business climate for investment and financial and advisory support to private
firms – from large corporations to low-income producers and producer associations. The World
Bank’s Doing Business Project has established an empirically rigorous benchmark against which
partner governments, donors and private investors can assess progress.
• Improving corporate accountability and transparency and/or spreading responsible business

standards: Donor engagement here ranges from longstanding efforts such as the ILO’s Core
Labor Standards and OECD’s Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, to new initiatives such as
the UN Global Compact, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Business and
Human Rights, and a number of multi-stakeholder accountability mechanisms. It also includes
ODA funding for non-governmental organizations, trade unions and the media as watchdogs and
campaigners for more responsible and more accountable private sector behavior.

• Leveraging the private sector as an innovator and partner to achieve broader development
goals: Donors have provided catalytic financing, convened multi-stakeholder initiatives,
developed tools, and undertaken capacity building to increase the broader development impact of
private sector activities. This has included efforts to: engage companies and social enterprises in
meeting the MDGs and promoting green growth by leveraging core business competencies, value
chains and science and technology and/or harnessing resources from corporate philanthropy and
volunteering
• Responding to humanitarian crises: A number of the major humanitarian agencies such as the
World Food Programme and UNICEF, as well as non-governmental humanitarian organizations,
are now working with the private sector in strategic efforts not only to mobilize corporate
philanthropy, but also to harness core business capabilities such as logistics, and information
technology, to improve the coordination and effectiveness of humanitarian response.
• Integrating the private sector’s voice and experience into global and national policy
dialogues: Multilateral and bilateral agencies have taken measures to engage private enterprises
and their representative bodies more systematically in global policy dialogues and as formal
advisors to major donor programs.
Over the past decade, driven in large part by the global financial and food crises and in part by the
targets set by the Millennium Development Goals and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness,
bilateral and multilateral donors have focused on improving their coordination around crucial
development issues. Food security, global health, climate adaptation, energy and water have been
areas of particular focus. In addition, there have been renewed efforts to support country-ownership
of development policies by partner governments and better donor coordination at the country-level.
Linked to these efforts, there is growing coordination and shared learning between donors in terms
of their engagement with the private sector. Within the UN system, for example, the leadership role
of the UN Global Compact and UNDP has been vital in putting the private sector firmly on the
global development agenda and helping to engage and coordinate other bilateral and multilateral
agencies, both globally and at the country-level.
The long-standing ‘Donor Committee on Enterprise Development’ continues to provide a platform

for shared learning in the area of small enterprise development and the OECD’s Business and
Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) has served as a representative business body providing advice
and counsel to the OECD for nearly fifty years. At the United Nations MDG Summit in September
2010, a group of eleven bilateral donors, supported by the IFC and UNDP, launched a joint ‘Bilateral
Donors Statement in Support of Private Sector Partnerships for Development’ (See Appendix 1 for
full statement.) In this statement, the donors make the point, “Rather than viewing the private sector
merely as resource providers, we choose to recognize the private sector as equal partners around key
development issues and will enter into partnerships with local and international companies of various
sizes.”

The evolving relationships between donors, international finance institutions and the private sector
are diverse and increasingly sophisticated, with potential in some cases of achieving scale and impact
in improving development outcomes. The following examples offer only a glimpse into the rapidly
expanding and diversifying landscape of institutional engagement between the private sector and
donor community.
The United Nations

Many U.N. agencies, funds and programs have increased the level and quality of their private sector
engagement. New system-wide initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)
have also been created, as profiled in Box 5. The United Nations Foundation, working through the
U.N. Office for Partnerships and other agencies, is another example of a relatively new entity
established in 1998, that has leveraged donor, philanthropic and private investment from a wide
variety of sources to fund and scale programs in areas such as women and population and climate and
energy.
In 2005, the UN Secretary-General also appointed the first-ever Special Representative with an
exclusive focus on the private sector. Professor John Ruggie was appointed as the SG’s Special
Representative on Business and Human Rights, with a mandate to propose measures that will
strengthen the human rights performance of the business sector around the world. In 2008, the UN
Human Rights Council was unanimous in welcoming a policy framework he proposed for that
purpose. They extended the mandate for a further three years, asking him to build on and promote
the framework so as to provide concrete guidance for states, businesses, and other social actors. The
three part framework can be summarized as: the state duty to protect human rights; the corporate
responsibility to respect human rights; and access to remedy.12
UNDP has established the Growing Inclusive Markets initiative. This is an empirically driven effort
to improve understanding on how the private sector – especially domestic companies in developing
countries – can contribute to human development and the MDGs in commercially viable ways. The
initiative is supported by a global advisory board of over 20 major bilateral and multilateral donors,
academic and research institutions and business leadership coalitions. It has created a network of
southern-based researchers and is working with a number of partner governments to improve their
enabling environments for inclusive business. The Business Call to Action is another multistakeholder
initiative hosted by UNDP. Supported by several bilateral donor agencies and business leadership
networks, it is a commitment-driven effort that calls on individual corporations to make specific
commercially-viable commitments to delivering the MDGs. As of July 2010, some 20 corporations
were participating in the initiative.
Space does not permit a summary of all the new private sector engagement mechanisms being
employed in the UN system or the way in which longstanding structures have evolved as in the case
of the ILO. Suffice to say some 40 UN funds, programs and agencies participate in the U.N.’s
“Private Sector Focal Points” network established in 2004. Their modes of engagement and purpose
for doing so varies widely depending on the UN entity in question, but in almost all cases the level
and variety of private sector engagement has increased over the past decade.

Box 5: The United Nations Global Compact
Background and mission: international agencies, trade unions and civil activities and it helps to facilitate a system-
The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) society organizations. wide network of ‘private sector focal points’,
was established in 2000, following a speech who meet on a regular basis to share best
at the World Economic Forum by the former UNGC has also incubated two other global practices, review UN guidelines for working
UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan in which voluntary initiatives: the Principles of with the private sector and improve
he called on business leaders to implement a Responsible Investment (PRI) and the cooperation. UNGC is also supported by a
set of nine universally agreed principles in Principles of Responsible Management multi-stakeholder advisory board, which
the areas of human rights, labor and the Education (PRME), which between them reviews its progress and advises on strategic
environment. A tenth principle on anti- have mobilized many of the world’s major direction. Annual financial contributions
corruption was added in 2004. Today, UNGC investors and business schools. As of 2010, are made by participating companies and
works with a wide variety of private sector over 800 investment institutions from 45 national and regional networks receive local
enterprises and business associations, countries had become signatories to PRI and support from companies and other partners
governments, civil society organizations, PRME is co-convened by five major business in the countries where they operate.
trade unions, academics and other UN school associations or networks reaching
agency partners, to provide a global policy several thousand universities. Global platforms:
framework and platform with the goal of UNGC currently manages several global
achieving two complementary objectives: In order to join the UNGC, company platforms and projects. These include:
• Mainstreaming the ten core principles in chief executives must write a letter of the CEO Water Mandate; the Caring for
business activities around the world; and commitment that their company will Climate coalition; projects on supply chain
• Catalyzing actions in support of broader implement the ten principles in its corporate sustainability, sustainable development and
UN goals, including the Millennium policies and practices and contribute to empowering women; and global working
Development Goals. broad development objectives through its groups on human rights, labor, environmental
core business operations, social investments stewardship, anti-corruption and responsible
Over the past decade, UNGC has become and philanthropy, advocacy and public investment in conflict affected countries.
the world’s largest voluntary corporate policy engagement, and engagement in
responsibility initiative with over 8,000 partnerships and collective action. Each year, In 2011, UNGC will launch a new platform for
corporate signatories based in more than participating companies are required to corporate sustainability leadership – Global
130 countries. Its business participants are report on their performance against this Compact LEAD. Consisting of the most
drawn from all industry sectors and range in commitment at either a basic, intermediate committed and engaged UN Global Compact
size from major multinational corporations to or advanced level. The UNGC has de-listed a companies, participants will be challenged to
medium-sized companies. Almost two thirds number of companies that have failed to implement the ‘Blueprint for Corporate
of these companies are from developing meet this requirement. Sustainability Leadership’ and to lead new
countries. In addition to providing a wide efforts to raise sustainability performance
spectrum of work streams, conferences, Funding, governance and oversight: with the goal of achieving greater leverage,
management tools and resources for The UNGC enjoys the support of the UN scale and impact.
individual companies to improve their own General Assembly, to which it provides
performance, the UNGC has helped to regular reports, and it has been recognized
establish national or regional networks in in a number of other inter-governmental
some 90 countries and supports several contexts. Governments also provide essential
global platforms focused on key systemic funding to support the work of UNGC
challenges such as climate change, water through voluntary contributions to a UN
and empowering women. Trust Fund and the Donor Group meets twice
annually. Within the UN system, the UNGC is
As an integral part of its mission to promote supported by a core inter-agency team
responsible business practices, the UNGC has consisting of the Global Compact office and
also become a forum for constructive cross- seven UN agencies - OHCHR, ILO, UNEP,
sector dialogue and partnership-building UNODC, UNDP, UNIDO, UNIFEM. Other UN
between the private sector, governments, agencies are encouraged to engage with its
Source: UN materials

Development Finance Institutions
Bilateral and multilateral development banks (MDBs) and DFIs have also increased the level and
range of financial and advisory services offered to the private sector. As the World Bank’s private
sector arm, IFC offers a useful barometer. IFC’s investments have grown from $5.3 billion in 2005
to an anticipated $12.6 billion in 2010, and the number of projects has more than doubled from
about 236 in 2005 to an anticipated 528 in 2010. It now operates in 60 IDA countries compared
with 29 five years ago and is extending services to micro-, small-size enterprises and financing
market-based solutions to deliver health, housing, education and financial services for the poor.13
In addition to increasing the size and reach of its portfolio, IFC is focusing more explicitly on the
development impact of its clients. Its performance standards on social and environmental
sustainability were launched in 2006 and have become a global benchmark. Similar approaches have
been adopted by over 30 OECD Export Credit Agencies, some 15 European DFIs and over 70
financial institutions that are signatories of the Equator Principles, which cover some 75 percent of
all project-financing in developing countries.
The regional development banks demonstrate similar trends and actions. According to the World
Bank, since 2000, non-sovereign lending of the MDBs has been their fastest growing portfolio, albeit
from a small base.14
Boxes 6 and 7 provide brief summaries of the some of the inclusive markets efforts being undertaken
by the IFC and Inter American Development Bank.

Box 6: The International Finance Corporation:
Scaling up commitment to inclusive business and base of the pyramid markets
The private sector arm of the World companies to establish conducive rules IFC also provides direct support to large
Bank Group, IFC’s mission is to “create through its investment climate division and national and multinational firms doing
opportunity for people to escape poverty and social and environmental performance inclusive business. IFC offers both advisory
improve their lives by promoting open and standards, respectively. It builds the capacity and commercial investment services,
competitive markets in developing countries; of a wide variety of market players through including debt and equity – making the
supporting companies and other private initiatives ranging from the Global Credit organization fairly unique among development
sector partners where there is a gap; and Bureau Program to SME Management agencies, which typically have limited ability
helping to generate productive jobs and Solutions. It works to put the knowledge to invest commercially or at scale in the
deliver essential services to the underserved.” generated through its experience into the private sector. Particularly powerful is IFC’s
public domain through publications such ability to combine investment with the
IFC uses a variety of levers in pursuit of its as The SME Banking Knowledge Guide, knowledge, capacity, and enabling
mission, working across market systems to The Business of Health in Africa, and The Next environment work needed for that
make them more inclusive of the poor. For 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at investment to succeed.
example, IFC works with governments and the Base of the Pyramid.
Source: Information accessed from institution’s websites and materials.
Box 7: The Inter-American Development Bank’s Opportunities for the Majority
Established in 1959, the Inter-American evaluate prospective borrowers from low- Alongside its financing and technical
Development Bank (IDB) is a multilateral income segments based on their utility bill assistance activities, OMJ also works to
development finance institution owned by payment histories, accessed via an agreement promote the concept of inclusive business
48 shareholder governments including the with Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM) – through partnerships such as the Network for
governments of its 26 borrowing countries the second largest electricity company in Inclusive Markets (with the World Resources
in Latin America and the Caribbean. Colombia, with additional operations in Institute and the AVINA Foundation) and the
water, sewer, natural gas, and telecomms. Global Impact Investing Network (with the
While IDB lends significant sums to national, EPM had noticed that many of its 1.7 million Rockefeller Foundation and a host of other
provincial, state, and municipal governments, customers paid their bills on time, but could partners). Most recently, IDB has initiated a
it also invests in the private sector. One private not access the formal financial system for Corporate Leaders Program, which will work
sector-oriented initiative is its Opportunities example because they had informal jobs or with intrapreneurs within large firms to
for the Majority Initiative, launched in July lacked collateral. With a $10 million loan develop new inclusive business plans.
2007. Opportunities for the Majority (OMJ) from OMJ, Financiación Social aims to bring
promotes and finances inclusive business 190,000 more people into the formal financial
models in order to improve living standards system by 2015.
for the 360 million people at the base of the
economic pyramid in the region. OMJ loans typically range from $5 and $10
million with tenors of up to 15 years, and
OMJ is a $250 million facility offering are provided at market rates. OMJ financing
medium- to long-term loans and partial credit typically covers between 25 and 40% of the
guarantees to companies with inclusive project cost. In addition to financing, OMJ
business models that are financially sound mobilizes grant funding to cover technical
and capable of reaching scale. A key strategy assistance projects such as capacity-building,
has been to invest in models that leverage feasibility studies, and pilots. By mid 2009,
existing platforms, such as utilities and the initiative had exceeded $100 million in
microfinance institutions, to reach scale approved loans and credit guarantees, and
quickly. Colombia’s Financiación Social anticipated reaching the full $250 by the
(“Social Financing”), for example, is a trust end of 2010.
fund managed by two large banks that
Source: Information accessed from institution’s websites and materials.

Bilateral donors
Members of OECD’s Development Assistance Committee have employed a variety of new strategies,
engagement models, and financial and technical assistance facilities to promote private-sector
development and to leverage private resources in efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) and enhance humanitarian assistance. A 2009 study by the U.S.-based Business Civic
Leadership Center reviewed the private sector engagement strategies of 10 bilateral agencies that account
for some 75 percent of ODA.15 It found that all of these agencies had increased the resources focused on
the private sector and a majority had established dedicated units, funds and initiatives to partner with
business. In 2010, USAID, DFID, the Swedish, Dutch, German and Australian development agencies
all made public announcements of either an increase in funding for private sector development or the
creation of dedicated units to support market-based solutions and cooperation with the private sector.
Some donor governments have also played a crucial convening and funding role in supporting initiatives
to promote more responsible global business standards and practices in areas such as human rights, labor
and the environment. They have done so through a combination of:
• Funding responsible business initiatives within multilateral organizations – such as the work of the
UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights and the UN Global
Compact;
• Supporting the work on nonprofit organizations that are either playing a watchdog role in promoting
greater corporate responsibility and accountability, or establishing more market-based approaches
such as competitive rankings, indices and certification schemes. One successful example of the latter
is the Access to Medicines Index, which is a Dutch-based nonprofit foundation that has developed
and promoted an annual ranking of pharmaceutical companies based on their commitment and
performance in improving access to medicines. Another successful example has been the Publish
What You Pay campaign, which has influenced the growing movement towards accountability and
transparency in the mining and energy sectors. Donor agencies have also been active supporters of
ethical trade initiatives and NGOs working in the area of improving factory and farming standards.
• Convening new multi-stakeholder initiatives. Some donors have also created new corporate
accountability initiatives that are either hosted in the donor agency or incubated there before being
established as an independent entity. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the
Medicines Transparency Initiative are two examples.
Three of the most strategic types of intervention that bilateral (and other) donors can take to overcome
barriers to building more inclusive markets are as follows:
• Establishing dedicated units focused on private sector development or inclusive markets
• Creating challenge and innovation funds
• Building or strengthening market-based intermediaries in developing countries.
Boxes 8, 9 and 10 illustrate some of these in practice. A few of them, such as GTZ’s Public-Private
Partnerships Program, USAID’s Global Development Alliance and DFID’s Challenge Funds have now
been underway for 10 years and offer useful lessons on what has worked and what has not, having
catalyzed some 3,500 projects between them.

Box 8: The Creation of Dedicated Partnership and Business Alliance Units:
The examples of GTZ, USAID and Danida
GTZ’s Public Private Partnership USAID’s Global Development Alliance Danida’s Innovative Partnerships for
Program Since its founding in 2001, the Global Development program
GTZ supports engagement with the private Development Alliance at the US Agency for In 2008, the Danish Government was one
sector through the agency’s Public Private International Development has formed and of the first in the world to publicly
Partnerships unit. Since inception in 1999, supported more than 680 alliances with announce a national ‘Action Plan for
GTZ has dedicated 87.8 million Euros to 1700 distinct partners, leveraging over $9 Corporate Social Responsibility’. Its aim is
partnerships, acquiring commitments of billion. GDA’s are intended to pair U.S. to promote corporate responsibility both at
more than 115.8 million Euros from private foreign assistance with the resources, home and abroad and to help Danish
partners and 34.8 million Euros from third expertise and reach of the private sector. companies reap benefits from being at the
parties, totaling 238.4 million euros Alliances are not limited to private sector vanguard of international good practice in
dedicated to public-private partnership actors, however. GDAs involve areas of social and environmental
programs. GTZ works with business corporations, foundations and NGOs to excellence. In addition to working with its
associations and individual firms in solve public problems and create value. companies domestically, the government
developing countries to develop, finance USAID considers the most significant has developed a number of programs and
and implement jointly. GTZ has supported aspects of GDAs to be the scalability and funds to create incentives for Danish
more than 500 projects through its PPP sustainability of the projects undertaken. companies to invest in and develop
program. GDA supports a training program for inclusive business models and
foreign service officers across their system, environmental solutions for developing
Partnerships range from facilitating launch training them in how alliances work, and countries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
of small or medium enterprises to broader how to conquer logistical issues like Denmark, through its development agency
sector or systems alliances that tackle a far procurement, negotiation and risk Danida has established the Innovative
reaching public problem. A growing management. The training program has Partnerships for Development (IDP)
number of projects are multinational – thus helped to limit disruption of alliances Program. The core goal of the IDP program
far, around 10 per cent of GTZ PPP projects, caused by the rotation system of the is to support partnerships between Danish
with total funding of around 49 million officers. The USAID model, “relies upon companies and the private, public and civil
Euros, are being implemented on a market-based solutions to advance broader society organizations in developing
multinational basis. GTZ has supported development objectives.” Partnerships countries and to help companies make
PPPs focused on rural electrification, range from supporting social innovators in innovative, commercially viable business
provision of social security, establishing the Middle East with Synergos to the investments that support development in
distribution and trading programs for Municipal Development Program in Angola these countries. The program offers several
agriculture and developing local with Chevron to facilitate local facilities to provide companies with advice,
qualification programs for consumer goods development and improve relationships technical assistance and information on co-
industries. between local communities and financing opportunities. These include a
governments. Strategic CSR Facility, a Base of the Pyramid
Facility and the Danida Business-to-
Business (B2B) program. In addition to
working with companies and developing
country partners on a bilateral basis,
Danida has also been a key partner in
supporting multilateral government
initiatives aimed at spreading responsible
business standards in the areas of human
rights, labor and the environment.

Box 9: Creating challenge funds and inclusive business facilities:
The examples of DFID, AusAID and DANIDA
Increasingly used by bilateral donors, private Examples of include: identification, research, education and
sector challenge funds make grants available • Business Innovation Facility (BIF): training, equipment, technical assistance,
to firms that need extra support to develop Capitalized by DFID, BIF targets companies and knowledge-sharing.
new, pro-poor or inclusive business models. wishing to develop inclusive business
Support is awarded on a competitive basis models in Bangladesh, India, Malawi, A variation of challenge funds is donor-led or
and can be financial or in-kind, in the form of Nigeria, and Zambia. The facility offers supported prizes, awards and development
technical assistance. financial assistance to help cover the costs marketplaces, where companies and in many
of feasibility studies and implementation cases social enterprises and market-oriented
Whereas most aid money flows through plans; partnership brokering; and nonprofit organizations can apply for financial
governments or not-for-profit channels, knowledge-sharing. awards and technical assistance focused on
private sector challenge funds enable donors particular development challenges and/or
to drive development through commercially • Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF): regions. The G20 SME Finance Challenge; the
viable business models. While not all AECF is a $50-100 million fund capitalized World Bank’s Development Marketplace and
investments will succeed, those that do will be by DFID, AusAID, NMFA, the Consultative the World Bank, AFD, Gates Foundation
self-sustaining and have the power to go to Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP), and ‘Marketplace on Innovative Financial Solutions
scale – without further infusions of aid. For the International Fund for Agricultural for Development’ are all examples of this
example, the UK Department for International Development (IFAD). The fund is intended to emerging model.
Development’s Financial Sector Deepening strengthen value chains that link rural areas
Challenge Fund catalyzed a number of with local and international markets, with
successful models, including Vodafone’s well- specific focus areas such as research-based
known M-PESA service in Kenya. M-PESA now agribusiness, renewable energy, rural
reaches more than 18 million people with financial services, and development corridors.
secure and convenient mobile money transfer
and increasingly other services as well, such as • Enterprise Challenge Fund for the
savings (in partnership with Equity Bank) and Pacific and Southeast Asia (ECF): An
crop insurance (in partnership with Syngenta). initiative of AusAID, ECF has provided
More than $375 million flows through the AU$14.5 million to seed business ventures
M-PESA system every month. with pro-poor outcomes that cannot obtain
commercial financing. Investments have
Private sector and inclusive markets challenge included agribusiness, financial services,
funds have been organized around specific and other projects intended to create jobs
development priorities (like financial inclusion, and market linkages for low-income
SME development, and agriculture) and individuals and entrepreneurs.
around particular countries or regions (such as
Ghana, Zimbabwe, VietNam and the Pacific • Innovative Partnerships for
and Southeast Asia). The UK Department for Development (IPD): Danida’s IPD program
International Development (DFID) has been a includes a Base of the Pyramid (BOP) Facility
leader in the use of challenge funds, with the which supports Danish companies and their
Australian Government Overseas Aid Program developing country partners to develop
(AusAID), the Danish Ministry of Foreign business models that offer quality products
Affairs (Danida), and the Netherlands Ministry and services to low-income consumers
of Foreign Affairs (NMFA) also creating or within the framework of the Millennium
contributing to a number of funds. Development Goals. The facility contributes
up to 60% of the costs of partner
Sources: Donor agency websites and published materials

Box 10: Strengthening developing country institutions to make markets work for the poor (M4P):
The ExampleS of the FinMark Trust and TradeMark East Africa
The FinMark Trust practical tools. FinScope, for example, TradeMark East Africa (TMEA) was
In 2000, DFID and SDC funded the measures the degree to which poor people’s established in 2010 with support from the
development of an analytical framework to financial services needs are being met by the governments of the United Kingdom,
guide interventions to make market systems market, and enables private sector players to Denmark, Sweden and Belgium to support
more inclusive of the poor – to enable the develop new services that expand the access the East Africa Community Secretariat, and
poor to participate in and benefit from formal frontier. In Namibia, for instance, Bank East African governments, companies and
economies. The framework they developed is Windhoek used FinScope to develop a low- civil society organizations to advance and
summarized in Part One of the report. income savings product; in Zambia, African benefit from the process of economic
Life Assurance Zambia used the tool to integration in East Africa. The initiative is
Since then this framework, “Making Markets develop a funeral insurance policy for the based in Nairobi with offices throughout the
Work for the Poor” or M4P, has been used in informal sector. Another tool, Policy Lens, region. It aims to provide a multi-donor
programs ranging from the business services helps determine the impact of proposed platform for scaling-up grant assistance to
sector in Bangladesh (Katalyst) to the apparel, legislation, and was used to evaluate the East Africa on regional integration, transport
tourism, and agribusiness sectors in Southern Banks Act, the Dedicated Banks Bill, and the corridors and trade-related infrastructure,
Africa (ComMark). Cooperative Banks Act. trade facilitation, export development,
regional investment, and coping with the
A particularly successful example is South To a more limited extent, FinMark provided social and environmental adjustment costs
Africa’s FinMark Trust, whose mission is incentives for innovation to private sector of deeper integration and rapid export-led
“making financial markets work for the poor.” firms developing new financial products and growth. By 2015, TMEA is aiming to reduce
FinMark was set up in 2002 as an independent services for low-income markets. For example, transport costs by 15 percent and increase
trust with an initial 5-year, £5 million grant the organization provided subsidized the share of intra-regional trade as a total of
from DFID, which has since been extended. technical assistance to mobile transactions East African trade by 25 percent.
DFID occupies an observer’s seat on the Board, provider Wizzit in the company’s start-up
which comprises 5 well-respected local phases. A key component of TMEA’s mandate is to
trustees including FinMark’s full-time CEO. support business and civil society to make a
FinMark sees itself as a transitional institution strong contribution to progressing the
FinMark is headquartered in Johannesburg, which will phase out as and when the regional integration agenda, recognizing that
and a significant portion of its activity and desired changes are achieved. Already their involvement is a vital element in
impact have taken place in South Africa, FinMark has spun off two stand-alone ensuring that trade integration is sustainable
where a confluence of political and social organizations, the Center for Financial and poverty reducing. TMEA aims to provide
factors such as the end of apartheid and Black Regulation and Inclusion focused on financial long term financial and technical assistance
Economic Empowerment (BEE) legislation regulation and the insurance sub-sector in to key organizations to enable them to
created an environment ripe for its work. South Africa, and FinMark Trust Zambia Ltd, provide important input and analysis on the
However, FinMark’s original remit spanned a dedicated entity whose mission is making regional program.
Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Swaziland as financial markets work for the poor in
well and now the organization has even more Zambia.
of a pan-African orientation.
FinMark functions as a think tank, engaging in

policy advocacy and facilitating business-
government dialogue on the basis of
internationally-recognized research and
analysis. The organization has also
transformed its research into a number of
Sources: Sources: Initiative websites and materials, Business Action for Africa, CSR Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School

New donors
A shift in the balance of global economic power has led an increase in development resources coming
from countries such as China, India, South Korea, Turkey, Brazil and the oil-rich Gulf States. This
has led to substantial growth in south-south cooperation: aid, trade and investment to developing
countries from these new economic powers. Many of these new development partners are focusing
their efforts on infrastructure, private sector development and economic growth.
From 1995 to 2008, net official development aid (ODA) disbursement from new donors increased
from US$1 billion to US$14.3 billion, and from 1.7 percent of total public global aid flows to 11.8
percent. According to some estimates, they will provide 15-20 percent of the world’s ODA by 2010.16
If south-south trade and investment flows are added to this number the change is substantial. In the
case of Chinese aid and investment in Africa, for example, from 2002 to 2007, China offered over
US$33 billion worth of government-sponsored aid and investment, over half for infrastructure
projects, to African countries.17 China’s bilateral trade with Africa is now estimated at US$107
billion-a-year, and in 2009, “the Chinese Ministry of Commerce reported that about 1,000 Chinese
enterprises do business in Africa, spanning fields such as extractive industries, trade, transportation,
agriculture, and processing of agricultural products.”18
The growing importance of south-south cooperation, both between governments and between
companies in middle-income and low-income countries cannot be underestimated. It is still unclear
what the implications will be for pro-poor growth and sustainable development, but this is clearly a
trend that requires greater analysis in the coming years. Likewise there is a need to better understand
some of the collaborative platforms and business partnership models that are starting to emerge. One
example is the China-Africa Business Council, which was launched in 2005. Its joint founders were
the China Society for the Promotion of the Guangcai Program, UNDP, the Chinese Ministry of
Commerce and China International Center for Economic and Technical Exchanges. The Council has
been established as an NGO and views non-state owned businesses as its key participants. CABC’s
stated aim is to build direct business linkages and technical cooperation between Chinese and African
companies, including the sharing of business standards embodied in the UN Global Compact’s 10
Principles for human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption. It has initially focused on
Cameroon, Madagascar, Namibia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Kenya. Similar
collaborative platforms are beginning to emerge between India, Brazil and Africa.

III. PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS
Private philanthropic foundations working in the field of international development and

humanitarian assistance can play a vital role in helping governments, private enterprises and the poor
to overcome barriers to building more inclusive and sustainable markets.
Foundations are usually independent, nonprofit entities with a clear social mission. They have the
advantage of not needing to answer to short-term shareholder demands or the short-term pressures
of electoral cycles. And in an era following unprecedented private wealth creation, many of them
have substantial resources to contribute, either as grants in meeting humanitarian needs or as social
investments in catalyzing social innovation.
These factors enable many private foundations to take the long-term perspective that is often
essential for sustained development to occur. They make it easier for foundations to take risks. They
also facilitate ‘market-making’ and ‘gap-filling’ activities – enabling foundations to address problems
that are due to market failures or governance gaps, and that are not being adequately addressed by
either the market or the state.
As Bill Gates points out, “Foundations are not needed in areas where capitalistic market signals work
well and the poorest aren’t left out. …Foundations provide something unique when they work on
behalf of the poor, who have no market power, or when they work in areas like health and education,
where the market doesn’t naturally work toward the right goals and where the innovation requires
long-term investments. These investments are high-risk and high-reward. But the reward isn’t
measured by financial gain it’s measured by the number of lives saved or people lifted out of
poverty.”19
There is great variety in terms of foundation governance and operating structures, and in their
cultures, experience and theories of change. Some foundations are grant-makers only, financing other
entities to implement projects and programs. Others are operating foundations that finance and
implement their own projects and programs. And others are a combination of the two. In terms of
culture, a growing number of foundations are taking a more performance-driven and social
investment or venture philanthropy approach compared to a more welfare-oriented charitable
approach – although both are needed and have a role to play.
Some of the foundations most active in global development have been in existence for fifty years or
more and have extensive on-the-ground experience, with the Aga Khan, Wellcome, Rockefeller and
Ford Foundations, being examples. Others have been created in the past few decades, many based on
the wealth created by the global information economy or in emerging economies rich in natural
resources.
There is no single global data source on private foundations, although it is possible to get some sense
of their aggregate impact from different national and regional databases. Evidence suggests that the
number of active foundations has increased markedly over the past two decades, as has the
proportion of foundation resources going to international development. In their paper on private
development assistance, Sam Worthington and Tony Pippa state, “The number of active foundations

in the United States increased from just over 22,000 in 1980 to almost 76,000 in 2008; close to two
thirds of the larger active foundations were created after 1989. The proportion of resources
contributed to international causes has also accelerated rapidly, the total amount increasing more
than 70 percent between 2002 and 2007. …The number of public benefit foundations in 13
European Union countries increased by more than 50 percent – to 95,000 – between 2001 and
2005.” 20
At the same time, there is evidence that foundations and philanthropic giving is also increasing
within developing countries, especially big emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico,
Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey, where there is great wealth being created alongside large
populations still living in poverty.
Although the number of foundations has increased dramatically, Worthington and Pippa point out
that their philanthropic resources are fairly concentrated, “In 2008, only 25 foundations in the U.S.
accounted for almost 25 percent of total giving. Also, in 2008, the top 10 foundations in thirteen
European Union countries held almost 25 percent of the foundation assets there.”21
There are a wide variety of ways that foundations can help to build more inclusive markets and
business models that empower the poor as producers, employees and consumers. At the risk of over-
simplification, these can be categorized under the following three broad and inter-related areas of
action:
1. Strengthening systems and building institutional and individual capacity
2. Catalyzing private innovation and market forces to make markets more inclusive and sustainable
3. Improving quality and use of research, data and information
1. Strengthening systems and building institutional and individual capacity

Foundations can play a relatively neutral convening role in helping to make systems and institutions
work better for the poor, as well as building peoples’ individual capacity. For example, they can:
(i) Establish intermediary organizations, platforms and networks

Intermediaries – both market-makers and information-providers – are often important in making
markets work for the poor. Recent examples of private foundations helping to establish such
organizations include the creation of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) by the
Rockefeller and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation has also been
instrumental in establishing the Global Impact Investing Network, to build the field of impact
investing. Both of these foundations, together with others such as the Shell, Google and Lemelson
Foundations provided seed fund to establish the Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs
(ANDE), which is dedicated to building the field and leveraging money and expertise to invest in
small and growing business in developing economies, that can create both business value and
development impact. The work of the Rockefeller and Wellcome Foundations in health systems
strengthening is another example.

(ii) Convene and coordinate interventions along specific supply chains

Linked to the above, private foundations, often working in partnership with large corporations or
donor agencies can also help to make specific value chains more inclusive and/or sustainable. The
work being undertaken by the Gates Foundation in global health and agriculture is one example. The
value chain initiatives it is supporting along with others in cashews, coffee, fruit, cocoa and food
fortified provided in Part Four of the report. The Hewlett Foundation is taking a lead in support
research and convening joint efforts in the evolving area of agricultural corridors, with its TransFarm
Africa initiative, aimed at advancing the spread of sustainable and equitable commercial agriculture
along Africa’s “Development Corridors”. In Latin America, the AVINA Foundation is supporting a
number of market-oriented initiatives to build more inclusive markets in different industry sectors
and drive market-led solutions to deforestation in the Amazon. Its support for the Amazon Fund and
the Forum for the Sustainable Amazon, along with the Skoll Foundation, aims to harness the power
of markets to address the inter-related challenges of deforestation, climate change and poverty.
(iii) Directly build the capacity of the poor as service providers, producers, employees and
consumers
Foundations can invest in capacity building, education and awareness programs targeted directly at
low-income households and communities – especially in areas such as public health, education and
financial literacy. They can support the creation or strengthening of cooperatives, community
development foundations, and other types of aggregators that give the poor a platform to increase
their economic bargaining power and political voice. The Aga Khan Foundation has a longstanding
reputation in this area. It has spent many years building community-based institutions, local
economic institutions and the individual capacity of local health-workers, teachers and entrepreneurs
in the countries where it operates. And in doing so, it has demonstrated the long-term commitment
and persistence that is needed in such efforts. The work of the Aga Khan Foundation, and broader
Aga Khan Development Network, also offers a useful role model in terms of its longstanding
commitment to investing in market-oriented solutions and local enterprises and entrepreneurs,
alongside investments in education and social welfare.
2. Catalyzing private innovation and market forces to make markets more

inclusive and sustainable
There is growing attention on the role that foundations can play as social venture capitalists. This
was reviewed in Part Two in the context of corporate foundations, and is probably even more relevant
in the case of private foundations. There are opportunities to leverage foundation assets and balance
sheets in new ways through program related investments and mission investing, to support more
market-driven approaches to tackling social problems.
(i) Directly investing in social enterprises and promoting social entrepreneurship

A number of private foundations have played a key role in driving new approaches to – and renewed
interest in – entrepreneurship as a catalyst for development and poverty alleviation. Leaders have
included the Skoll, Schwab, AVINA and Lemelson Foundations and the Omidyar Network and
Google.org.

(ii) Partnering directly with companies to foster research, development and

innovation
A small vanguard of private foundations are also partnering directly with universities and individual
companies, especially research-based corporations with strong reputations in science and technology
innovation for health, agriculture, water management and energy. They are looking at ways to create
incentives for commercial enterprises to undertake more R&D focused on meeting development
challenges. Some are also supporting efforts to improve science, technology, engineering and math
education, both in developed and developing countries. There is untapped potential in these areas,
which should be explored further for supporting global development.
3. Improving quality and use of research, data and information

One of the biggest obstacles to building more inclusive markets is the lack of reliable research data
and public information on what works and what doesn’t. There is also inadequate public information
on where and how public revenues and donor funds are being spent. Such research and information
provision can help to improve performance and development outcomes, increase accountability of
governments, donors and large corporations to citizens, and help to raise public awareness and
mobilize additional resources for development.
(i) Investing in research, impact assessment and policy analysis

Many foundations have a record of investing in R&D and supporting policy analysis in key sectors
and on key issues. This can be applied more effectively to supporting research, evaluation and policy
analysis and dialogue on issues most relevant to global development. There is also the need to
continue to address the longstanding challenge of building local R&D and policy capacity within
developing countries. Examples of leadership in this area include the The Think Tank Initiative. This
foundation-led effort has committed predictable, core funding of US$90 million over 10 years to 24
independent policy think tanks in the following African countries – Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia,
Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda. The initiative is supported
by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Canada, the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Another example is the European Foundation Initiative for African Research into Neglected Tropical
Diseases, a joint effort to fund African scientists who are conducting research on neglected tropical
diseases, which affect the lives of more than a billion people. Launched in 2007, participating
foundations are: Fondation Mérieux, Fondazione Cariplo, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Nuffield
Foundation and Volkswagen Stiftung.
These and similar efforts are needed to improve the quality and quantity of reliable data and
information in developing countries and to explore ways that market-based solutions can help to
address development challenges.

(ii) Raising public awareness about development and market-based solutions
Another area of growing importance where private foundations are taking a lead is the development
of public information campaigns, both within developing countries and in donor countries. These
can be crucial for informing and educating the poor about their rights and how to access specific
opportunities and essential products and services. In donor countries such campaigns can help to
inform voters about the benefits of aid and trade to build the necessary policy advocacy platforms
and political will to support budgets in these areas. As illustrated in earlier parts of the report such
campaigns, and the use of social media, can also help to mobilize citizens to get personally engaged
in supporting international development, through donating funds, volunteering time and buying
products that support livelihoods in developing countries. The United Nations Foundation is one
example of a private foundation that has played an active role in this area. More could be done.

IV. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS22
1. Non-governmental organizations as key development actors
The number, diversity, reach and influence of both domestic and foreign non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) have grown markedly in most developing countries over the past two decades.
This process has been facilitated by the emergence of more democratic and open societies, economic
liberalization and unprecedented communications capacity and ability to organize via the Internet and
global media.
These NGOs play a vital and multi-faceted role in poverty alleviation and development, with a wide
variation in size, scope and type of activity. Millions are tiny community-based organizations staffed
by volunteers and local citizens. A small but highly influential number are international networks
employing thousands of people with multi-million dollar budgets. They include social and political
movements, indigenous peoples’ groups, youth organizations, women’s groups, environmental, human
rights, development and humanitarian organizations, consumer groups, faith-based initiatives,
professional associations, philanthropic foundations, universities, policy think-tanks, and scientific
and research institutes.
Dr Lester M. Salamon, Director of the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University has
argued that, “We seem to be in the midst of a ‘global associational revolution’ – a massive upsurge of
organized voluntary private activity, of structured citizen action outside the boundaries of the market
and the state, that I am convinced will prove to be as momentous a feature of the late 20th Century
as the rise of the nation-state was of the late 19th Century.”23
NGOs’ activities range from the long-term processes of strengthening governance and civil society,
supporting sustainable development and facilitating peace building to emergency response and disaster
relief. Some focus on project implementation and service delivery, others on research and policy
advocacy. Those that implement projects range from the provision of charity and social welfare to
NGOs that employ market-based approaches. From a functional perspective, their activities include
the following:
• Advocacy, Analysis and Awareness Raising – acting as a voice for people both on a representative
and self-appointed basis; researching, analyzing and informing the public about issues; mobilizing
citizen action through media campaigns and other forms of activism; and lobbying business leaders
and policymakers.
• Brokerage – acting as an intermediary between different sectors and groups.
• Conflict Resolution – acting as a mediator and facilitator.
• Capacity Building – providing education, training and information to strengthen individual
community leaders and civic institutions.
• Community Organizing – helping local leaders and low-income economic actors to organize
themselves collectively thereby improving their economic bargaining power and political voice.
• Delivery of Services – operational delivery of essential humanitarian, development and/or social
services.
• Evaluation and Monitoring – serving as a ‘watchdog’ or third party/independent ‘auditor’, both
invited and uninvited, of government and corporate performance, accountability and transparency.

The Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict stated in its final report, “Non-
governmental organizations at their best provide a vast array of human services unmatched by either
government or the market, and they are self-designated advocates for action on virtually all matters
of public concern.”24
As with the private sector, domestic NGOs are the essential foundation on which a strong and
effective civil society is built. Strengthening the legal and regulatory enabling environment and
building the institutional capacity and financial sustainability of these domestic players is an essential
pillar for ensuring sustained and inclusive development. At the same time, international NGOs, like
their transnational corporate counterparts, play an important role in transferring financial, technical
and other resources to developing countries and in sharing lessons and spreading standards and good
practices. The combined scale of their activities is significant.
InterAction is the largest coalition of U.S.-based international NGOs. It has over 170 members that
collectively account for the majority of private nonprofit resources going to U.S.-supported
development and relief programs. It offers the following statistics: “In Fiscal Year 2006, InterAction
members collectively had at least:
• $8.8 billion in total revenue for international programs
• $8.7 billion in total international expenses
• $8.0 billion (92 percent of expenses) for programs in developing countries
• 105,004 staff, working in the U.S. and overseas
• 13.6 million individual donors.25
As outlined earlier in this report, The 2010 Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances published
by the Hudson Institute estimates that U.S.-based international NGOs transferred some $11.8
billion to developing countries in 2008 in cash, volunteering and gifts-in-kind.26 This figure does not
include religious congregations, foundations, universities and corporate philanthropy, which bring
the total to $33.7 billion.
While U.S.-based NGOs are the predominant source of private development resources going to
developing countries they are by no means the only one. A 2010 Brookings paper notes:
“Historically, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) have had North
American or European roots, but increasingly they are a global phenomenon. For
example, BRAC, a massive Bangladesh INGO, now has a significant U.S. presence and
programs in Africa and throughout the subcontinent. Major INGOs now operate with
donations from such diverse publics as the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the European
Union, India, South Africa, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, among
others. Many of the largest are part of international federations and alliances such as
Oxfam International, World Vision International, Catholic Relief Services, and Save
the Children International. Estimates put the number of INGO secretariats around
18,000, and the development-focused revenues of the sector now exceed those of the
United Nations system.”27

In addition to the growth in diversity and resources of these INGOs, they have also become more
independent. The Brookings paper adds:
“It has been common to think of INGOs as implementers of Official Development
Assistance, using donor government support to provide public services. Over the past
decade, however, shifts in their funding structure have made them independent actors
in their own right. Their revenue breakdown now nears 70 percent private
contributions against 30 percent government funding, though the ratio of ODA to
private funding varies widely across organizations.”28
In summary, both domestic and international NGOs provide substantial financial and in-kind
resources for development and poverty alleviation. They are also playing an increasingly important
role in engaging with the private sector, both collaboratively and confrontationally, and in support of
and against market-based solutions to development. Space permits only a brief overview of some of
the ways in which NGOs engage with the private sector, but the following offers a framework for
such engagement.
2. NGOs engaging with the private sector

NGOs engage in a wide variety of ways with companies and other private sector actors to achieve
development goals. Their engagement ranges from public campaigns against companies or industries
that are deemed to be undermining efforts to alleviate poverty, such as the instigation of lawsuits,
shareholder activism, demonstrations outside company facilities and media campaigns, to regular
consultation and collaboration. Collaboration itself varies widely from community-level partnerships
and more traditional philanthropic and volunteering arrangements, to cause-related and social
marketing initiatives, to cooperation along corporate value chains aimed at developing market-based
solutions, to strategic multi-issue and multi-country collaboration between groups of companies and
NGOs aimed at achieving common and mutually agreed goals.
Traditionally, business-NGO relationships were primarily characterised either by: ignorance or

disinterest (no common agenda or no awareness of a common agenda); confrontation
(disagreement on key issues and often no willingness to discuss or compromise); or traditional
philanthropy (the company donating money but otherwise having a ‘hands-off ’ approach to the
NGO). All three of these modes of interaction or lack of interaction remain valid – and will continue
to do so given the enormous diversity in types of NGOs, companies and issues being addressed. At
the same time, over the past two decades there have been a number of shifts in business-NGO
relations, especially in the environmental arena but increasingly on human rights, health, education
and other development issues:
• There has been growing dialogue and consultation in areas where there is disagreement or
different agendas, with the goal of trying to reach a common agenda or compromise in order to
achieve better environmental, human rights and/or development outcomes. In a number of cases,
confrontation has evolved not only to more regular dialogue and consultation, but also to formal
stakeholder agreements focused on mutual accountability. In some cases NGOs have establishing
monitoring and evaluation initiatives and even indices to track and benchmark company
performance on particular development issues.

• There has been a trend towards more strategic philanthropy and social investment, where
companies are engaging with NGOs on issues that are more strategic to their own business
interests and aligning their philanthropic giving and volunteering to these interests and to core
corporate competencies. Such interaction clearly requires closer and more sustained engagement,
mutual understanding, mutual benefit and proactive efforts to build trust between companies and
NGOs.
• There are increasing examples of NGOs and companies collaborating on a sustained and
strategic basis along the companies’ value chains in ways that are embedded or very closely aligned
to core business activities and that are supporting market-based solutions to development. These
collaborative efforts range from one-to-one alliances between an individual NGO and company
and the type of multi-stakeholder alliances that are profiled in Part Four of the report.
Evolving business-NGO relationships
CONFRONTATION IGNORANCE TRADITIONAL PHILANTHROPY
Dialogue, consultation and Innovative funding mechanisms/

monitoring strategic philanthropy
COLLABORATION
SHAPING THE ENABLING MUTUAL LEARNING DELIVERING

ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION & CAPACITY PRACTICAL
i.e. awareness raising, BUILDING PROJECTS
advocacy, public policy i.e. resource
dialogue mobilization and
joint project
implementation
Source: Adapted from Nelson. J, The Business of Peace, The International Business Leaders Forum with International Alert. London: 2001
These trends do not mean that a partnership or dialogue between a company and NGO cannot
revert back to confrontation, or that there is no longer any traditional, ‘hands-off ’ philanthropy
happening. Some of the large international NGOs will be engaging with different companies along
the full spectrum of confrontation to collaboration, and even engaging in different ways with the
same company at the same time. It does mean, however, that companies and NGOs are recognising
the potential benefits of working together to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of addressing
common development challenges that are too great for any one sector to address alone.

Campaigning NGOs and trade unions have played a particularly important role in changing societal
expectations of business by influencing the views and choices of consumers, employees, investors,
regulators, students and the general public. Although public campaigns focused on corporations have
been a longstanding feature of democratic and open civil societies, in the past decade they have grown
markedly in scope, number and impact as a result of factors such as the increased reach of the global
media and Internet, growing public awareness of issues beyond peoples’ own immediate community
or country, and the growing reach, influence and power, both real and perceived, of business itself.
From the perspective of corporate accountability – at least for companies operating in open,
democratic societies – business is increasingly held to account not only in the courts of law, but also
in the court of public opinion. A ‘court’ that is fundamentally shaped by the media and NGOs,
ranging from sophisticated global campaigns to grassroots activism. There are a growing number of
examples in industry sectors ranging from oil and mining to food and pharmaceuticals, in which
companies have faced media campaigns or litigation in which their operations in question have been
in compliance with relevant national or international law, but they have been unable to gain sufficient
trust or legitimacy from the general public or key stakeholder groups to sustain these operations in an
effective and profitable manner. Some NGOs have also established competitive rankings and indices
to promote responsible business behavior such as the Access to Medicines Index.
At the risk of over-simplifying a highly varied and complex set of relationships, the following table
illustrates four broad categories of engagement between NGOs and companies aimed at improving
development outcomes and poverty alleviation:
• Confrontation
• Communication
• Consultation
• Cooperation.
As already outlined, these different categories are not mutually exclusive and often the same NGO
and same company will be engaged with each other in several different ways. Equally, there can be
enormous variation within each category in terms of the degree, intensity and operational
implications of the engagement. Confrontational modes of engagement, for example, can range from
major lawsuits to a local media campaign, or from a labor strike or community conflict that slows
down a company’s operations to one that closes these operations. Likewise, cooperation can range
from working together on a specific project in a specific community to a global industry-wide alliance
addressing a complex and strategic issue such as revenue transparency, corruption, biodiversity or
climate change. All four modes of engagement can be relevant at the local project or community-
level, the national level or internationally, and they can be relevant for individual NGO engagement
with an individual company, or collective types of engagement involving groups of NGOs and/or
companies.

Examples of NGO engagement with the private sector to promote more inclusive and sustainable markets and
business models
Mode of engagement Types of activity
CONFRONTATION • Lawsuits, litigation and other legally-driven or supported actions;

Antagonistic relationships • Media, on-line and other campaigns targeted at the influencing the reputation of companies
• Campaigns targeted at major investors or bankers encouraging them to disinvest from specific projects
and/or companies
• Examples include: Campaigns against extractive companies for real and perceived environmental and human
rights abuses; against the introduction of genetically modified products by agribusiness and life sciences
companies; against pharmaceutical companies on access to essential drugs and intellectual property issues;
against banks for lending practices that are deemed to undermine development or to exploit the poor etc.
COMMUNICATION • Regular reporting and/or information availability from the companies or from specific projects.
One way information flows • Site visits for NGOs and community leaders
• Independent research studies by NGOs on specific projects, companies or industry sectors. There are several
hundred NGO research reports on different industry sectors or individual companies relating to
development, human rights and environmental issues. Some underpin campaigns, others are based on the
cooperation and engagement of the company itself
• NGO-led indices, report cards and public benchmarking initiatives aimed at raising awareness of the
comparative performance of companies within specific industry sectors or related to specific development
challenges. Often managed in cooperation with the media and online platforms. Examples include the
Access to Medicines and Carbon Disclosure Projects)
CONSULTATION • Community or project-level consultation structures. Many companies with a physical ‘footprint’ in
Two-way dialogue and structured developing countries, especially in the extractive sector, have implemented such structures.
processes to reach agreement on crucial • Company stakeholder advisory committees or councils
issues
• Strategic, industry-wide or national consultation multi-stakeholder dialogue mechanisms
COOPERATION • Strategic philanthropy, volunteering community investment initiatives that harnesses core corporate
Formal agreements to work together competencies and aligns with core business interests – often with a focus on local economic development
in a mutually supportive manner and entrepreneurship; education and training; health and environmental issues.
• Global Trade Union Framework Agreements
• Companies and NGOs cooperating directly to build the capacity of low-income producers, consumers and
employees or to help them to establish cooperatives and other ways of organizing collectively
• NGOs partnering with companies on systemic value chain initiatives
• Companies and NGOs cooperating to raise public and/or consumer awareness and funds related to solving
development challenges
• Partnerships between NGOs and companies to jointly evaluate and monitor the development footprint of
companies
• Joint research projects, tools development, capacity building or training focused on building more inclusive
markets and inclusive business models
• Cooperation between companies and NGOs to strengthen the NGO’s capacity to deliver key development
outcomes through helping to strengthen the NGO’s management systems, technology platforms, marketing,
communications and fund-raising capabilities etc.
• Multi-stakeholder collaboration on more strategic issues, industry standards and public policy at a national,
regional or industry-wide level
Source: Adapted from Nelson, Jane. The Business of Peace. International Business Leaders Forum and International Alert, 2002 and from Nelson, Jane. The operation of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) in a world of corporate and other codes of conduct. Paper prepared for the 52nd Annual Conference Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
Institute. 2006.

V. ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
A growing number of academic institutions, think tanks and research-based organizations are
establishing dedicated centers or research programs and creating new curricula and student
engagement programs such as internships, service-based learning and study exchanges focused on the
role of the private sector in development. Many of these are aimed at supporting research, education,
capacity building, entrepreneurship and evidence-based policy making to promote the development
of more inclusive and sustainable markets and business models in developing countries.
A small sample of programs that have been established over the past decade include the following:
• The University of Cambridge’s Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL) is focused

on solving systemic sustainability and development challenges through ongoing engagement with
senior-level business leaders, civil society leaders and policymakers. At the heart of the program is
the Cambridge Sustainability Network, consisting of active alumni. CPSL offers the following
programs: Leaders Groups, policy and strategy groups for senior leaders aimed at achieving
systemic change at national or international levels; Senior Executives’ Seminars focused on
sustainability issues and strategy in areas such as the environment, climate change, poverty
alleviation, biodiversity and ecosystems services and sustainable cities; masters level programs,
which offer part-time accredited post-graduate certificates; collaboratories, which are structured
and facilitated processes focused on collective problem-solving around specific challenges; applied
research; and online learning.
• The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Legatum Center for Development and

Entrepreneurship focuses on studying and building capacity for innovation, social
entrepreneurship and market-based solutions as major drivers of poverty alleviation. Its
Fellowship program identifies outstanding students from a variety of discipline and supports their
studies and initiatives to create enterprise-based solutions to poverty in developing countries.
Functioning as an academic program that combines theoretical coursework and practical lab-
based and/or in-country fieldwork, the Legatum Center strives to empower entrepreneurs so that
they can be agents of positive change.
• UC Berkeley’s Blum Center for Developing Economies emphasizes partnership, training its
students to work hand-in-hand with development actors. It describes its role as follows: “The
Center uses a rigorous, multi-disciplinary approach that corresponds to the complex nature and
the intricate web of factors that cause poverty. It integrates innovation and social entrepreneurship
to develop appropriate, sustainable solutions to the toughest poverty challenges. The Blum Center
brings real-world issues faced by the poor to classroom, the lab and into the field.”
• The Indian School of Business’s Center for Emerging Markets Solutions (CEMS) focuses on
researching and developing curriculum on business solutions to alleviate poverty and create
inclusive wealth in key emerging markets. CEMS takes a systems approach to market-based
approaches to tackling development challenges in these economies. There are six main thematic
areas of focus: small business and finance; affordable housing and urbanization; education;
healthcare; energy; philanthropy. Major emphasis is placed on the linkages between these different
areas.

• Cornell University’s Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise takes a skill-based, practical
approach, working to equip students with the practical knowledge needed to be innovators on the
global level. Cornell’s SGE uses an immersion program to support theories learned in the
classroom, with students spending time working in low-income communities in developing
countries.
• The University of Michigan’s Base of the Pyramid (BoP) Initiative is located in the William
Davidson Institute for Emerging Economies. It describes its focus as follows: “exploring the
implications of BoP perspective for organizational strategy and poverty alleviation. The objectives
of the BoP Initiative include creating intellectual capital, developing venues for disseminating the
latest knowledge, providing educational opportunities to students and practitioners,
implementing activities in the field with our partners, and offering development consulting
services to bi- and multi-lateral organizations and foundations.”
These are a small sample of the variety of new centers and academic programs that are being
established to promote more inclusive markets and business models. Numerous business schools,
schools of public policy and schools of public health are also offering courses focused on these issues
and a number are starting to collaborate on joint research projects and student engagement
initiatives. Such collaborative efforts include the Aspen Institute’s Business in Society Program; the
Global Business School Network, which aims to build capacity of business schools in developing
countries; the Social Enterprise Network; the Financial Access Initiative; the Globally Responsible
Leaders Initiative, led by EFMD the European-based Management Development Network; and the
Principles for Responsible Management Education, led by the United Nations Global Compact.

PART FOUR
Collaborative Leadership to Achieve Scale
and Systemic Impact
Dramatically increasing the quantity and quality of inclusive business models and of private sector
engagement in tackling poverty will require a dynamic combination of both competition and
collaboration. New models of collaboration – from firm-level partnerships to systemic multi-
stakeholder alliances – can play a valuable role and they are likely to become an increasingly
important component of the global development architecture. The following section provides an
overview of some of these models.
I. THE NEED FOR COMPETITION AND COLLABORATION

II. FIRM-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS
1. Working with existing value chain partners
2. Partnering with non-traditional allies
3. Scaling firm-level partnerships
III. BUSINESS LEADERSHIP COALITIONS
IV.MULTI-STAKEHOLDER ALLIANCES IN ACTION

1. Making value chains more inclusive and sustainable
2. Implementing national and regional development priorities
3. Enhancing the effectiveness of humanitarian and social programs
4. Increasing accountability and transparency
5. Advocating for policy reform

“ The nature of global leadership in today’s world has evolved dramatically. Old patterns and
relationships of international influence are fragmenting. Foundations, NGOs, corporations, and
governments are less capable of instituting substantial social improvements from the top
down or by themselves. Globalization has decentralized leadership, often creating gaps in
service and support precisely where the global community’s needs are greatest. …
Leadership and influence are nuanced as a consequence. Partnerships are essential and
problem-solving must recognize, welcome, and mobilize the resources and actions of others.
Judith Rodin
President, The Rockefeller Foundation
Smart Globalization: Benefiting More People, More Fully, in More Places
2008

I. THE NEED FOR COMPETITION AND
COLLABORATION
Part Two provided an overview of some of the key approaches that individual private sector actors are
taking to develop market-based solutions and other models of engagement to help alleviate poverty.
Each of these models of engagement by individual private sector actors, whether they are large
corporations, high-impact entrepreneurs or private financiers, warrants further analysis and
experimentation. Part Three of the report provided some illustrative examples of what other
development actors are doing to catalyze and facilitate more inclusive business models and markets.
Many of these examples provide valuable new models and sources of innovation.
Ultimately, however, no matter how inspiring the individual examples are, they are currently nowhere
near sufficient to achieve the scale and systemic transformation that are needed to help four billion
people lift themselves out of poverty. There is the urgent need to move beyond pilot projects and
individual effort. Dramatically increasing the quantity and quality of inclusive business models and
of private sector engagement in poverty alleviation will require a dynamic combination of both
competition and collaboration.
Within an enabling policy environment, competition between private enterprises has the potential to
play a powerful role in building more inclusive and sustainable markets – and doing so at scale.
Competition spurs investment in research and innovation. It can facilitate the development,
dissemination and replication of new ‘game-changing’ technologies in sectors that are important for
poverty alleviation such as agriculture, food and nutrition, financial services, information and
telecommunications, healthcare, energy, clean water and sanitation.
The search for greater competitiveness and growth can expand opportunity and access to new
suppliers, low-income customer segments, and lower cost labor in developing countries.
And competition between firms can ensure continual improvement in the provision of products and
services, whether in terms of their ability to meet the needs of low-income producers and consumers in
ways that are commercially viable or to meet these needs in a more environmentally sustainable manner.
Yet, despite the hopeful examples that are emerging and some notable areas of transformational
impact such as mobile telecommunications, this type of competitive-driven business engagement in
poverty alleviation is not happening at the scale needed to make a sustained difference in the lives of
millions of poor people. As was outlined in Part One of the report, scale is impeded by a variety of
organizational, market development and governance barriers. These barriers result in serious
operational and system-level constraints at the level of individual private sector actors and specific
value chains in addition to undermining the overall potential of making markets work for the poor
more generally. They limit access to information, capacity and finance, decrease the incentives, and
increase the real and perceived risks and costs for business to engage the poor as producers, customers
and employees. They also make it difficult for companies to internalize the social and environmental
costs of their business activities within the current competitive contexts in which most companies
operate. At the same time, they make it difficult and costly, if not impossible, for the poor themselves
to access formal markets.

System-level constraints such as the lack of an enabling policy and regulatory environment and weak
institutions and capital market structures make it difficult for markets to work for the poor in
general. Organizational-level constraints and barriers to market development make it difficult for
individual inclusive business models to survive, let alone achieve scale and sustained impact.
At the organizational level, traditional mindsets, ‘skill sets’ and management structures prevail in
most large organizations in both the corporate and development communities. These often result in
metrics and incentives on both sides that are not supportive of new approaches to solving complex,
non-traditional business and development challenges. They may also result in distrust or ignorance
of each other, which makes it difficult for all but the most determined intrapreneurs to work with
non-traditional allies across traditional functional, sector and cultural boundaries.
One of the outcomes of this at the operational level has been that distrust of the ‘profit-motive’ has
resulted in many in the development community questioning mainstream business engagement in
development initiatives, especially that of large companies. Many rely instead on corporate
philanthropy as the primary mode of business engagement – if involving business at all. While
corporate philanthropy can be effective and strategic, as demonstrated in this report, it can rarely
attain the scale and impact of companies leveraging their core business activities, competencies and
resources to tackle development challenges. This requires harnessing the competitive and profit-
generating motives of private enterprise.
At the same time, companies themselves have tended to focus mainly on the contribution of their
philanthropic activities and on compliance with standards, rather than the links between
competitiveness and supporting international development goals. Few have systematically reviewed
the overall ‘development footprint’ of their core business activities and value chains. Even fewer have
looked at ways not only to minimize negative impacts, but also to proactively explore new business
opportunities and competitive advantage through serving the poor or solving a particular social or
environmental challenge.
As illustrated in Parts Two and Three, some leading companies and other development actors have
started to explore these competitive opportunities more strategically. Yet, they are the exception rather
than the norm and there is much untapped potential. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to harness
this potential without overcoming a variety of organizational market and governance barriers. Many
of these barriers cannot be addressed by individual companies or even governments and donors acting
alone – hence the need for collaboration.
The specific obstacles and types of collaboration needed to overcome them will clearly differ
depending on the industry sector, value chain, development challenge, policy context and operating
environment in question, but collaboration will often be a common theme. Box 1 provides some
examples of the type of collaborative solutions that could be used to tackle the three categories of
barriers – organizational, market and governance – introduced in Part One.

BOX 1: Examples of collaborative models to overcome key barriers
KEY BARRIERS TO BUILDING MORE INCLUSIVE COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS BEYOND INDIVIDUAL FIRMS
AND SUSTAINABLE MARKETS
Organizational Barriers
• Inadequate organizational structure and
capacity
Business Leadership Coalitions and Industry Associations
• Lack of leadership vision or support for Most organizational barriers need to be addressed at firm-level, but senior-level business coalitions –
new approaches within sectors and across sectors – can help to raise awareness among top managers, profile best
• Traditional mindset and culture practices, share lessons, provide training and technical assistance etc.
• Inadequate skills or competencies of
relevant staff Collectively Developed Measurement Frameworks
Initiatives such as the WBCSD-IFC ‘Measuring Impact’ Framework, Global Reporting Initiative, Global
• Lack of dedicated staff time and resources
Impact Investing Network, other stock exchange and investor platforms, and numerous sector-based
• Lack of metrics, evaluation approaches guidelines and standards are helping to establish common metrics and measurement frameworks.
and inappropriate performance rewards
or lack of internal incentives for social
innovation and risk-taking.
Joint Financing and Risk-Sharing Mechanisms

Market barriers ■ Sector-based innovation and challenge funds ■ Targeted R&D facilities for essential pro-poor products
and services ■ Public-private global program funds ■ Investor networks ■ Risk guarantee funds and
• Lack of access to appropriate and
initiatives
affordable finance and risk management
options
Aggregating mechanisms and intermediary platforms
• Lack of relevant market information and ■ Poor as Producers: Common supplier or producer databases; enterprise support centers; producer
price signals cooperatives; supplier collection centers and warehouses; shared information and communications
• Misperceptions of risks technology platforms; brokerage, matchmaking and peer networking events and platforms;
• Inadequate institutional and physical guaranteed or advance purchase agreements.
■ Poor as Consumers: Leveraging existing physical distribution infrastructure and consumer or social
infrastructure
networks; information technology platforms; public awareness and consumer education initiatives;
• Lack of a supportive enabling
demand pooling mechanisms; pooling of consumer risks and assets.
environment – weak rule of law, poor
■ Poor as Employees: Joint workforce development initiatives; vocational training institutions and on-
regulatory frameworks, lack of property
line platforms; shared labor market databases.
rights, corruption etc. – which in turn is
often the result of the governance gaps
Field-Building Initiatives
outlined below.
■ Capital market development for key asset classes and/or sectors ■ Creation of industry standards,
buying guidelines, certification schemes etc. ■ Joint research and technical assistance platforms.
Mutual Accountability and Transparency Initiatives

Governance Barriers (at local, national ■ Sector-based codes, standards and transparency initiatives within industries and key development
and global level) sectors
■ National or Regional – NEPAD African Peer Review Mechanism; Millennium Challenge Corporation
• Weak governance – low public
■ Anti-Corruption Initiatives and Integrity Pacts
administrative capacity and weak public
institutions
National or Sector Indicators and Rankings
• Governance that doesn’t serve the poor –
■ World Bank’s Doing Business initiative ■ UNDP’s Human Development Index ■ Corporate Responsibility
policies and regulations that are either
Indices – such as Responsible Investment Indexes (FTSE4Good, Dow Jones Sustainability etc.) and
unfair, uncertain, uncoordinated or
Access to Medicine Index
inappropriate and inflexible
• Bad governance – corruption, conflict, Collective Business Engagement in Public Policy Dialogue
cronyism and lack of human rights, ■ Targeted, pro-poor business leadership coalitions ■ Representative business bodies/ trade and
political rights and accountability industry associations
Joint Initiatives to Strengthen Public Institutions

Shared training, technology and capacity-building platforms
Common Public Advocacy Platforms targeted at specific development issues in donor countries and
developing countries.

In summary, new models of collaboration are essential for overcoming barriers to make competitive
business models and markets work more effectively for the poor and more effectively as a driver of
environmental sustainability and resilience in developing countries.
Drawing from his work on Responsible Competitiveness, Simon Zadek comments, “Collaboration lies
at the core of tomorrow’s responsible competitiveness strategies for companies, communities and
nations, whether to reach the poor, to secure vital water resources and a healthy workforce, to steward
standards to underpin trust in product safety and corporate governance, to drive forward coalitions
to fight bribery and corruption, or to mobilize support to strike the global deals needed to advance
more competitive low carbon growth and development”.1
Collaboration between the private sector and other development actors can also be a crucial tool for
achieving scale and more systemic impact in development solutions that are not market-based. It can
help make philanthropic and humanitarian efforts more effective and expand their reach. It can
harness resources to help improve and strengthen public governance and public institutions. And it
can support the financing and delivery of global public goods.
Over the past decade three notable trends have emerged in the types of collaborative models that are
being built by companies and other development actors to overcome barriers to scaling market-based
solutions and to more effectively mobilize private sector resources for development and poverty
alleviation.
These can be summarized as:
• New models of firm-level partnership with both existing value chain partners and with non-
traditional allies to jointly pursue development, social and/or environmental goals on either a
competitive or non-competitive basis and usually through individual business models, value
chains, community projects or philanthropic programs.
• New models of collective business leadership where groups of companies come together either
within the same industry or across industry sectors to jointly tackle social and or environmental
challenges.
• New models of systemic multi-stakeholder alliances among groups of private sector and other
development actors to implement system-level solutions to complex and often interdependent
development, social and/or environmental challenges aimed at achieving scale on a sector-wide,
national, regional or even global basis.
Each of these collaborative models is briefly reviewed in the following pages.

BOX 2: Potential process benefits of collaboration for development
Increasing Efficiency • Pooling scarce financial, managerial and technical resources, and so
eliminating duplication of cost and effort
• Optimizing “division of labor” and burden sharing
• Decreasing costs associated with conflict resolution and disagreement on
development policies and priorities
• Creating economies of scale
• Promoting technology co-operation
• Facilitating the sharing of information
• Overcoming institutional rigidities and bottlenecks
Improving Effectiveness • Leveraging greater amounts and a wider variety of skills and resources than
can be achieved by different groups and sectors acting alone
• Seeding or catalyzing market-based solutions that do not initially meet
commercial hurdle rates or will never do so due to market barriers
• Creating common standards and a level-playing field, supported by common
metrics and systems for monitoring, verification and reporting
• Accommodating broader perspectives and more creative approaches to
problem solving
• Addressing complex and interdependent problems in a more integrated and
comprehensive manner
• Shifting away from “command and control” to more informed joint goal-
setting
• Obtaining the “buy-in” of beneficiaries and local “ownership” of proposed
solutions, thereby ensuring greater sustainability of outcomes
• Offering more flexible, responsive and tailored solutions
• Speeding the development and implementation of innovative solutions
• Acting as a catalyst for policy innovation
Enhancing Empowerment • Improving the level and quality of consultation with other stakeholders in
society
• Facilitating broader participation in goal setting and problem solving,
especially including the poor and their representatives more directly
• Building the mutual trust needed to work through diverse, often conflicting
interests
• Building community-level institutional structures, networks and capacities to
enable greater local control of outcomes and resources
Source: Adapted from Nelson, Jane. Business as Partners in Development: Building wealth for countries, companies and communities. World Bank, UNDP
and International Business Leaders Forum, 1996; and Nelson, Jane and Zadek, Simon. Partnership Alchemy: New Social Partnerships in Europe. The
Copenhagen Centre, 2001.

II. FIRM-LEVEL PARTNERSHIPS
Formal collaboration is nothing new to private sector enterprises, especially large corporations. No
company, no matter how large, operates in isolation. Few can be competitive and successful at scale
without undertaking long-term contractual agreements, joint ventures, partnerships and other forms
of collaboration with other private enterprises, governments and research institutes along their value
chains and within their broader business ecosystem.
As illustrated in almost every individual example profiled in Part Two of this report, a number of
leading companies are now starting to harness existing partnerships along their own value chains to
support not only corporate strategy and competitiveness, but also to enhance their ability to have an
impact on key development, social and environmental outcomes – whether as a strategy to gain
competitiveness, manage risks, improve the operating context or explicitly support the public good.
Many of the same companies are also creating totally new alliances with non-traditional allies for
both competitive, philanthropic and policy reasons.
1. Working with existing value chain partners

First, companies are looking at the potential of their existing value chain relationships, which in the case
of large corporations can be extensive. Microsoft, for example, has some 750,000 partners in its business
ecosystem. The Coca-Cola System consists of the Coca-Cola Company and more than 300 bottling
partners, most of them independently owned, which in turn work with thousands of suppliers,
distributors and customers, from large supermarket chains to tiny micro-enterprises, enabling the
system to produce and deliver its 3,000 beverage brands in over 200 countries at a rate of 1.5 billion
servings a day. Unilever sources the raw materials and packaging for its products from more than 10,000
suppliers and non-production goods and services from some 100,000. Wal-Mart has an estimated
100,000 suppliers. In all four cases, and hundreds of other companies like them, these companies are
individually starting to work on a more systematic and strategic basis with their key business partners,
especially suppliers, to jointly achieve broader development, social and environmental goals.
Most infrastructure, utilities and extractive companies in the energy and mining sector also enter into
long-term joint ventures with their major competitors and host governments to implement multi-
million dollar projects in developing countries and have done so for many years. Again, they are
starting to leverage these existing ‘bilateral’ or joint venture business relationships to address key
development challenges at the level of individual projects, communities or regions.
Science and technology-based companies have long-standing and multi-dimensional partnerships

with research institutes and universities, and many are already targeting some of these to jointly
address global challenges from tackling poverty to climate change that have not traditionally been in
the realm of commercial R&D efforts.
Companies in several industry sectors are also working with their existing trade unions to develop
new types of global framework agreements between the company and trade union in order to scale
impact and improve working conditions on a more systematic and constructive international basis,
including in developing economies.

In short, leading companies are starting to leverage their existing value chain partnerships to develop
market-based solutions to a variety of development, social and environmental challenges. The scaling
potential of such firm-level partnerships with existing business or value chain partners is high.
2. Partnering with non-traditional allies

At the same time, leading companies are also exploring more strategic collaboration with non-
traditional allies, in particular non-governmental organizations in the development, environmental
and human rights arenas, private foundations, official development agencies, and community-based
organizations. Many of these non-traditional partnerships have the explicit goal of jointly developing
new market-based solutions to tackle complex challenges such as poverty, climate change, other
forms of environmental degradation, human rights abuses and conflict prevention and peace-
building.
We are also witnessing some non-traditional business-to-business (B2B) relationships at the firm-
level. Information and communications technology companies are working with financial
institutions, for example, to expand access to finance and market information. Mining and energy
companies are developing agreements with pharmaceutical companies, microfinance intermediaries
and local community organizations to expand their workplace health services to larger populations
in surrounding communities, and with local media companies to raise awareness of key public health
issues. Food and agribusiness companies are working with local banks, insurers and microfinance
intermediaries to help small-scale farmers gain access to financial services and risk management tools,
and with infrastructure companies to improve rural infrastructure, decrease post-harvest food losses,
and strengthen the resilience of food value chains.
3. Scaling firm-level partnerships

Almost every example cited in this report involves some combination of firm-level partnerships either
between the company and its existing business, government and research partners, or between the
company and non-traditional allies. Literally thousands of such partnerships already exist, the vast
majority of them less than ten years old.
Many of these partnerships are focused on expanding the development impact and gaining
competitiveness or on managing risk and minimizing negative social and environmental impacts of
the company’s core business activities and value chain.
At the same time, these firm-level partnerships – especially with non-traditional partners – are also
playing a crucial role in making corporate philanthropy, volunteering and community engagement
more strategic and scalable. And they have been essential in almost every successful example of
individual companies creating hybrid models that combine both commercial resources and goals with
social assets and objectives.

The proliferation of these firm-level partnerships offers one important pathway to scaling the impact
and sustainability of market-based solutions to development, social and environmental challenges.
Proliferation can occur within the value chains and business subsidiaries of the individual companies
that are already leading the way – either through the company broadening or deepening its existing
partnerships by expanding their reach and scope and replicating them in more locations, or through
the company creating new partnerships with both traditional and non-traditional partners that are
focused on finding solutions to tackle development, social and environmental challenges.
Another approach to scaling at the level of the individual firm will be to move beyond the leading
companies to engage many more private enterprises in implementing such partnerships especially
those based in developing countries themselves.
Consider the potential impact, for example, if the top 20-50 large domestic and foreign companies
in each developing country engaged in a systematic effort to first, review and harness their existing
business partnerships to expand the development footprint or multipliers of their current business
activities, and second, to explore a few non-traditional strategic partnerships along their value chain
or through their philanthropic efforts. Some of the collective national business initiatives described
in this section are implementing versions of this approach, but the untapped potential remains
immense.
Depending on the type of value chain and context, governments can create incentives for such firm-
level partnerships, from innovation funds and tax incentives to industry charters and covenants.
Donor agencies and private foundations can also work with individual companies or development
partners such as NGOs, social enterprises and community-based organizations to help convene and
facilitate these firm-level partnerships and support start-up efforts through challenge and innovation
funds, aimed at making them viable from both a business and development perspective. The
examples of the business challenge funds created by the UK Department for International
Development and the Aga Khan Foundation’s work enhancing the development impact of
companies in the Aga Khan Development Network are outlined in Part Three.
The second trend in new models of collaboration also offers potential for scaling up the development
contribution of markets and the private sector, and is the main focus for the remainder of this
chapter.

III. BUSINESS LEADERSHIP COALITIONS
One important trend over the past decade has been the emergence of systemic alliances between major
competitors in the same industry sector. From promoting fair trade and environmental sustainability in
agricultural commodities to improving working conditions in factories and advocating for clearer price
signals on carbon, even the best intentioned companies can only get so far individually. A number of
leading companies are engaging in system-level collaboration with other key private actors in their
industry sector, often competitors, in order to level the playing field and achieve scale. In many cases,
as illustrated in some of the following examples, government entities, foundations and social
enterprises play a vital convening role to enable such collaboration between competitors.
It is worth noting the important, but different role that is played by representative business bodies,
such as Chambers of Commerce, Employers Organizations and trade and industry associations. A
very brief overview of this role is provided in Box 3.
In a number of developing countries and industry sectors these representative business associations
make a vital contribution to development and to improving the ethical, social and environmental
performance of their members. This contribution could be further enhanced through greater support
from their counterparts in developed countries, and from multinational corporations and donor
agencies. Despite this important role, traditional representative business bodies are not the focus of
the business-led alliances and leadership coalitions profiled in this section. The examples in this
section are primarily initiatives that bring together groups of companies, either on their own or with
other development actors, with the explicit and in most cases dedicated purpose of directly tackling
issues related to corporate responsibility, development and poverty alleviation.
Professor David Grayson, Chair of Corporate Responsibility at Cranfield School of Management,

notes, “A variety of factors drive society’s increased expectations of business. One factor has been the
creation in many countries of business-led coalitions promoting corporate responsibility. These
coalitions can play a variety of roles including agenda-setter, broker between companies and causes,
identifier and disseminator of good practices, and standards-setter. The coalitions are part of civil
society and an emerging civil economy, whilst also being business-led and aligned to business
concerns and capacities. They are helping to change business behavior and are influencing ideas
about the purpose of business and how business interacts with other parts of society.”2
Business leadership coalitions usually consist of one of the following voluntary models, although
there are not always clear boundaries. Most of them operate at the level of Chief Executive Officers
(CEOs) or senior executives with company-wide responsibility for social and environmental
performance. They are often established as independent nonprofit organizations and many play a
vital intermediation role between the formal private sector, the government and/or development
actors and low-income communities, producers and consumers. All of them established with the
explicit and dedicated goal of collectively engaging business leaders and the resources and value
chains of their companies to support social, environmental and/or development goals:

BOX 3: Representative business bodies as national and global development actors
The mission of chambers of commerce, political and economic context in which they number of these representative industry
employers organizations and membership- operate, the strength of the industry sector or bodies have taken a more direct leadership
based trade and industry associations in most sector(s) they represent, and the leadership of role on these issues. Some, by their
countries and sectors, and at the global level both the institution itself and the business representative nature, adopt generally
through bodies such as the International members that it serves. Those that are conservative positions on global
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International progressive and influential are a vital development and environmental issues in
Organizations of Employers (IOE) and component of the institutional infrastructure order to meet their broad member interests,
international industry organizations, is to that is needed for effective private sector and may obstruct progress towards more
represent the business interests of their development and competitiveness. inclusive and sustainable markets. Others are
members in policy dialogues and rule-making, more progressive, depending on the sector
and to serve as networks – sharing contacts, In recent decades, as issues such as climate and issues at stake. Four areas where these
offering training, undertaking research, change and the environment, human rights, representative bodies play an especially
disseminating tools and business services, labor standards, global health and education important role that warrants support from
and so on. As with all institutions, their quality have become more central to core business governments, donor agencies, foundations
and influence varies widely depending on the interests, risks and opportunities, a growing and other business networks are as follows:
Building business associations in Chambers, employer organizations and trade associations based in developing countries
1 developing countries: themselves have a particularly crucial role to play – at a minimum advocating for and
supporting a sound business climate, let alone addressing broader issues related to the role of
business in poverty alleviation. Most have limited resources and capacity compared to their
developed country counterparts, but some are nonetheless running programs in areas such as
workplace training on HIV/AIDS, business linkages with small and micro-enterprises, cleaner
production and so on.
Spreading global norms, Trade and industry association efforts to improve social and environmental practices have
2 guidelines and standards: grown in the past decade. Examples that have scaled to a global level include the Responsible
Care Program led by the International Chemical Industries Association, which grew out of the
industry’s response to the Bhopal industrial accident in India in 1984, and the International
Council of Toy Industries’ CARE Process, which aims to improve working conditions in toy
factories, with a focus on China. In both cases the industry associations require members to
sign-up to these initiatives. There is scope in all industry sectors to do more.
Sharing tools, good practices Associations can implement programs, establish centers, and produce reports and training for
3 and building capacity: their members that focus on these issues. The Confederation of Indian Industry, for example,
offers a variety of development initiatives to its corporate members, with the goal of ensuring
that the country’s impressive growth is made more inclusive for all Indians. These programs
range from rural development and disaster management to education and skills development
and partnerships with NGOs. Another example is the Business Civic Leadership Center, in the
US Chamber of Commerce, is an example. BCLC runs programs on business and international
development and engages member companies around challenges such as humanitarian
response in the United States and internationally, community engagement and education.
Engaging in regional and global Representative business associations have been increasingly active at the global level
4 policy dialogue and rule-setting: representing industry positions in major conferences from the WTO Doha Trade Negotiations
to the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit. A few, most notably the IOE and ICC, have
permanent representative status with the UN system – the IOE being part of the International
Labour Organisation’s governance structure for over 50 years.

1. Industry-specific coalitions – where companies from a particular industry come together either
globally or nationally to address systemic development and/or environmental challenges that are
most relevant and material to their industry sector. Examples include the International Council
on Mining and Metals (ICMM); E7 (the major electricity companies focused on development
issues); IPIECA (the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues);
and the Equator Principles (bringing together the project finance banks).
2. Cross-industry coalitions focused on a specific issue or set of issues – where companies join
forces, either globally or on a national basis to tackle a clearly defined and specific development
challenge. The Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is an example,
which brings together over 200 corporations from around the world to leverage business
engagement in tackling these specific disease burdens. Likewise, the fifty or so national business
coalitions that have been established within countries to tackle these issues. The Initiative for
Global Development is another example mobilizing corporate leaders from different sectors (and
mostly from the United States and Africa) to support aid, trade and investment objectives.
3. Cross-industry leadership coalitions focused on a variety of development challenges – where

companies cooperate at different levels (i.e. global, national, local), in different geographies and on
a range of issues. Examples include the World Economic Forum and its global corporate leadership
group; the International Business Leaders Forum; the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development; Business for Social Responsibility; the Initiative for Global Development and its
Frontier 100 program; the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy; and the World
Environment Center.
4. Cross-industry coalitions focused on a specific region – where companies cooperate on

development issues either within a geographic region or focused on a geographic region. African
examples include the Africa-based NEPAD Business Group; the US-based Corporate Council on
Africa; the UK-based Business Action for Africa; and the China-based China-Africa Business
Council.
5. National cross-industry coalitions – where companies from different industry sector join forces
in a particular country to address systemic development and/or environmental issues most
relevant to that location. Examples of such initiatives are being established in a number of
developing countries from Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines to Tanzania, South Africa and
Brazil. Box 4 gives the examples of three such coalitions, The National Business Initiative in South
Africa and Philippines Business for Social Progress and Instituto Ethos in Brazil.

Box 4: Corporate leaders collaborating to support national development goals in South Africa, the
Philippines and Brazil
South Africa’s National Business Initiative
Purpose and origins: organization. Most of the members are construction, travel and tourism. Companies
The South African business community played corporate chief executive officers. Over 120 in the relevant sectors provide a combination
an important policy advocacy and facilitation companies participate in NBI and provide of funding support, technical assistance,
role in the country’s transition to democracy financing, governance, technical assistance mentoring and internships.
in 1994. The Urban Foundation, created by and practical support for project
business leaders in 1977 after the Soweto implementation. NBI has also created a business linkages
riots, was active for almost twenty years in initiative to support collective action by large
publicly tackling a number of major legal and NBI also serves as the secretariat to the Big companies in improving access to finance,
economic empowerment barriers faced by Business Working Group, a group of business business development services and markets
black South Africans and privately urging leaders who meet on a regular basis with the for small and medium enterprises. On the
political leaders to accept a transition to President to address issues affecting the sustainability front, it has facilitated the
majority rule. The Consultative Business country’s investment climate and establishment of an Energy Efficiency Accord,
Movement (CBM), created by business leaders development prospects. This group which is supported by over 40 leading
in 1987, worked with churches, organized cooperates with, but is totally independent of companies and industry associations and the
labor and the major political parties to the country’s major representative business Minister of Minerals and Energy and aims to
negotiate the 1991 National Peace Accord and associations. In recent years it became the improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon
was then invited to provide administrative local implementation partner for the World emissions in major sectors.
and secretarial support, as well as some Business Council for Sustainable
essential facilitation, for the constitutional Development, the United Nations Global Pathways to achieving scale and systemic
negotiations. Compact and the Carbon Disclosure Project. It impact:
has also created several initiatives that have In almost all of its focus activities, NBI aims to
After South Africa’s first democratic elections been spun-off into independent business-led leverage the collective impact of its corporate
in 1994, attention turned to the massive entities – most notably the Business Trust and members either by replicating successful pilot
challenge of social and economic transition, Business Against Crime. projects, partnering with government
and particularly poverty alleviation in the face implementation agencies at the national,
of enormous income gaps and equally high Core activities: regional and municipal level, or working with
expectations by the newly enfranchised NBI’s activities range from on-the-ground Ministers and policy makers to embed
population. In 1995, CBM and the Urban execution of projects to policy engagement successful approaches into national policy
Foundation joined forces to address this and efforts to strengthen public institutions. frameworks or institutions. Several of its
challenge by creating the National Business Initially it focused on improving education programs have been independently evaluated
Initiative (NBI). Their explicit goal was to and housing delivery and tackling crime. and it can point to a number of key legislative
harness the resources of the private sector on Today, NBI’s programs address three critical and policy changes in areas such as education
a voluntary and collective basis in order to development challenges: education and and housing that have directly resulted from
promote increased economic growth, reduce skills; economic growth and equity; and NBI’s intervention. Close to a million students
poverty and inequality, and support effective sustainability, especially energy and climate have been reached by NBI’s key education
and efficient governance. issues. initiatives and some 10,000 jobscreated
through the business linkages initiatives of its
Funding, governance and management Its education and skills programs focus on companies.
structure: strengthening the leadership, management
From the outset NBI has been funded and and governance of public schools and
governed by senior executives of South colleges, and on teacher training and support.
Africa’s major domestic companies and The latter targets teachers in subjects that are
foreign investors. A business-led board of essential to economic growth and poverty
directors and numerous task forces and alleviation, such as math, engineering and
regional leadership groups guide the strategy technical skills, and they are supported by key
and monitor the performance of the industry sectors such as mining, steel,

Box 4: Corporate leaders collaborating to support national development goals in South Africa, the
Philippines and Brazil continued
Philippine Business For Social Progress (PBSP)
Purpose and origins: corporate members publicly committed to center for rural technology development, also
PBSP was created by a small group of Filipino allocate 1 percent of their net income before work with local organizations in these locations
business leaders in 1970 in response to a taxes to support social development goals – an on different aspects of the system that are
period of economic decline, high inflation, agreed percentage of which was channeled required to develop more sustained, market-
growing poverty, social unrest and political through PBSP and the rest retained by the based solutions. At the same time, member
insurgency. It has evolved from a welfare- company for its own community development companies are directly engaged in a variety of
oriented organization into a non-profit programs. This model is still adopted by many business linkage initiatives and community
‘development consortium’ of over 230 members, but leading companies are now development programs. This approach is
domestic and foreign companies focused on leveraging other core business assets and currently implemented in 10 provinces.
mobilizing business resources and advocacy to resources, and engaging in more market-based
support social and economic development, solutions through PBSP. Leveraging technology: PBSP is also using
and working with close to 3,000 partners. information technology in a variety of ways to
These partners range from local baranguay The organization employs over 200 people scale-up service delivery and impact of its
councils, producer cooperatives, school districts and is governed by a Executive Committee programs and it supports the development,
and municipalities, to national government composed of 7-10 of the country’s top business testing and dissemination of other agri-based
ministries and international donors, leaders usually chairmen or CEOs of their technologies aimed at increasing farmer
foundations and development NGOs. Today, companies. Corporate leaders also govern productivity and demonstrating that farmer
the mission of PBSP is, “the empowerment of three regional executive committees and can be a profitable enterprise in low-income
the poor by promoting business sector committees focused on governing key parts of the country.
leadership in, and commitment to, poverty program areas and project implementation.
reduction programs that lead to self-reliance.” In this way, over 50 top business leaders play a Advocating for pro-poor policies: Another
Self-help and participation of the poor are governing role in PBSP’s operations. The scaling strategy is the policy advocacy work
centerpieces of PBSP’s approach. organization also has an independent research that PBSP undertakes with its member
advisory group consisting of local academics. companies and other development partners in
PBSP also works alongside two other business- areas such as education, workforce
led initiatives in the Philippines – the Corporate Core activities: PBSP’s main programs focus development and small enterprise
Network for Disaster Response, which on operational, field-based initiatives for development, and it claims to have influenced
coordinates the mobilization of business poverty alleviation and capacity building and a number of key government policies to be
resources to support humanitarian relief consulting services for its member companies more pro-poor in their design and
efforts, and Philippine Business for the in the areas of corporate social responsibility implementation.
Environment, which focuses on improving the and corporate citizenship. Programs include:
environmental impacts of the private sector Leveraging company value chains: Through
and increasingly on mobilizing business Supporting development clusters: PBSP’s its ‘Leadership in CSR’ program, PBSP also aims
support for national and sector climate Area Resource Management approach targets to work with over 200 companies to scale up
adaptation strategies. impact areas or contiguous clusters of several the reach and improve the performance of
municipalities and then focuses on organizing their own firm-level community development
Funding, governance and management poor communities within these locations to and inclusive business models. In cooperation
structure: increase both their economic bargaining power with the International Business Leaders Forum,
PBSP’s core funding comes from harnessing a and control over local resources, as well as their PBSP has developed a framework on how
spectrum of funding models from its corporate political voice. An integrated and market-based companies can support each of the eight
members. These range from traditional approach is taken in each location to improve Millennium Development Goals, and is working
philanthropic contributions and the investment access for farmers and small and medium with its members to implement this.
return on trust funds, to fees for services linked enterprises to infrastructure, new skills and
to supporting individual corporate citizenship technologies, credit and markets. Other
programs and more market-oriented business programs supported by PBSP, such as its small
linkage initiatives and loans. In its early days, and medium enterprise credit initiative and
Source: program and partner materials

Corporate leaders collaborating to support national development goals in South Africa, the Philippines
and Brazil continued
Instituto Ethos in Brazil
Purpose and origins: from an annual conference and sponsorship of transparency in local government. And it is
Instituto Ethos was founded in 1998 by a small selected projects from public and private getting more engaged in advocacy for policy
group of Brazilian business leaders. Several of donors. and regulatory reform in the area of
them had played a leadership role in another sustainable development.
coalition of mostly small and medium-sized Core activities:
businesses, PNBE (Pensamento Nacional das Instituto Ethos has undergone several phases
Bases Empresariais – The National Thinking of of development, each one building on the
the Entrepreneurial Based), which had been foundations of the other.
active in the movement leading to the
impeachment of former President Collor de Individual corporate practice: Initially it
Mello in 1992. PNBE’s President, Oded Grajew, focused on supporting its member companies
had also established Fundacao ABRINQ to implement responsible business practices
(Brazilian Association of Toy Manufacturers for within their own core business operations and
the rights of children), and was committed to to assess performance against a benchmark of
spreading responsible labor, environmental indicators. It also implemented outreach
and social practices more broadly through the programs to the media and journalists to raise
Brazilian business community. After attending public and consumer awareness of and
the annual conference of US-based Business pressure for corporate responsibility and it
for Social Responsibility in 1998, Grajew and supported academic outreach to integrate
some of his colleagues returned to Brazil teaching on corporate responsibility into
and launched Instituto Ethos, using BSR’s business school curricula.
membership-based business model and some
of its tools and resources. Supply chain management: While
continuing to help companies to benchmark
From an initial membership of 12 companies, and improve their performance, in its second
today Instituto Ethos has over 1,400 participating phase Instituto Ethos broadened its focus to
companies, which between them employ supply chain management, with the aim of
about 2 million people and engage hundreds spreading good practices more widely.
of thousands of smaller enterprises along their
value chains. Ethos does not represent these Collective and systemic action: In its third
companies, but rather its mission is to mobilize phase, the vision and programmatic scope has
and help them to manage their own businesses broadened to a more systemic approach
in a socially responsible manner and at the aimed at making markets or systems work
same time to become more proactively more effectively in selected clusters and
engaged in collective action and as change locations. This shift recognizes the need for
agents for a more just and sustainable society. more collective action in order to achieve scale
and impact. Ethos has launched several value
Funding, governance and management chain initiatives, for example, aiming to build
structure: more inclusive and sustainable value chains in
Instituto Ethos is governed by a board selected livestock, forestry and soy products between
from its member companies and supported by producers in Amazonia and consumers in
an International Advisory Board consisting of major cities such as Sao Paulo. It has also been
leaders in the field of corporate responsibility instrumental in launching the ‘Our Sao-Paulo
from other countries, which meets once a year Movement’, which brings together civil society
in Brazil. The organization is funded primarily organizations and community leaders to
through its member companies, revenues promote greater accountability and

IV. MULTI-STAKEHOLDER ALLIANCES
The past decade has seen the emergence of a variety of systemic, multi-stakeholder alliances, many
of them unprecedented. These are collaborative models that involve a group of companies working
with other private and public sector actors on a collective basis in a specific industry sector, value
chain or geographic location and/or focused on jointly addressing a specific development, social or
environmental challenges. These multistakeholder alliances are emerging to address a wide variety of
development challenges from global health to environmental sustainability, economic development,
food security, and disaster prevention and response. In addition to public-private partnerships, other
terms used to describe these ‘systems-level’ alliances include collective action, multi-stakeholder
initiatives (MSIs), collaborative governance, networked partnership, and concerted action.
As FSG comment in their note Beyond Partnership: Concerted Action: “Foundations and corporations
spend billions of dollars annually on education, health, global development and other social issues,
but in too many cases dramatic improvements in literacy, health, income, and the environment
remain elusive. Complex social problems are affected by large and interdependent systems, yet social
sector funders still focus primarily on individual programs by single actors. While their work can be
well planned, executed and measured, it often doesn’t deliver the desired scale of impact. In many
circumstances, sustained progress requires multiple actors to take concerted action that can bring
about large-scale change. Concerted action is the commitment of a group of key actors from different
sectors to a common agenda for solving a targeted social problem through alignment and
differentiation of efforts.”3
In their paper, Governing Collaborative Governance, Zadek and Radovich, note: “Multi-stakeholder
and public-private partnerships are becoming a fundamental ‘organizational building block’
underpinning a growing array of activities seeking to mobilize and impact on diverse stakeholders in
achieving a blend of public and private goals.”4
Some of these systemic, multi-stakeholder alliances are global in their scope and structure, others
regional, national or local. Some are initiated or convened by government entities, others by
corporations, foundations and NGOs, many by a combination of the above. In most cases they are
housed or incubated within an existing organization, often the core convening institution or an
independent or mutually respected and trusted third-party intermediary organization. A number of
the most strategic have evolved or been established as independent entities and intermediaries with
their own governance structures.
Some of these alliances have a ‘closed’ membership or strict requirements for participation, especially
those focused on rule-setting or improving accountability and transparency, others are much more
‘open-source’ and inclusive, aiming to attract as many participants as possible. In some cases
technology-enabled platforms play a key role in enabling a more networked and informal, but still
deliberative model for collaboration. Notwithstanding these different characteristics, these alliances
share some common features, which are summarized in Box 5.

BOX 5: Common features of multi-stakeholder alliances
Although the specific goals, scope of activities, conveners, range of participants, legal, governance and accountability
structures and modus operandi of these alliances differ widely, they share the following common characteristics:
Systemic change: They focus on tackling complex, often inter-dependent challenges and achieving
change or transformation at a more systemic level than is possible with one-off
projects or through most firm-level partnerships or other one-to-one organizational
partnerships. Although it should be noted that one-to-one partnerships between
two organizations may evolve into these larger more systemic alliances – the
evolution of the sustainable fisheries partnership between Unilever and WWF into
the independent multi-stakeholder Marine Stewardship Council is an example.
Likewise, initiatives branded by a single company can evolve into systemic multi-
stakeholder alliances involving many other companies and development actors
while retaining the ‘flagship’ brand – the Cisco Networking Academies now
operating in over 150 countries with thousands of entities engaged, being an
example.
Multi-stakeholder participation: These alliances go beyond one-to-one partnerships to engage larger numbers of
stakeholders – either public, private and civil society organizations working
together across sectors or companies working together across different industries or
companies working with their competitors in the same industry. These stakeholders
may have a variety of different motives and governance structures, but all share a
common interest or ‘stake’ in working collectively and deliberatively, usually on an
ongoing basis, to address a complex, systemic challenge or set of challenges.
Intermediation: In most cases either the alliance itself, if it is established as an independent entity or
platform, or the convener or conveners, or a trusted third-party organization play a
vital and active intermediation or brokerage role. This may involve identifying and
bringing together a wide range of different participants in a constructive and pro-
active manner; accommodating, leveraging and where necessary mediating different
interests, resources and objectives among participants; developing common goals
and ‘rules of engagement’, including communication and operational
responsibilities; and developing metrics and modes of governance and
accountability both internally among participants and externally.
Impact at scale: They aim to operate and achieve impact at scale, either tackling issues along an
entire value chain or business ecosystem, or at a national, regional or global level.
Most of them either start with, or develop, not only ‘theories of change’ but also
explicit ‘strategies for scaling’. These include: direct expansion of the alliance itself,
either growing horizontally to reach larger numbers of people, vertically to expand
the scope of its activities and objectives and/or through increasing the number,
reach and influence of its participants; affiliation with other alliances or initiatives
that are focused on tackling the same or similar complex, systemic challenges;
replication of the alliance either through creating spin-offs, or through a structured
social ‘franchising’ approach supported by technical assistance and sharing of tools
and approaches, or through more competitive forces; changing the way a market
works; and integrating into public policy frameworks, political processes and
national or regional development strategies.

There are numerous ways to categorize multi-stakeholder alliances – including by scope of activities;
types of participants; governance and institutional structure, or purpose. The following section looks
at five categories of multi-stakeholder alliances categorized according to the broad challenge they have
been created to address:
• Making value chains more inclusive and sustainable – sector-based alliances that aim to
overcome barriers to make value chains more inclusive and sustainable in key development sectors
and/or industry sectors, such as health, agriculture and financial services. These often focus on
helping low-income producers or workers to improve their access to financial resources,
information and markets. Or they focus on helping low-income consumers to improve
affordability and reliability of essential products and services. Some also focus on discovering,
developing and disseminating breakthroughs in science and technology that can benefit the poor,
such as information and communications technology, life sciences and clean technology;
• Implementing national and regional development priorities – geographic focused alliances

that aim to support integrated approaches to development in particular locations from the local
to national and cross-border. Many of these consist of joint efforts between governments and the
private sector, including the creation of independent bodies that are jointly governed by business
and government leaders.
• Enhancing the effectiveness of humanitarian and social programs – alliances that aim to
ensure that philanthropic dollars, product donations and social investments are leveraged
effectively, especially in situations of humanitarian crisis and disaster. Multi-stakeholder alliances
for education are also key examples of collective effort to improve development outcomes.
• Improving mutual accountability and transparency – usually industry-focused global alliances

aimed at improving public accountability for the social and environmental performance and
impact of large corporations in developing countries. Although voluntary in nature, many of
them focus on setting common rules and standards to improve either non-financial performance
of companies and corporate value chains (i.e. anti-corruption, human rights, labor and
environmental performance) and/or to improve mutual accountability of both governments and
corporations.
• Advocating for progressive policy reform – these are alliances where companies join forces with
non-governmental organizations to advocate for policy reform at with the local, national or global
governance level. They focus on policy reforms in both developing countries and donor countries.
They aim to create a better enabling environment or stronger public institutions to catalyze more
inclusive markets and business models, improve environmental performance and/or support low-
income producers, employees and consumers more directly. In donor countries they focus on
issues such as aid, trade and investment policy reform, with these end-goals in mind.

Each of five categories of multi-stakeholder alliance outlined on the previous page is worthy of more
detailed analysis. Many are already the subject of research and are supported by increasingly
sophisticated communities of practice. The following section aims only to provide a few illustrative
examples of multi-stakeholder alliances in each of these categories. It aims to illustrate how such
alliances can harness the contribution of the private sector, catalyze market-based solutions to
development and leverage a combination of public and private and/or social and commercial
resources. A common aim through many of the alliances profiled is to overcome barriers and achieve
scale or systemic impact in addressing key development challenges – going beyond what any
individual firm-level partnership or even government or donor agency could achieve on its own.
Multi-stakeholder alliances represent an important although often challenging new mode of

engagement in development and poverty alleviation. Building these multi-stakeholder alliances is
neither easy nor a panacea. They often have high transaction costs and are difficult to establish and
sustain. Many are new and untested. Yet, they have the potential to expand opportunity and access
to millions of people.
Multi-stakeholder alliances can help to ‘level the playing field’. They can enable their participants to
aggregate their resources, market power and/or political voice to achieve greater leverage and broader
development, social or environmental impact than could be gained by working at the level of
individual corporate value chains. They represent one of the most significant new approaches to
private sector engagement in poverty alleviation and they raise the potential for achieving scale and
sustainable change. They warrant continued analysis, evaluation and support.

1. Making essential value chains and systems more inclusive and sustainable
The following section offers a few illustrative examples of systemic, multi-stakeholder alliances in
some of the value chains that are especially important to alleviating poverty:
(i) Increasing agricultural productivity and sustainability
(ii) Improving health and nutrition outcomes
(iii) Making financial services more inclusive.
The examples focus on alliances that aim to achieve greater scale and systemic impact in serving the
poor as producers, employees or consumers. These alliances are doing so either through overcoming
market failures in order to improve access to markets or to catalyze market-based approaches to
delivering essential products and services and/or by improving the broader enabling environment in
order to achieve scale through influencing public policy and institutional frameworks.
(i) Increasing agricultural productivity and sustainability

There is now widespread agreement on the central role that agriculture plays in poverty alleviation –
from improving the productivity, incomes and resilience of smallholder farmers and rural
communities, to ensuring food security and better nutrition for the rural and urban poor. After
several decades of declining public sector investment in agricultural research and rural development
by official donors and governments, the situation is being reversed. At the same time, private sector
investments are also increasing. Agriculture is a sector that cannot be ignored by anyone interested in
pro-poor growth, with some 75 percent of the world’s poorest people dependent primarily on
agriculture for their livelihoods and food security and with the agricultural sector in some of the
poorest parts of the world being the most threatened by climate change and water insecurity.5
Achieving more sustainable and inclusive patterns of agriculture and food security and reducing rural
poverty calls for a number of actions. These include:
• Improving access to and increasing productivity of land, water and other resources in
agriculture, as well as in forestry and fisheries. In many cases this requires reform of land tenure
systems and ownership rights and more integrated, multi-stakeholder approaches to water and
other resource management at the community, national and regional level, in addition to the
application of science and technology.
• Increasing research and development in affordable and environmentally sound technologies

and farming practices that can increase productivity – from seeds, fertilizers and irrigation systems
to burgeoning mobile information technology solutions – and then sharing these more widely
through better agricultural extension services and encouraging their adoption through the
provision of relevant incentives and financial services.
• Supporting capacity building and empowerment in the rural sector, including training,
outreach and extension programs, community institution building and the creation of producer
associations, and improved access to financial and technical inputs and advice, especially for
women.

• Improving linkages between the formal, large-scale agribusiness sector and small-scale farming
activities. At present only a small minority of smallholder producers in developing countries are
connected to commercial agricultural value chains. On the input side such linkages are required
between the suppliers of agricultural inputs and technologies and farmers to improve their
affordability, reliability and safety, often with the support of microfinance institutions and local banks.
On the output side they include collaborative ventures such as outgrower schemes and reliable
contracts between smallholders, producer associations and agro-processing or retail companies.
• Developing innovative financing and risk management mechanisms to help smallholder

farmers and producer associations manage both market and weather-related risk and improve
their financial management and security.
• Strengthening rural infrastructure, ranging from physical infrastructure such as roads and other
transportation infrastructure, warehouses and irrigation systems, to vastly improved marketing
and distribution facilities and rural financial institutions.
• Promoting fair or ethical trade and equal access to global markets for agricultural products
from developing countries. This includes initiatives to help producers in developing countries to
meet the growing food safety, fair labor and environmental requirements of international markets.
The challenges of reducing rural poverty, investing in sustainable agriculture and ensuring food security
can only be met by a combination of public and private resources – financial, technical, scientific and
managerial - and new forms of partnership between governments, international agencies, smallholder
farmers, producer associations, civil society organizations and the private sector. Genuine multi-
stakeholder dialogue, acceptance of the power dynamics in global agricultural systems and efforts to
build and strengthen the national private sector in developing countries, especially producer associations
and agribusiness companies are fundamental to achieving these objectives. Governments will have to
play a lead role in providing the necessary policy and regulatory frameworks in all of the above areas,
but within these frameworks the private sector has an important role.
These issues are of paramount interest to companies and industry associations in the agribusiness and
food sector, operating at different stages along the food value chain. This includes life science
companies, chemical and fertilizer producers, equipment manufacturers, large-scale commercial
producers, commodity trading companies, shipping and other transportation companies, food and
beverage manufacturers and retailers. Companies in the financial sector, especially those with a focus
on agricultural financing and microfinance institutions, information technology companies and
infrastructure companies, especially construction engineers and companies in the water and energy
sectors, also have an impact on rural development and a business interest in reducing rural poverty
and promoting sustainable agriculture. Agricultural workers unions, producers cooperatives,
academic and research institutes and foundations also play an important role in supporting public-
private partnerships in this area and in many cases helping to build the capacity and bargaining power
of smallholder farmers and catalyzing market-based solutions.

Box 6: The New Vision for Agriculture
The New Vision for Agriculture is a multi- Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto, Nestle, In 2006, for example, it created the
stakeholder and multi-disciplinary PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever and Business Alliance Against Chronic
collaborative initiative led by the World Yara International. Hunger (BAACH). This is a network of 30
Economic Forum. It mobilizes leaders from companies and partners, which are working
business and the public sector and experts Policy dialogue, research and together in Kenya to test about 14 different
in the fields of agriculture, food security, awareness-raising models of business-led solutions to raising
hunger and nutrition, financial services, the Global dialogue between business leaders, agricultural productivity and tackling
environment and climate change to achieve policy makers and experts occurs through hunger. The models are focused on
more inclusive and sustainable agriculture the World Economic Forum’s annual and different food commodities and different
and to address hunger and global food regional meetings and through the Global stages of the food value chain – from
security. In launching the initiative, WEF Agenda Council on Food Security. At the improving food production to processing
cited the following overarching vision: “The same time, the initiative engages with other and packaging, expanding retail
New Vision for Agriculture is one in which programs focused on food security, such as distribution and strengthening local
all people have access to sufficient, the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa, entrepreneurs, producer organizations and
nourishing, affordable food and other the Feed the Future initiative launched in market linkages. Between them, these
agricultural products; where environmental 2010 by the United States Government projects have the potential of benefiting
resources and habitats are effectively and various UN-led initiatives. The New some 90,000 people.
managed and conserved; and where Vision for Agriculture initiative has also
agriculture is a driver of sustainable undertaken research, supported by Boston The New Vision for Agriculture and its
economic growth worldwide.” Consulting Group and others, on identifying corporate partners have also launched
commercially viable and scalable business several agricultural corridor initiatives in
To achieve this vision the initiative has models in agribusiness, financial services Mozambique, Tanzania and Vietnam. These
identified three goals that must be met and information technology companies are being led by multi-sector steering
simultaneously: that include the rural poor as producers, committees, co-chaired by business and
1. Provide food security for all employees and consumers. government and including business leaders,
2. Increase agricultural production in an government ministers, donors and
environmentally sustainable manner, At a regional level, it has held a series of representatives from farmer organizations.
including meeting the challenges dialogues in Africa and Asia, aimed at The steering committees are identifying
posed by climate change raising business awareness and political feasible investment opportunities and areas
3. Generate economic growth and will and at helping to broker practical for business engagement, developing
opportunity, including support for partnerships in the following areas: detailed blueprints for implementing these,
smallholder farmers. improving infrastructure; expanding and brokering partnerships to make it
financial services; improving access to land; happen.
The initiative works at both the level of commercializing agriculture and strengthening
convening global policy dialogues and markets; strengthening value chains;
supporting research and awareness-raising, expanding agro-processing; and
and through coordinating on-the-ground mainstreaming gender.
collaborative initiatives. A project Board
provides strategic leadership and oversight Implementing collaborative solutions
for the initiative, as well as direct support The initiative has also spearheaded several
for implementation on-the-ground. The on-the-ground collaborative efforts led by
Project Board includes: Archer Daniels major corporations and working closely
Midland, Bunge Ltd., The Coca-Cola with governments and smallholder farmer
Company, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft associations.

Box 7: Multi-stakeholder alliances to include smallholder farmers in cash crop value chains:
Examples of cashews, coffee, fruit and cocoa from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
African cash crop markets could benefit production. Companies participate often for closely with smallholder farmers, helping to
over 40 million smallholder farmers if commercial incentives such as the prospect organize them into farmer cooperatives or
developed to increase access to markets, of developing a new procurement market, other producer groups, and providing
production opportunities, and incomes for lowering their supply chain costs and critical extension training and opportunities
these producers. Yet, these markets face improving the quality and reliability of to sell to commercial buyers to these
four key constraints that prevent such supply of the sourced commodities. groups.
outcomes: low market opportunity for The overarching objective of these projects
smallholders due to insufficient and poor is to better coordinate production and • In the African Cashews project for
quality production, limited buyer interest in procurement in order to benefit instance the key grantee, GTZ, is
sourcing from these markets and linkages smallholders and meet the commercial responsible for training national-level
to smallholders, limited access to finance interests of corporate partners. extension staff. These staff work with
for producers and processors, and an cashew farmer organizations to train
unsupportive enabling environment. Three models are being experimented them in better farming methods to
with: identify and build private sector produce crops that meet international
Four of the Bill & Melinda Gates partnerships as needed through the project; buyer quality standards. And to ensure
Foundation’s cash crop grants, African lock in the nonprofit and private sector sustainability, GTZ also works with local
Cashews (grant made to GTZ), East African partner at the start of the project; and cashew processors to develop their own
Coffee (grant made to TechnoServe), East establish a broad multi stakeholder extension services to train the
African Fruit (grant made to TechnoServe), partnership at the start of the project. smallholders they source from.
and West African Cocoa (grant made to The best approach will likely depend on the
World Cocoa Federation), attempt to product market in question, the industry • A second member of the partnership, a
address these constraints in their respective structure for that market, the readiness fair-trade organization called FairMatch,
country and commodity markets. of different companies to engage, the is responsible for providing similar
local context, and the dominant market extension training for a smaller subset of
They do so by building pivotal partnerships constraints that limit participation of farmer organizations which are producing
with the various private sector players that the poor. crops for higher end specialty or fair trade
act along the cash crops value chains and buyers.
better coordinate production and To help build markets, each of these
procurement in order to both benefit projects incorporates three important Second, the partnerships also focus on
smallholders and meet the commercial strategies: they invest in increased improving the quality of production,
interests of corporate partners. These production, build increased value addition both at the farming and processing of
projects are also cross-sector collaborative and processing, and incorporate supporting farmed goods stages.
efforts that bring together nonprofit tools such as access to finance and
organizations, companies and public sector dedicated policy advocacy organizations. • They often channel in-kind or direct
players such as government officials. They financial investments from private sector
target interventions along a given cash crop First, the private sector partnerships focus partners to local processors and
market value chain from working with input on improving and increasing production manufacturers who turn raw crops into
providers and smallholder farmers, to of these crops. The objective is to address finished or semi-finished food products.
incorporating financiers and training the constraint of low productivity and
processors, to guaranteeing demand in volatile production and demonstrate that • In the African Cashews grant, local
export markets. Smallholder farmers African smallholders can be a dependable processing capacity is developed in at
participate to access income generating and viable source of products for global least three ways. Across all three models,
opportunities in new or increased crop buyers. To do so these partnerships work best practices are shared at the pre-

Box 7: Multi-stakeholder alliances to include smallholder farmers in cash crop value chains continued
Examples of cashews, coffee, fruit and cocoa from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation continued
competitive level to help improve the Finally, the partnerships also aim to • East African Fruit illustrates one
competitiveness of African processors improve the larger supporting approach, which is to incorporate third
and the quality of smallholder production environment in which their target markets party debt financiers into the projects. In
throughout the entire market: First, operate. Perhaps the most targeted method this project, The Coca Cola Corporation’s
OLAM, the world’s largest supplier of raw they use for doing so is funding and (Coke) purchase commitments from fruit
cashew nuts, is building fully-owned building the capacity of dedicated advocacy producers and processors are leveraged
processing capacity in the project organizations. to encourage two regional banks, Equity
countries working. Second, Global Bank and Centenary Bank, to provide
Trading, another partner, is forming joint • This strategy is deployed in African financing to producer groups.
ventures with local entrepreneurs to Cashews and West African Cocoa in
build in-country processing capacity. particular. The former builds a nascent • Another approach, taken in the fruit,
Third, some independent entrepreneurs organization called the African Cashews cashew and cocoa projects, is to build in
are putting up the investment needed to Alliance, while the latter expands the trade finance mechanisms into the
build their own locally-owned processing mandate of the World Cocoa Foundation, project itself. In this project, a working
plants. to advocate and engage policy makers to capital facility has been built into the
improve government policy and project to reduce operating expenses for
• Nonprofit organizations in these infrastructure and investment. participating coffee farmer cooperatives.
partnerships support improvements in
production quality by providing direct • The World Cocoa Foundation and African These projects are still in their early stages
technical assistance and training to Cashews take similar approaches, and not and so it is too early to evaluate their
processors. In African Cashews, only coordinate the activities along the effectiveness. However, they offer some
TechnoServe works with processing units value chain of all participating partners, interesting insights and lessons on
in target African countries to train them but also invite government participation partnership and collaborative structures.
in improved standards and procedures in the partnership. These projects do so And along with other such models, will
and to develop business plans and to both ensure that promotion of cocoa require further evaluation and
materials to help these processors access and cashew production becomes a documentation of lessons and best
additional support such as financing. priority for governments in target practices to inform the agricultural
TechnoServe plays a similar role in the countries, and to try to eventually link up development and other sectors.
East African Coffee grant, where local with national extension service programs.
TechnoServe staff and extension trainers
work with farmer coffee cooperatives to In addition to advocating for improvements
help them finance, obtain and learn how in the regulatory environment, these
to use wet mills. projects also bring financiers to the table to
address the key access to finance constraint
that persists across all four cash crop value
chains. This is done in at least two ways:
Sources: Dalberg and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

(ii) Improving health and nutrition6
Global health has generally improved during recent decades with average life expectancy increasing,
child mortality rates declining and notable achievements made towards the elimination of some
major diseases such as polio and river blindness. Despite this progress, poor health continues to be a
major constraint on economic growth and development in many countries and a daily reality
underpinning continued poverty, inability to learn and work, and a poor quality of life for millions
of adults and children. More than 8 percent of children living in developing countries still die before
the age of five, often from largely preventable causes of childhood illness, such as respiratory
infections, diarrhoea, measles and malnutrition. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other
infectious and parasitic diseases kill and disable millions of people annually. Lack of access to safe
drinking water and sanitation, inadequate reproductive healthcare, indoor pollution from traditional
fuels, poor hygiene, bad road safety conditions, inadequate occupational health regulations and
certain dietary and lifestyle choices, such as smoking tobacco, add to the toll of avoidable illness and
death in many countries.
At the same time, diseases affecting the poor attract few of the world's health research dollars and
developing country health systems face major investment gaps and shortages of human capital.
According to WHO, for example, sub-Saharan Africa has 11 percent of the world’s population and
some 25 percent of the global burden of disease, but less than 3 percent of the world’s health workers
and less than 1 percent of global health expenditure.7 The situation has improved markedly over the
past decade driven by growing donor and government commitment to global health and the
Millennium Development Goals, the leadership role of private foundations such as the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, breakthroughs in science and technology innovation from life sciences
to information and communications technology, and a growing focus on innovative public-private
financing solutions, product development and delivery partnerships that actively engage the private
sector and harness market-based solutions.
The potential to continue to dramatically improve health outcomes remains high. It requires a
combination of policy reforms and the mobilization of public and private resources in the
following areas:
• More scientific research and development on the health problems that affect the poor, including
building the capacity of research institutes and clinical testing capabilities in developing countries;
• Wider access to essential drugs, vaccines and simple, cost-effective interventions through a
combination of affordable pricing and improved delivery mechanisms;
• Concerted efforts to strengthen the effectiveness and to increase the accountability of national
health systems, ranging from strengthening health workforces and health financing to enhancing
service delivery, harnessing technology and improving management skills and governance;
• Communications, education and outreach programmes to increase peoples' awareness on key
diseases and other health issues and in certain cases to change peoples' behaviour;
• Provision of universal, quality post-primary education which is essential for increased
understanding of health issues;
• Better sharing of health-related information between and within nations and between the public
and private sectors;
• Greater attention paid to nutrition and lifestyle issues;
• Improved access to clean water and sanitation;

• Implementation of guidelines and standards on the production, marketing, distribution and/or
use of potentially health-threatening products, from pesticides and other chemicals, to certain
foodstuffs, alcohol and tobacco;
• Increased research on the connections between environmental hazards and health, and on the
growing linkages between health and climate change.
Neither the private sector and market-based nor the government and supply-side interventions can
achieve these objectives operating on their own. Multi-stakeholder alliances and public-private
partnerships are needed from financing, discovery and development to delivery of health and
nutrition solutions. Over the past two decades, some of the most innovative and far-reaching
partnerships between governments, donors, foundations, the private sector, research institutes and
civil society organizations have been in the area of global health. They are too numerous and multi-
dimensional to go into detail in this summary, but there is no doubt they have had made a valuable
contribution to improving global health. In a study of 23 major
global health partnerships, the Overseas Development Institute Examples of global health partnerships
highlights the following contributions that these multi-
Some of the most successful global health
stakeholder alliances have made to tackling diseases of poverty:8 partnerships over the past decade are as follows
• Getting specific health issues onto national and international (in alphabetical order):
agendas African Comprehensive HIV/AIDs Partnership;
• Mobilizing additional funds for these issues; Alliance for Microbicide Development; Global TB
• Stimulating research and development vaccine Foundation; European Malaria Vaccine
• Improving access to cost-effective health care interventions Initiative; Foundation for Innovative New
Diognostics; Global Alliance for the Elimination
among populations with limited ability to pay; of Lymphatic Filariasis; Global Alliance for
• Strengthening national health policy processes and content Improved Nutrition; Global Alliance for TB Drug
with a focus on outcomes; Development; GAVI Alliance; Global Fund for
• Augmenting health service delivery capacity; and HIV/AIDs, TB and Malaria; Global Health Council;
• Establishing international norms and standards. International AIDS Vaccine Initiative; Institute for
One World Health; International Partnership for
Microbicides; International Trachoma Initiative;
At the same time, ODI concluded that this contribution is Mectizan Drug Donation Program; Microbicides
undermined by some common and soluble accountability Development Program; Micronutrient Initiative;
challenges. These include insufficient participation in decision- Medicines for Malaria Venture; Pediatric Dengue
making by recipient countries and beneficiaries, inadequate use of Vaccine Initiative; Roll Back Malaria; Stop TB;
critical governance procedures, failure to compare the costs and Vaccine Fund.
benefits of public versus private approaches, high transaction Source: Global Health: Making partnerships work.
costs for managing the alliances, lack of partnership building Overseas Development Institute, 2007
skills, and wastage of resources through inadequate use of existing
country systems. These findings match similar analysis undertaken by the World Bank Group on
global public private partnerships. In short, there is potential to improve, but little doubt that multi-
stakeholder alliances in the area of health and nutrition offer enormous potential to improve health
outcomes. One area that warrants increased focus is how they are implemented at the country-level
in a manner that effectively engages local businesses and civil society organizations. Box 8 illustrates
the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition as just one example of a multi-stakeholder alliance that
is operating as both a global partnership and a country-level coordinating and facilitating platform.

Box 8: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve nutrition:
Examples from the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)
The mission of the Global Alliance for National Fortification Alliances: Business Alliance: The Business Alliance
Improved Nutrition (GAIN) is to reduce
malnutrition through food fortification
1 The National Fortification Programs
provide a platform for cooperation and
2 provides a platform for networking,
knowledge sharing and partnership among
and other sustainable strategies aimed at division of labor among key stakeholders at companies engaged in the nutrition space.
improving the health and nutrition of the country level. They are essentially It is through the Business Alliance that GAIN
populations at risk. To make the nutrition coalitions of governments, businesses, supports corporate innovation with respect
market more inclusive, GAIN deliberately international organizations and civil society to nutrition products, services and business
takes an integrated approach, which groups at the country level that provide models. GAIN essentially creates a neutral,
simultaneously targets the enabling strategic guidance and oversight for safe space for experimentation for companies
environment (e.g. government policy and national fortification efforts. to experiment and learn, and to explore
regulation), the value chain of key food potential partnerships that would result in
and beverage companies, and individual One example of a National Fortification both business and social value creation. For
business models. GAIN plays a catalyzing Alliance is a five-year program in Ghana example, partly as a result of one Business
and brokering role and plans for its own focused on addressing anemia, which Alliance event and with GAIN support,
exit from the start of its programs. contributed to 20% of maternal deaths, Danone began to partner with the Grameen
through iron fortification. Vegetable oil and Bank and Nobel Peace Prize Mohammed
Recognizing that scale is very important in wheat flour were selected as product areas Yunus. This led to the development and
driving down the cost of fortification and appropriate for fortification because they launch of Shoktidoi, an inexpensive and
ensuring public health impact, GAIN works are widely used and readily available to nutritious fortified yogurt, in Bangladesh.
to realize national and global coordination vulnerable communities. GAIN provided
in input procurement, processing, and US$ 1.8 million for the purchase of premix, More than 300 business leaders have taken
distribution. These efforts require that improvement of quality assurance systems part in Business Alliance events around the
GAIN mobilizes not only individual that verify correct fortification levels and world.
partnerships with companies, but also development of consumer education
broader industry and cross-sectoral campaigns around fortification. The
collaborations. Through these country- national alliance, a partnership of 35 public
level partnerships and collaborations, and private organizations, is executed by
GAIN aligns the incentives for different the Food and Drugs Board of Ghana
stakeholders through product innovation, together with the Ghana Health Service
business model development, policy and the Ghana Standard Board. It is set to
improvement and/or regulatory changes. produce 40,000 metric tons of fortified
GAIN also provides financial and technical vegetable oil, and 481,000 metric tons of
support to public and private sector actors fortified wheat flour. As of June 2009,
in order to extend nutrition markets from estimated 13.2 million people were
high income groups to over 200 million consuming fortified wheat flour and
people in 26 countries. 4.1 million – fortified vegetable oil.
Three of the main collaborative

approaches undertaken by GAIN
are as follows.
Sources: GAIN materials; Dalberg and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Box 8: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve nutrition:
Examples from the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)
The Amsterdam Initiative on By documenting what is being learned,

3 Malnutrition (AIM): This is another
example of new partnerships emerging
especially with regards to new business
models that can be replicated elsewhere,
from the GAIN network, which could be GAIN continues to build and transfer
replicated by other donor countries and knowledge and know how across the
their major companies and research nutrition market.
institutions.
Note also that GAIN is itself a collaborative
Launched in 2009, AIM brings together alliance of governments, international
Dutch public and private sector organizations, the private sector and civil
organizations and the GAIN in a coalition society. GAIN was created in 2002 at a
focused on tackling malnutrition in selected Special Session of the UN General Assembly
African countries. Its founding partners on Children and became a Swiss foundation
include: the Dutch Ministry of Foreign in 2003. It receives funding from a number
Affairs; GAIN; Unilever; DSM; AkzoNobel; of organizations including the Bill &
Wageningen University (WUR); and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Canadian
Interchurch Organisation for Development International Development Agency (CIDA),
Cooperation (ICCO). the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
(CIFF) and the United States Agency for
The effort is focusing on the following International Development (USAID).
goals: Jointly develop and pilot innovative
models to reach the low income
population, by engaging them not only as
consumers, but also as producers, suppliers
or distributors in the value chain; Improving
supply and access to affordable nutritious
food products; Reducing vitamin and
mineral deficiencies by 20 percent;
andTargeting vulnerable populations,
especially children and mothers. AIM is
initially working in six target countries:
Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Ethiopia,
Mozambique and Tanzania. It will build on
existing in-country systems and programs,
focusing on the sustainable production and
distribution of fortified staple foods and
condiments through market channels.

(iii) Making financial services more inclusive.
As outlined in the section on private financiers in Part Two of the report, one of the greatest
contributions that more inclusive business can make to alleviating poverty is developing and
delivering affordable and reliable financial services for the poor. In particular, these include savings
products, credit, insurance products and remittances services. The transformative impact of mobile
technology has also been documented in other parts of the report. In most cases where financial
service have been successfully provided to the poor on a sustained and scaled basis there have either
been firm-level partnerships between financial institutions, technology companies, donors, NGOs
and community-based organizations and/or multi-stakeholder partnerships. Beyond serving the poor
directly is the importance of making financial services more accessible and affordable to small and
medium enterprises.
Multi-stakeholder alliances also have a valuable role to play in field-building. Some of the initiatives
active in this area were profiled in Part Two of the report, including the Consultative Group to Assist
the Poorest (CGAP), the Council of Microfinance Equity Funds, the Access to Insurance Initiative,
the Microfinance Information Exchange and the Aspen Institute of Development Entrepreneurs
(ANDE). Box 9 illustrates two other multi-stakeholder alliances aimed at improving access to
financial services: an industry-led initiative, the GSMA Mobile Money Fund; and an initiative
focused on policy makers, the Alliance for Financial Inclusion.
Box 9: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve access to financial services:
I. THE GSMA Mobile Money Fund

The GSMA is an industry association that individuals across the developing world. commercially viable models. It also includes a
represents the interests of the worldwide Through its Mobile Planet initiative, the GSMA commercial advocacy program to conduct
mobile communications industry. The GSMA works to leverage mobility to help enrich and market research and host working groups to
unites nearly 800 of the world’s mobile improve the lives of those in developing help mobile operators develop mobile money
operators, includes more than 200 companies countries, bringing services to these markets deployments that reach down-market. With
in the broader mobile ecosystem (including in a socially responsible manner. over 1 billion people in emerging markets
handset makers, software companies, who do not have a bank account, a
equipment providers, Internet companies, On example is the effort to accelerate mobile CGAP/McKinsey study suggested that this
and media and entertainment organizations), money services for unbanked markets and for opportunity could amount to a $5 billion
those living on less than US$2 per day. With market opportunity.
and works across more than 219 countries.
The GSMA is focused on innovating, incubating the support of the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, the Mobile Money for the A series of MMU Working Groups are also
and creating new opportunities for its
Unbanked (MMU) program aims to reach 20 being implemented to stimulate discussion
membership, all with the end goal of driving
million previously unbanked people with and knowledge sharing around mobile money
the growth of the mobile communications
mobile financial services by 2012. The MMU issues among specific industry segments and
industry. It recognizes that it creates value for
program includes a $5m innovation fund, on specific topics. There is also a regulatory
operators and the mobile industry by spurring
which provides grants to mobile operators to element that seeks to improve the dialogue
innovation and the provision of services for between financial regulators, telecoms
accelerate deployment of mobile money
the benefit of end users – including regulators and the mobile industry.
services for unbanked households through

Box 9: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve access to financial services continued
2. The Alliance for Financial Inclusion
One of the biggest barriers to increasing policies for their countries’ individual Through these efforts, AFI is already
financial access to the poor through new and circumstances. It is piloting a demand-driven, promoting a global policy learning agenda
improved financial service products, services best practice exchange among Southern that is increasing global and national
and business models is the inability of many country policymakers and regulators. understanding of which solutions work and
financial policies and regulation to allow for why. Although it is early days, peer-to-peer
innovation while providing adequate Established in September 2008, AFI is linkages formed through AFI are beginning to
consumer protection. Innovation in country managed on behalf of its members by GTZ result in changes that could help transform
policy and regulatory systems is therefore GmbH, with funding from the Bill & Melinda the policies & regulations that govern
necessary. Yet governments (policymakers Gates Foundation. financial service markets and market actors,
and thus could help make financial services
and regulators) are faced with a knowledge
The network is the primary mechanism for markets more inclusive.
and know-how gap in this area, and can
sharing research and knowledge generated
find it difficult to identify and implement
though the project, promoting best practices,
appropriate policy and regulatory innovations
and facilitating global learning. It includes
and best practices.
policymakers at all levels: central bankers,
ministerial advisors, supervisors, bank and
The Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI) was
telecom regulators, and their staff, but also
set up to overcome the knowledge gap and to
provides limited access to practitioners,
support the development and application of
academics, and donors. South-South
appropriate financial services policies and
exchange grants ($50,000 each) are available
regulations. AFI’s design was based on two
to policymakers seeking to: learn from
premises: i) many of the best policy and
counterparts in other Southern countries;
regulatory innovations to expand financial
support staff exchanges to observe policy
access have originated in developing
implementation first-hand; implement
countries (e.g. Kenya, Brazil, the Philippines)
national seminars, regional working groups,
where the impediments to financial inclusion
and international conferences.
are most acute; and ii) the best way to
improve financial access policy is to help
AFI also provides grants to support the design
regulators learn from their peers who are
and implementation of policy solutions that
grappling with similar issues and leading
will expand the provision of financial services
innovation.
to previously underserved populations.
These grants may provide short term
The Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI) is a
support for discrete steps in developing
global network of policymakers in developing
and implementing a particular local solution,
countries that provides its members with the
or long-term support for a country’s
tools and resources to share, develop and
implementation of a pro-poor policy solution.
implement their knowledge of cutting-edge
Both new and proven solutions will be
financial inclusion policies that work. Its goal
supported and policy-makers will be able to
is to enable an extra 50 million people living
define their own solutions adapted to their
on less than $2 a day to have access to
unique environment.
savings accounts, insurance and other formal
financial services by 2012. It works to achieve
this goal by connecting policymakers so that
they can share their insights and implement
the most appropriate financial inclusion
Sources: GSMA and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, AFI, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Dalberg Global Development Advisors

2. Implementing national and regional development priorities
Collaborative on-the-ground action by companies operating in developing countries, either within the
private sector or in partnership with other development actors in the public and civic sectors, can be an
important mechanism for improving investment climates and both advocating for and supporting the
implementation of pro-poor policies and programs. In addition to establishing the type of business
leadership coalitions outlined in Box 4, there are other opportunities to create targeted leadership
efforts that collectively engage the private sector, especially large domestic companies, more directly
and strategically in supporting key development and poverty alleviation goals. Three sometimes
overlapping areas of multi-stakeholder collaboration offer potential at the national or regional level:
(i) National compacts of global programs
(ii) Spatial development initiatives – clusters and corridors
(iii)Alliances to improve regional trade and investment climates
(i) National compacts of global programs

One model of collaborative action on the ground is national ‘implementing’ partnerships of global
programs. The multi-stakeholder Country Coordinating Mechanisms of the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the more recent National Compacts of the International Health
Partnership are two public-private examples in the area of health.
A few global business leadership networks have also established or are cooperating with on-the-ground
business coalitions, with an express goal of advancing development, social or environmental objectives.
• The United Nations Global Compact, for example, has over 90 Local Networks.
• The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has an network of some 60 CEO-led
business organizations that share a common goal of providing business leadership for sustainable
development in their respective countries or regions. Their activities range from policy dialogue to
creating standards and metrics to project implementation.
• The International Business Leaders Forum has established and ‘spun-off ’ national business and
development partnerships in over 10 countries.
• The Global Business Coalition Against AIDS, TB and Malaria has affiliations with national
business coalitions or impact initiatives in about 30 countries.
In some cases these local entities have been established with the explicit purpose of being a local partner
to the global program. In others, they are existing business leadership coalitions that have been
identified by the global initiative as sharing common values and goals and therefore as a suitable local
implementing partner. South Africa’s National Business Initiative, for example, serves as the local
partner of both the UN Global Compact and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

(ii) Spatial development initiatives – clusters and corridors
These are integrated development initiatives that mobilize private and public resources to support
coordinated strategies in clearly defined regions, corridors, or industry clusters. In recent years there
has been growing interest in the corridor approach as a way of overcoming market and governance
barriers to achieving greater scale and systemic impact in Africa. In the agriculture sector, for example,
spatially focused approaches are at the heart of the strategies of the New Vision for Agriculture, the
TransFarm Africa Initiative and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). AGRA
concentrates on catalyzing Green Revolutions through an integrated set of interventions in high
potential ‘breadbasket’ areas (areas with large concentrations of smallholder farmers, relatively good
soil and basic infrastructure).
In her paper, Development Corridors and Spatial Development Initiatives in Africa, Dr. Rosalind Thomas
offers the following definition:
“…development corridors are described as transport (or trade) corridors with under-
utilized economic potential in their environs, the development of which would be explored
through spatial planning and development projects (SDIs). They are therefore seen as a
means of configuring, prioritizing and promoting inter-related infrastructure and large-
scale economic sectoral investments in defined geographic areas so as to promote trade and
investment led economic growth; optimize the use of infrastructure; encourage value-
added processing; and enhance the competitiveness of African economies.”9
Dr. Thomas highlights several key principles that underpin the SDI approach as a more market-based
way of thinking about development and poverty alleviation. Namely:
• There must be real economic potential – for example under-utilized natural resources or physical
infrastructure;
• As far as possible, private sector resources should be mobilized – either through commercial
investments or public-private partnerships;
• Scarce public sector resources should be applied where they will have the most impact
• The benefits of economic growth should be shared with those previously excluded – for example through
linkages with local small, medium and micro-enterprises and community development initiatives.10
There are major challenges to be overcome if these development corridors are to succeed. The usual
barriers of weak governance and lack of large-scale project management capacity as well as other
professional and technical skills in both the public and private sector are particularly important issues
that need to be tackled. At the same time, this collaborative priority-setting approach offers potential
for more responsible and pro-poor development of key natural resources in Africa.
The examples in Box 10 illustrate three different cluster-based approaches to poverty alleviation:
• the Business Trust in South Africa – A national business-led initiative focused on job creation and
development in targeted sector clusters and poverty nodes
* the WBCSD-SNV Inclusive Business Alliance in Latin America – A regional cross-industry
cluster promoting inclusive business models
• collaborative local content programs in the mining and energy sector.

Box 10: Examples of national and regional business-led development clusters
The Business Trust in South Africa
Following a period of incubation by the The Business Trust has also established a deliver and sustain these programs. It has
number of new public-private financing
National Business Initiative, the Business Trust also identified 21 ‘poverty nodes’ – both
was established as an independent entity in mechanisms. One example is the Ukulungisa urban and rural areas that experience high
1999. Its goal is to combine the resources of Project Preparation Fund that aims to be a levels of poverty – and targeted public and
business and government in areas of common self-sustaining revolving fund to help local private investment and integrated job
interest to accelerate the creation of jobs, municipalities prepare market-based creation efforts and service delivery to
build capacity and combat poverty. infrastructure projects that provide water, these areas.
sanitation and roads to poor communities,
The organization is funded and governed by often in partnership with private entities. Since its creation, independent evaluations
a combination of private and public sector Another example is the Shared Growth estimate that the Business Trust’s programs
leaders. Its board consists of government Challenge Fund, which is designed to facilitate have created income and work for 1.5 million
Ministers and corporate chief executives. commercially viable business linkages and people, including farmers, artisans, call center
The board agrees on priorities and sets commercial transactions between large and agents and small-scale entrepreneurs.
strategy. The management team then partners small enterprises that directly provide It has also attracted over 1 Billion Rand
with relevant government departments or products and services to the poor or include in new investment to poor areas. Despite
contracts implementing agencies to execute them as suppliers in corporate value chains. these successes, the Trust has experienced
programs. In some cases it has created a new • Core activities: The Business Trust’s major challenges in building sufficient
intermediary organization, such as the strategy focuses on three pillars – implementation capacity and recognizes that
Tourism Enterprise Partnership, to serve as an encouraging growth in priority sectors, a number of the programs have yet to achieve
implementing agency. Strict management building capacity in skills and infrastructure, the conditions for sustainability, making initial
principles and processes are applied – and combating poverty. exit strategy goals difficult to meet. At the
clear targets are set for each program and • Pathways to scale: The Business Trust same time, the model demonstrates the
performance is measured against development aims to achieve scale and sustained impact potential of applying rigorous private sector
impact (economic and social returns), either through catalyzing commercially management disciplines, setting clear
corporate investor return, and government viable business models in high priority performance targets, and combining public
return. The management expense ratio has sectors and clusters or through embedding and private resources in a targeted and
been kept at a level of about 4% throughout programs into government services and transparent manner.
the first ten years of the Trust’s operation. improving the capacity of government to
The WBCSD-SNV Inclusive Business Alliance in Latin America
In 2006, the World Business Council for • Brokering new inclusive business tackle regulatory and policy constraints.
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and SNV opportunities: The Alliance’s awareness- In Ecuador, for example, the Alliance
Netherlands Development Organization raising efforts have generated more than engaged the government to build
formed an alliance to promote inclusive 80 inclusive business ideas, and economic inclusion and inclusive business
business in Latin America. The Alliance works approximately 40 are now being into the development agenda. The
in three areas, with activities carried out at implemented. These ideas range from resulting National Program for Economic
the country level by SNV staff and micro bank cards in Bolivia to small-scale Inclusion contains $87 million in public
representatives of WBCSD’s local chapters: production of the jatropha seed for credit lines to facilitate inclusive business
• Raising awareness of inclusive business: biofuels in Honduras. Together, these projects, with a focus on agriculture.
CEO Forums have been held and materials projects have the potential to impact Building on what it has learned in Latin
distributed in eight countries – Bolivia, approximately 400,000 people. America, the WBCSD-SNV Inclusive
Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, • Policy advocacy to improve the Business Alliance is now expanding into
Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru – engaging enabling environment for inclusive Africa, with initial steps taken in
with more than 300 companies. business: The Alliance has also worked to Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
Source: Business Trust, WBCSD and SNV

Box 10: Examples of national and regional business-led development clusters continued
Collaborative local content programs in the mining and energy sector
In the extractive sector, companies are overcoming barriers, gaining efficiency and effectiveness, and empowering local stakeholders through
collaboration – doing together what it would not be economically viable to do on their own. Three multi-stakeholder initiatives are profiled
below. Firm-level partnerships are even more common.
Centro de Apoio Empresarial, Angola PROMINP, Brazil Mozlink, Mozambique

In Angola, BP, Esso, Chevron, Total, and the Brazil’s National Oil & Natural Gas Industry Based on a successful firm-level partnership
national oil company Sonangol have Mobilization Program (PROMINP) was created between IFC and Mozal, a $2 billion aluminum
collaborated to support the Centro de Apoio by federal government decree in December smelter in Mozambique, to build the capacity
Empresarial (CAE), a business support center 2003. It involves Petrobras, the Brazilian of local SMEs to qualify for contracts with the
providing training and consulting services for Development Bank, several government company, in 2003 the partners decided to
local SMEs with the potential to win contracts ministries, the National Organization of the transform the program into a multi-
in the industry. CAE also houses a Certified Petroleum Industry and several other major stakeholder initiative: the Mozambique SME
Supplier Directory and works to build the business associations. Its objective is to Linkage Development Program (Mozlink).
capacity of local trainers. BP coordinates the maximize national content, turning Mozlink brought in other large companies,
initiative, which is implemented by CDC approximately $100 billion in planned such as Coca-Cola, Sasol, and SABMiller, to
Development Solutions, an NGO. All investment in the sector into an engine of create more business opportunities for SMEs
participating companies contribute resources growth for the country. As such, PROMINP by aggregating the demand for their products
and contract opportunities. Since it was analyzes supply and demand of goods and and services. Participating companies engage
launched in 2005, CAE has trained services; identify gaps; and undertake in knowledge sharing and joint supply
representatives of more than 900 companies, programs to fill those gaps. Flagship programs analysis, and then support mentoring,
and provided one-on-one consulting services include the construction of a new dry dock; a training, and access to finance for relevant
to nearly 100. By the end of 2008, CAE clients $150 million professional qualification plan; SMEs through an SME Development Center
had won $59 million in contracts, enabling and a $14 million national supplier engaging local business development service
them to create 1,463 jobs. development framework with SEBRAE, providers. Mozlink Phase I, from 2003-2005,
a small business association, as implementing resulted in contracts of approximately $15
partner. million with 25 SMEs. Mozlink Phase II,
initiated in 2005, has resulted in more than
$20 million in contracts with 80 SMEs by
Mozal and other firms.
Source: IFC, CSR Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School, International Council of Mining and Metals

(iii) Alliances to improve regional trade and investment climates
An unfavorable investment climate and weak regulatory and institutional structures are among the
greatest impediments to private sector development generally and pro-poor growth and inclusive
markets more specifically. While governments must take the lead in creating better enabling
conditions, there is growing recognition that multi-stakeholder alliances and public policy dialogues
are often necessary to drive and sustain progress.
At the national or sector-level, some developing countries have established national investor
roundtables or centers for competitiveness and innovation, which combine the resources of both the
public and private sector. These aim to go beyond traditional business associations or supply-driven
government programs to take a more demand-led and markets-based approach to improving the
country’s overall investment climate or that of specific industry sectors.
On a regional and international basis, business associations or groups of companies are also affiliating
with inter-governmental initiatives or helping to fund public-private partnerships that are focused on
improving regional investment conditions and international trade and investment flows.
Two diverse examples of such public-private initiatives focused on Africa are the African Investment
Climate Facility and Business Action for Improving Customs Administration in Africa. They are
briefly described in Box 11. The US-Palestinian Partnership is another example aimed to improve
trade and investment in the West Bank.

Box 11: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve Africa’s investment and trade climate
The following examples illustrate a growing number of multi-stakeholder alliances aimed at improving national, regional or international
investment climates and trade flows. In all these cases, major corporations and/or business leadership coalitions are working closely with
governments to overcome barriers and to share both financial costs and technical assistance.
1. The Africa Investment Climate Facility (ICF): catalyzing policy improvements
Purpose and origins: Core activities:

The ACF was launched at the World ICF is designed to be a facility to catalyze
Economic Forum in Cape Town in June change with a limited lifespan of seven
2006 as an unprecedented partnership years and specific targets and performance
between governments, development metrics. Projects are selected according to
partners and individual corporations. specific priority themes, which have been
It is headquartered in Dar Es Salaam and mutually agreed by the private and public
became operational in 2007. It aims to sector participants. These include: business
registration; customs administration; land
Funding, governance and management: registration; commercial justice; tax and
ICF is the only pan-African body, based in VAT administration; anti-counterfeiting
Africa and governed by a multi-stakeholder and piracy; and power sector support.
African and international Board of Trustees, Any government applying for ICF support
that is explicitly and exclusively focused on must agree to a co-funding, burden-sharing
improving the continent’s investment model and be a supporter of the Africa Peer
climate. It is also supported by a Technical Review Mechanism, aimed at improving
Advisory Committee, which is composed of governance and accountability.
representatives from its corporate investors
and development partners and advises To-date the ICF has provided funding,
on specific projects, assesses operational technical assistance, and support for
progress, mobilizes local business support, coalition-building and project management
and generates thematic task forces. to some 40 projects in over ten countries
and several regional initiatives. In Rwanda,
Partners: for example, work has been undertaken to
In addition to African Governments, ICF’s establish commercial courts and improve
development partners include the African land titling and registration, in Senegal the
Development Bank, the International amount of time to clear goods through
Finance Corporation and the Governments customs has been decreased from days to
of Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, several hours through improving paperless
Norway, South Africa and the United electronic customs administration, in
Kingdom. Corporate partners include: Lesotho it is supporting work to simplify
Anglo-American; Coca-Cola; Microsoft; and improve the administration and
SABMiller; Royal Dutch Shell and the Shell collection of Value-Added-Tax, and in
Foundation; Sasol; Standard Bank; Unilever Liberia it is working with the government to
and Zain. speed up the process of registering
businesses.

Box 11: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve Africa’s investment and trade climate continued
2. Business Action for Africa: improving regional customs administration
Purpose and origins: volumes of trade and a more stable and

Business Action for Africa is a network of robust fiscal environment, a better
companies and business associations investment climate for business, less
focused on policy advocacy and collective bribery and corruption and a more difficult
action on the ground. It aims to support environment for illicit businesses. For
growth and poverty reduction in Africa and business, faster, more predictable and
to promote a more balanced view of the efficient customs enables better business
continent through sharing investment planning, more scope for regional and
opportunities, good practices and success global supply chain integration, lower
stories. It was created on the recommendation inventories and products getting to
of the UK-led Commission on Africa. market faster.
It is a network, not a new institution or
intermediary organization, and is supported Core activities:
by a small secretariat. One of its key On the basis of a business-focused study
programs is Business Action for Improving in 20 countries, recommendations for
Customs Administration in Africa (BAFICAA). improving customs administration have
This private sector-led trade facilitation been developed. In East Africa, BAFICAA has
initiative aims to improve the local customs been working with the East Africa Business
environment in East Africa, boost regional Council and government authorities
trade and improve the investment climate. to change the culture of customs
administration from a controlling function
Funding, governance and management: to a facilitating one. Program activities are
The program is led by Unilever, British focused on six key areas:
American Tobacco, Diageo, SITPRO (the - Fast-tracking customs services for
UK's trade facilitation agency) and the East compliant and low risk taxpayers and
African Business Council. BAFICAA's primary traders
objective is to achieve measurable and - Supporting change and improving
meaningful progress in customs reform capacity in customs administration
by retaining a strong private sector lead - Automating customs processes and
while working in a wider co-operative procedures
relationship with governments, donors - Establishing a service charter between
and other stakeholders in Africa. the customs services department and the
private sector
The aim is to build a cooperative dialogue - Avoiding duplication and unnecessary
between business and governments bureaucracy in Post Clearance Audits and
based on a relationship of trust and the valuation processes
recognition that the private sector can be - Training, accreditation and certification
an active partner in improving the customs for customs agencies.
environment. The program recommends
practical improvements in the customs
environment to benefit the broader local
economy and leverages technical assistance
and advice to implement these
improvements. For governments, an
improved customs regime generates higher
government revenues through increased

Box 12: A Multi-stakeholder alliance to improve the investment climate in Palestine:
The U.S.-Palestinian Partnership
The U.S.–Palestinian Partnership (UPP) is promote the outsourcing of research and a planned US$50 million fund that will
managed by the Aspen Institute’s Middle development and engineering projects invest in early stage Palestinian ICT
East Programs. It was established in 2007 to Palestinian software companies by companies with a focus on those with
and currently focuses on the West Bank. identifying Palestinian companies able to high-potential for local job creation and
It aims to foster partnerships between work as contractors with Cisco and other economic growth in the Internet, mobile
American and Palestinian leaders in the American companies. It is also planning and software sectors. Palestinian ICT and
public, private and non-profit sectors to the launch of an ICT Incubation Project software exports have shown steady
Expand economic opportunity for the that will combine training, mentorship growth over the past decade, one of the
Palestinian people. This is being achieved and exchanges between Palestinian ICT few sectors to do so.
through the implementation of income- leaders and entrepreneurs and their
generating jobs, investment and American counterparts. In part, this is due to the fact they are not as
entrepreneurship. challenged by the restrictions on physical
• Hotels and tourism: UPP is working with movement of goods and people that hinder
UPP operates through a variety of activities the Kairos Project to help facilitate a so many other industries in the region, and
ranging from the design and implementation university partnership between the in part it is a result of the educated Palestinian
of projects and active support for the Conrad Hilton College at the University of population and growth in local ICT skills,
creation of investment and risk management Houston and the Bethlehem University qualified engineers and IT infrastructure
vehicles to convening key stakeholders and School of Hospitality, which will support over the past decade. The MEVCF aims to
hosting leadership exchanges and dialogues an integrated program of curriculum build on this foundation by increasing
between Palestinians and Americans. In development, online training and job access to venture funding, international
almost all cases, UPP works with a placement in the hospitality sector. It is markets and business partnerships for high-
combination of corporate, nonprofit and also exploring a variety of investment potential enterprises in this sector.
public sector partners. Key U.S.-based opportunities to increase the diversity,
working partners have included Cisco quality and number of hospitality As of March 2010, investors in the MEVCF
Systems, Intel, Microsoft, Google, the Case facilities in the West Bank. have included the European Investment
Foundation, the Kairos Project, Booz Allen Bank, the Soros Economic Development
and Hamilton, the U.S. State Department, • Agribusiness: The partnership is working Fund and the Skoll Foundation. This group
and USAID among others. with agribusiness, technology companies, in itself is a good example of innovative
hotel chains, investors and donors to look new partnerships between investment
Focusing on key industry clusters at a variety of technologies and business banks and philanthropic foundations, and
In coordination with the Palestinian models aimed at increasing the export of between the public and private sectors.
Authority and United States Government, Palestinian produce and products to the
the UPP focuses its efforts on the United States and building more UPP has also worked with the Middle East
development of three primary economic sustained business linkages between Investment Initiative, which is itself a
sectors that are deemed to be crucial to hotel operations in the Middle East and partnership between organizations such as
economic growth, job creation and the Palestinian agribusiness companies. the Overseas Private Investment
achievement of broader development Corporation and the Palestinian Investment
goals: information and communications Promoting innovative investment vehicles Fund. MEII has developed a loan guarantee
technology (ICT); hotels and tourism; and From the outset, the UPP has recognized program to generate increased lending to
agribusiness. Examples of projects the challenge of access to capital and risk small and medium-sized Palestinian
underway include the following: management services for Palestinian enterprises, a risk insurance product to
businesses and entrepreneurs. It has been protect Palestinian companies against
• Information and Communications one of the organizations active in securing losses from trade disruptions and political
Technology: Working with Cisco Systems investment for the Middle East Venture unrest, and the provision of affordable
and building on Cisco’s outsourcing Capital Fund (MEVCF). Launched with mortgages for home ownership in parts of
model, UPP is supporting an effort to initial anchor investments in 2009, MEVCF is the West Bank.
Sources: Websites of Aspen Institute, U.S.-Palestinian Partnership, Middle East Investment Initiative, Microsoft, Cisco, Case Foundation, USAID, U.S. State Department and
International Youth Foundation.
3. Enhancing the effectiveness of humanitarian and social programs
Some multi-stakeholder alliances aim to make more strategic and leveraged use of philanthropic and
public resources to address a humanitarian or social challenge with the aim of:
• Meeting immediate and often urgent humanitarian needs in a more efficient, performance-driven
and accountable manner
• Meeting these needs in a way that builds the capacity of local leaders and their institutions.
Nowhere are these issues more pressing – or challenging – than in situations of humanitarian crisis,
whether through natural disasters or man-made conflict. The two examples profiled in Box 13
illustrate ways in which information technology companies and healthcare companies are
cooperating in a more strategic and systemic manner with leading humanitarian organizations. In
both cases, the aims of these collaborative efforts are not only to improve the effectiveness of
emergency response, but also to ensure better preparedness for emergencies and strengthen local
capacity and resilience over the longer term.

Box 13: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve humanitarian assistance
1. Harnessing the power of information technology: NetHope

Relief and humanitarian organizations in remote and austere environments. impact areas: Agriculture (providing
require communication infrastructure in NetHope organizes bi-annual summits market information systems and laptops
disaster zones and rural development areas, to facilitate the sharing of information for education and data collection),
yet it is costly and inefficient for each to and project data between member Education (ICT for classroom learning and
provide this on their own. That’s where organizations and the private sector; it school linking, eLearning, and youth
NetHope comes in. Founded in 2001, has established chapters in East Africa, employment), Healthcare (mobile field
NetHope brings together over 30 of the West Africa, India, Sri Lanka and Thailand; data management, telemedicine and ICT
world’s largest humanitarian organizations and it facilitates ICT (information and for disease screening and diagnosis, and
(Care, Oxfam, Red Cross/Red Crescent, Save communication technology) Skill Building geographic information systems for
the Children, MercyCorps, World Vision, programs for IT professionals and disease management), Microfinance
etc.) to ensure that its members have access humanitarian program staff. (micro loan and savings management,
to high quality information and loan guarantees tracking, and remittance),
communication technology and practices • Emergency Relief Services: A key and Natural Resource Management
anywhere in the world. enabler to any emergency response effort (geographic information systems for
is communications capacity including conservation, rugged laptop for water
It accomplishes this by building strong land lines, mobile devices, satellite programs, and reference libraries and
relationships with foundations and phones and internet access. NetHope collaboration platforms for data sharing).
corporations who support the use of provides interagency coordination of ICT
technology to enact social change. These assessments; consolidation of ICT related NetHope creates wifi hotspots in the middle
institutions provide financial support and appeals to the private sector; knowledge of disaster areas so that relief organizations
make investments of resources, technical sharing and development of ICT hardware can coordinate their efforts. It connects
expertise, and intellectual capital. Among and software solutions; and preparedness rural communities to the internet via
the primary private supporters are for regions likely to be affected by computer and cell phones, thereby opening
Accenture, Baker & McKenzie, Blackbaud, emergencies through pre-deployment up opportunities for improved literacy and
Cisco, CDW, Intel, Michael & Susan Dell of equipment and training. education, access to commodity prices
Foundation, Microsoft, the Rockefeller and market information, and growth
Foundation, and Waggener Edstrom. • Shared Services: ICT funding is an issue opportunities for tourism and other income
for all internationally focused NGOs, generating activities. As Charles MacCormack,
NetHope focuses on five strategic particularly given their intentional emphasis CEO of Save the Children, notes: “As CEO,
initiatives, all enabled by the power of on mission and programs. The Shared the four levers I can pull to achieve greater
collaboration: Services program assists NGOs through impact are people, funding, program
strategic cost management and capacity design, and technology. NetHope provides
• Connectivity: This program facilitates building. Launched in 2008, this program a means to dramatically increase the
collaborative partnerships that focus on currently provides shared resources for a leverage of technology.”
providing connectivity technology in Help Desk and Procurement.
developing regions around the world via
small (less than 3 meters in size) stations • Innovation for Development:
to link to geosynchronous communication This program designs ICT solutions
satellites. Hundreds of successful that can be replicated across member
connectivity deployments have been organizations to leverage their impact on
accomplished through this program. the developing world. A key component
is building partnerships between
• Field Capacity Building: NetHope members and technology providers of
member agencies have over 350,000 hardware, software and services to
employees worldwide, 90% of whom are accelerate the design and implementation
located in the developing world – often of replicable ICT solutions. There are five
Source: NetHope and partner materials
Box 13: Multi-stakeholder alliances to improve humanitarian assistance continued
2. Ensuring the quality and reliability of medical donations: the Partnership For Quality Medical Donations
Collaborations between healthcare firms PQMD’s primary objectives are to:
that donate medical products and the • Develop and promote sound donation
humanitarian agencies that deliver them practices by donor and recipient
help meet important healthcare needs of organizations;
vulnerable populations around the world. • Represent members’ interests before
In the early 1990s, however, reports of national and international agencies
inappropriate donations surfaced. In Bosnia responsible for policy formulation
and Herzegovina, 1992-1996, an estimated affecting medical product donations and
17,000 metric tons of unwanted medical distribution;
donations were received with an estimated • Encourage documentation and scholarly
disposal cost of US$34 million. In 1989, study of health and socioeconomic
during Eritrea’s war for independence, impacts of the donation of health care
seven truckloads of donated expired aspirin products and services; and
took six months to burn; a whole container • Educate audiences on member projects
of unsolicited cardiovascular drugs was and programs that serve to encourage
received with two months to expiry; and replication of appropriate donation
30,000 half-litre bottles of expired amino- practices
acid infusion were received that could not
be disposed of anywhere near a settlement The Partnership’s website includes a virtual
because of the smell. In Lithuania, 1993, library with articles, donation policies and
eleven women temporarily lost their standards, papers, research studies,
eyesight after using a donated drug which speeches and essays designed to educate
had been received without product members and the public on best practices.
information and which turned out to be It also provides numerous case studies to
veterinary medicine. These and other document the collaborations between its
examples are cited in the World Health healthcare firms that donate medical
Organization’s Guidelines for Drug products and the humanitarian agencies
Companies published in 1999. that deliver and distribute these products.
In response to these incidents, and to an The impact of the PQMD is significant.

earlier set of guidelines published by WHO, The World Health Organization recognizes
an informal alliance of private voluntary the Partnership as a leading authority on
agencies and pharmaceutical and medical medical donations. Every October, the group
device companies was formed in 1996 holds an education forum for the public on
and formally incorporated in 1999 as the medical aid to poor countries. In 2008,
Partnership for Quality Medical Donations PQMD members donated $4.2 billion in
(PQMD). Its membership, consisting of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, supplies
13 NGOs and 14 pharmaceutical, and equipment to health programs in 150
biotechnology and medical supply countries around the world. This represents
manufacturers, shares a commitment to the a sizeable majority of aid given by US
development, dissemination and adherence corporations to the developing world,
to high standards in the delivery of medical according to The Index of Global Philanthropy
products to under-served people and and Remittances, which estimates 2007 total
disaster victims around the world. corporate aid for international development
assistance to be $6.8 billion.
Sources: Program and Partner websites and materials and United Nations

4. Increasing accountability and transparency
Over the past decade a number of multi-stakeholder initiatives have been established with the express
purpose of increasing mutual accountability and transparency of their participants. The main aim is
usually to create common standards and metrics, and a more level playing field for improving the
social, environmental and governance performance and the public accountability and transparency
of core business models and commercial value chains. In some cases there are also certification
schemes, which enable end consumers and other stakeholders to judge the performance of companies
or specific products. As such, there is often overlap between these types of alliances and those aimed
at making value chains more inclusive and sustainable.
There are many multi-stakeholder initiatives that are focused on specific commodities in agriculture,
fisheries and mining. These include the Kimberly Process for diamonds; the Forest Stewardship
Council; the Marine Stewardship Council; the World Cocoa Initiative; the Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil, the Better Cotton Initiative. Others focus on specific manufactured good.
These include the Fair Labor Association; the International Council of Toy Industries’ Care Process;
and the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct. There are a growing number of Ethical Trade
Initiatives that cover more than one group of commodities. And there are initiatives such as the
Global Social Compliance Program, which is working with a group of some 30 global corporations
and independent advisers to develop a framework that allows greater consistency, efficiency and
coordination across the many codes and accountability initiatives that are being launched.
The examples of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), The Equator Principles,
The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, the Fair Labor Association, The Ethical
Trading Initiative (ETI) and the Marine Stewardship Council are breifly profiled in Box 14.

Box 14: Multi-stakeholder initiatives to improve accountability in global supply chains
Extractive Industry Transparency The Voluntary Principles on Security and The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) –
Initiative (EITI) – Established in September Human Rights – Adopted in 2000, these Created in 1995 initially as a partnership
2002, EITI aims to improve the transparency provide practical guidance to companies on between Unilever and the Worldwide Fund
of revenues generated by extractive projects three sets of issues: risk assessment, for Nature (WWF), the Marine Stewardship
and to stimulate wider dialogue within including the potential for violence; Council has evolved into an independently
developing countries about public identification of the potential human rights governed global multi-stakeholder initiative
expenditure priorities. Partners include vulnerabilities that firms face as a result ofthat works with partners from all sectors to
donor and developing country governments, their relationship with public security promote sustainable fishing practices, that
the World Bank, oil, gas and mining providers, both military and police, as well are both environmentally sound and sustain
companies and civil society organizations. as recommendations for how to deal with and create jobs. MSC sets standards for
Increasing transparency will empower them; and the same for private security sustainable fishing and seafood traceability,
citizens and institutions to hold forces. Currently focused on the extractive which are monitored by independent third-
governments to account and make sector, the VPs serve as a potential model forparty certifiers. It offers fisheries around the
mismanagement or diversion of funds away world the opportunity to get certification
similar initiatives in other sectors, including
from development purposes more difficult. It humanitarian agencies. They have also been and to use this in their consumer marketing
should also help to improve the business integrated into Host Government Agreements and sales activities. It also partners with
environment, and attract more foreign direct and project contracts illustrating how such some of the world’s leading retailers,
investment. Such an initiative has relevance brands and seafood businesses to integrate
initiatives can achieve scale over time through
for other industries where large amounts of integration into public policy frameworks. sustainable fishery products into their supply
resources are exchanged between the public chains and customer outreach. In addition,
and private sector. The Fair Labor Association (FLA) – FLA was MSC support capacity building programs in
established in xx to improve working developing countries to help create local
The Equator Principles (EP) – These were conditions in factories around the world. It is jobs and economic development through
launched in June 2003 in Washington DC, an independently governed multi-stakeholder sustainable fishing.
with 10 banks as the founder signatories and initiative that works collaboratively with
with support from the IFC. Based on the apparel companies and suppliers, colleges The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) – This is
environmental and social standards of the and universities that buy apparel products an alliance of companies, trade unions and
IFC, the EP framework requires its signatories and civil society organizations. All three voluntary organizations that was established
to voluntarily adhere to these standards groups have equal representation on FLA’s with support from the UK Department for
when financing projects in developing policy-making board. The participating International Development to improve
countries with capital costs above US$10 companies and suppliers, numbering over 40 working lives of people in selected developing
million. Revised in June 2006 to include a major brands, retailers and manufacturers, countries, with a focus on Africa and Asia,
public reporting requirement, today, the EPs agree to adhere to FLA’s Workplace Code of who make or grow key consumer goods
are supported by over 60 financial Conduct, to have their performance from food to footballs. In 2010, ETI had over
institutions including most of the world’s independently monitored and to work with 60 corporate members, producers, suppliers
major banks as well as insurance companies, the factories in their supply chains to and retailers, who between them managed
bilateral development agencies, and export improve labor management and practices. ethical trade activities that touched the lives
credit agencies. Approximately 80 percent of Over 200 universities and colleges help to of an estimated 9.4 million workers.
total project finance debt in emerging provide a market for responsibly produced Participating companies commit publicly to
markets is now managed by banks that are apparel and to raise awareness about labor demonstrate progressive performance in
signatories to the Equator Principles. In order and human rights on their campuses. And implementing the ETI Base Code along their
to actively engage the increasingly the civil society organizations help to set global supply chains.
influential banks in China, Russia, and India direction and to work with local NGOs and
and other key emerging markets, an trade unions in implementing responsible
outreach committee has been formed. labor standards.
Sources: Initiative’s materials and UN sources.

PART FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
AN AGENDA FOR JOINT ACTION
Concerted and collaborative leadership is essential to harnessing markets and the private sector in
a manner that creates both business value and development impact. Such leadership is required on
the part of all the key actors in business and development: companies, entrepreneurs, financiers,
business associations, donor and developing country governments, foundations, academic and
research institutes and non-governmental organizations. The following section makes
recommendations in six areas where collaborative leadership will be especially important.
I. ASSESS AND PROMOTE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

II. BUILD CAPACITY AND KNOWLEDGE
III. CREATE INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
IV.ESTABLISH OR STRENGTHEN MARKET INTERMEDIARIES AND PLATFORMS
V. SUPPORT MULTI-STAKEHOLDER ALLIANCES
VI.ADVOCATE JOINTLY FOR POLICY INNOVATION

“ In this world, the optimists have it, not because they are always right, but because they are
positive. Even when they are wrong, they are positive, and that is the way of achievement,
correction, improvement and success. Educated, eyes-open optimism pays: pessimism can
only offer the empty consolation of being right. The one lesson that emerges is the need to
keep trying. No miracles. No perfection. No millennium. No apocalypse. We must cultivate a
skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to
chose means.
David S. Landes
Professor Emeritus, Harvard University
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why some are so rich and some so poor
1999

RECOMMENDATIONS: AN AGENDA FOR JOINT ACTION
Markets and the private sector are by no means a panacea. As has been demonstrated by the global
economic crisis, let alone situations of crony capitalism, corruption and conflict in some countries, if
markets and the private sector are not well regulated, if their key players are not held accountable or if
incentives become distorted toward less productive or more inequitable outcomes, they can cause
immense harm - especially to the poor.
Yet this is not a reason to give up on collaborative efforts to harness market-based solutions and private
sector engagement aimed at addressing poverty. In addition to smart regulation, it reinforces the need
for cross-sector coordination and cooperation to make markets more inclusive of the poor and to
actively engage private sector leaders to be more intentional and effective in the fight against poverty
in ways that make sound business sense. It also emphasizes the importance of consulting directly with
the poor as active stakeholders, and of designing equity and consumer protection into interventions
from the start, as well as assessment and action learning frameworks.
Concerted and collaborative leadership is essential. It is required on the part of all the key actors in
business and development: companies, entrepreneurs, financiers, business associations, donor and
developing country governments, foundations, academic and research institutes and non-
governmental organizations.
The following section outlines six broad areas where such collaborative leadership, or at least more
coordinated interventions, will be especially important. Collaborative action can add particular value in
efforts to:
I. Assess and promote empirical evidence
II. Build capacity and knowledge
III. Create innovative financial instruments
IV. Establish or strengthen market intermediaries and platforms
V. Support multi-stakeholder alliances
VI. Advocate jointly for policy innovation

I. ASSESS AND PROMOTE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Inclusive business models and markets need to be better understood, evaluated and where they are
effective, promoted.
1. Assessing the evidence

Although there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence in this field, more rigorous empirical analysis
is needed in at least four key areas:
Improve market research and information on the poor

There is a need to undertake more research on and consultation with the poor as economic actors,
aimed at getting a better understanding of their needs, aspirations, capacities, constraints and
resource management strategies as producers, employees, and consumers.
Linked to this are emerging initiatives to map and assess the market potential of certain base of the
pyramid income segments, sectors and locations. Groundbreaking work has been undertaken on this
in recent years. It includes WRI and IFC’s research on The Next 4 Billion, and market research studies
supported by the IDB’s Opportunities for the Majority initiative and UNDP’s Growing Inclusive
Markets Initiative, in addition to internal research undertaken by companies, donors, investors and
foundations for their own investment, grantmaking and programmatic activities. This is an area that
warrants greater attention and support from key development actors and corporations, both in terms
of funding and technical assistance.
Participants at a dialogue on ‘Starting and Scaling Inclusive Business Models’ hosted by the IFC and
Harvard CSR Initiative in April 2010 proposed the creation of a joint donor facility or facilities
explicitly targeted at undertaking such research. IFC and Harvard summarized in the event report:
“Such a facility could pool donor funds and channel them to local organizations
capable of conducting high-quality market research among low-income populations,
which could be offered to companies for a fee. Such a mechanism would benefit the
market, as opposed to any one company. [Thereby having a public good component
and making it easier for public donors to justify to their governments and taxpayers.]
At the same time, such an approach might make it possible to assess the large datasets
of government social protection programs and other data, which governments are
naturally reluctant to make available to individual profit-making companies or even
individual social entrepreneurs and NGOs. In addition, several companies with large
distribution networks in base of the pyramid markets expressed a willingness to open
these networks up as additional conduits of such research.”1
Understand inclusive business models and strategies

There is a need to understand in greater detail such models in greater detail, and in particular, what
works and what does not in starting, sustaining and scaling these models. In order for the field to
move forward beyond the pioneers, it has become essential to go beyond broad descriptions and to
undertake detailed analysis of specific sectors, specific business models, specific value chains, and
specific contexts.

In addition to the investors, foundations and companies that are directing investing in such models
and undertaking this analysis internally themselves, a combination of academics and strategy and/or
development consulting firms such as McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, Monitor
Group’s Inclusive Markets team and Dalberg among others, are starting to undertake such analysis.
Much of the consultancy work is for fee-paying clients and currently does nor enter the public
domain, but several donor and foundation funded initiatives are helping to address this challenge by
funding research for the public domain. Academic institutions have also become more active,
especially the universities that pioneered the original base of the pyramid research, University of
Michigan, Kenan-Flagler and Cornell and the global learning networks they have inspired.
Until recently, much of the research in the public domain focused primarily on individual business
models and value chains, but pioneering work on scaling models is now being undertaken. In
particular, this includes work by the Opportunities for the Majority initiative at IDB on six broad
types of scaling ‘platforms’, by Ashoka’s Full Economic Citizenship Initiative on sector-led
approaches to scaling, and by the Society for Organizational learning at MIT on systems approaches,
applying Peter Senge’s seminal work on systems thinking to the business and development agenda.
Measure financial, social and environmental performance of inclusive business

models
In addition to better understanding the specific models and strategies that are being used to start and
scale inclusive business approaches, there is the related need to be able to evaluate their returns to
investors and their impact on development. This requires moving beyond financial performance,
although this obviously remains crucial for sustaining such models, to also include social and
environmental performance. The emerging field of impact investing and the Global Impact Investing
Network is developing assessment models and tools in this area. The University of Michigan’s Base
of the Pyramid Impact Assessment Framework offers another emerging tool focused on evaluating
the development impact and business performance of specific projects or business models.
Assess the corporation’s overall ‘development footprint’ or multipliers

Finally, as outlined in Part Two remarkably few corporations have assessed the broader development
multipliers that result from their core business operations and value chains. Emerging models to help
companies and development practitioners to do this include the WBCSD’s Measuring Impact
Framework, Oxfam’s Poverty Footprint methodology, the performance platform of the Business
Innovation Facility launched in 2010 by DFID, and a variety of other socio-economic impact tools
developed by companies, consultants and academics. These warrant further analysis and support
from donors and companies.
Several of the emerging approaches to assess the impact of inclusive business and the broader role of
business in development are explicitly structured to bring together tools and methodologies from the
fields of both development and business. More can be done in this area. Models that facilitate joint
evaluation teams from different disciplines or sectors can add value in this context, although there are
transaction costs and timeline challenges with multi-disciplinary teams and learning approaches.

Identifying and supporting networks of southern-based research institutes, consultancies and NGOs
to do this research and assessment work offers the double benefit of building the evidence base on
inclusive business models and markets, while also building research capacity in developing country
institutions – strengthening the capacity of both the institutions and the individuals doing the
research. The following examples offer models that are worthy of greater support by donors,
companies, foundations and established academic and research initiatives that have expertise in this
area:
• The UNDP’s Growing Inclusive Markets (GIM) initiative has established a network of some 40
researchers from developing countries. Working in partnership with Dalhousie University among
others, GIM is commission case studies and now market research from these individuals and their
institutions, while also providing a range of technical assistance, training on case writing an
research methodologies, networking opportunities and growing community of practice.
• The Global Business School Network, which evolved out of an IFC initiative, is focused more
generally on building capacity of business schools in developing countries, especially Africa. It
offers a useful platform, however, for sharing and spreading expertise specifically in the four types
of assessment outlined above.
Equally important and challenging are efforts to explicitly engage the poor in such assessments and
evidence-building exercises. Such efforts can serve not only to improve the quality of information
and feedback obtained, but also to build local skills and capacity at the community and operational
level, and to build trust and relationships that can strengthen the effectiveness of the business models
themselves. The Base of the Pyramid Protocol ™ is one initiative that has embedded proactive and
ongoing corporate engagement with low-income communities as a core principle and methodology.
Developed by a consortium of institutional and corporate partners during 2003 to 2005 the protocol
combines both business tools and practices adapted from social anthropology and Participatory Rural
Appraisal to help build more equitable and sustainable business models at the Base of the Pyramid
that match the resources, technologies and practices of large companies with the local knowledge,
social capital and assets of low-income communities.
2. Promoting the evidence

Once more empirical evidence is available, there are opportunities for researchers as well as donors
and foundations to provide independent third-party endorsement of what works and what does not
to key audiences. These audiences include: decision-takers and budget holders within companies,
investors and foundations; policy makers in both developing country governments and donor
agencies; and in certain cases the general public who pay the taxes and increasingly raise their own
funds to support global development and poverty alleviation in many countries.
In the case of engaging large companies, such third party endorsement can be useful for overcoming
internal organizational obstacles, for example if senior corporate executives are not yet convinced or
supportive of their managers exploring innovation in inclusive business models.

Credible third party endorsement of the development impact of business multipliers and specifically
of commercially-viable inclusive business models can also be useful in helping to overcome distrust
of the private sector and the profit motive among development practitioners and policy makers. It
can influence policy-makers to allocate more public resources or to implement relevant incentives in
support of such business models. For example, within the donor community, more empirical
evidence would make it easier to allocate taxpayers’ money to supporting market-based, profit-
making initiatives, in addition to the more traditional humanitarian assistance and government-to-
government models of donor engagement. And it can raise public awareness and support for such
initiatives if made available via the media and social networking platforms.
Researchers, donors and foundations can play an important third-party role in promoting evidence
of what works to key audiences. Models exist in this area in the wider development agenda – such as
the policy-oriented research on ‘Millions Saved” in the health sector and “Billions Fed” in the
agriculture sector, and the public awareness campaigns launched by initiatives such as ONE and the
‘Living Proof ’ campaign highlighting the human stories of successful aid programs to the American
public. Similar efforts could be undertaken, especially aimed at policy makers and corporate decision-
takers, in the case of inclusive business and market-based solutions.

II. BUILD CAPACITY AND KNOWLEDGE
In addition to building the capacity of local research institutes in developing countries as outlined
above, two other essential areas of skills and capacity building to enable inclusive business are in the
corporate sector and within low-income communities themselves.
1. Build skills, knowledge and capacity in the corporate sector

For many companies, engaging in development and inclusive business models is a challenge due to
lack of relevant skills, awareness and incentives within the company and/or lack of senior executive
support.
Collective efforts to build the awareness and knowledge of senior executives and key decision-takers
can take several forms. These range from high-level engagement platforms such as those provided by
the World Economic Forum, Clinton Global Initiative and other business leadership groups to
programs that increase the direct exposure of business executives to development programs in the
development community through dialogues, joint task forces and study visits.
Joint efforts can also be effective in creating internal incentives for and building the skills of
intrapraneurs or practitioners within the companies who will be responsible for creating inclusive
business models, developing new products and services, and interacting with nontraditional partners
and low-income communities. Some examples of these were highlighted in Part Two of the report,
and include experiential learning and immersion programs, internal and external challenge funds and
award programs, institutional study exchanges with key development partners, joint evaluation and
monitoring teams, development of toolkits, and the creation of dedicated units and selection criteria.
While leading companies often undertake these activities on their own, costs and effort can be
reduced and more companies and development partners engaged through collaborative action. In
such cases business leadership networks and academic executive training programs can play a useful
role in convening and providing collective training either to groups of companies in a particular
sector or geographic location or to the key development and private sector actors working together
on a particular inclusive business model or value chain initiative.
Many of the university programs profiled in Part Three offer such capacity building for companies.
Learning laboratories like the Base of the Pyramid Learning Lab at Cornell University, the Society of
Organizational Learning at MIT, and the Partnership Brokers Accreditation Program of the
International Business Leaders Forum are other examples that can provide experiential learning, skills
and capacity development for corporate executives alongside other development actors who are
important in building inclusive business models.

Helping people to develop partnership-building skills
Building on 20 years of the International Business 2003 as a collaborative effort between the Overseas
Leaders Forum’s pioneering cross-sector partnership Development Institute and International Business
work, The Partnering Initiative (TPI) works with Leaders Forum, and now managed by TPI, this formal
all sectors (business, civil society, governments and Accreditation Scheme has helped to establish a
international agencies) to drive widespread, systematic professional network of ‘partnership brokers’ over the
and effective collaboration for sustainable development. past seven years. Over 600 leading individuals from all
TPI incorporates four interlinked elements: action sectors and more than 40 countries have completed
research on the practice of partnering leading to the the basic intensive training and some 300 people have
development of standards and tools; ii) capacity become accredited professionals. Participants have
building of individuals to provide the necessary come from organizations such as: Accenture; ANZ bank;
partnering skill set and mind set; iii) direct support | Chevron; Microsoft; Nike; Rio Tinto; Shell; Action Aid;
to help develop organisations and partnerships; and CARE International; Mercy Corps; Plan; World Vision;
iv) the exchange of knowledge and experience among AusAID; GTZ; UNDP; and the World Bank, among
practitioners worldwide. TPI operates through a global others. Many of these individuals are in positions to
network of trained Associates and has ambitious plans have influence not just on the immediate partnerships
to scale up its operations to achieve maximum impact. with which they work but on the organizations,
ThePartneringInitiative.org systems and contexts in which they are operating.
There is increasingly compelling evidence that well-
The Partnership Brokering Project takes this work a brokered partnerships achieve more ambitious goals
stage further by exploring, understanding and and more sustainable outcomes.
promoting the critical role of individuals operating in
the role of partnership brokers. Initially launched in
2. Build collective capacity for the poor as economic actors

There are opportunities for much greater cross-sector collaboration in building the collective capacity
of the poor as producers, employees and consumers.
Building capacity of the poor as producers:

As the IFC, UNDP, IDB and many others have noted:
“Building the capacity of low-income suppliers, distributors and retailers is intimately linked
to their profitability – and by extension the overall viability of the inclusive business models.
The more skilled and efficient the suppliers, the greater the stability, quality, and cost savings
for the company in procurement. The more productive the distributors and retailers, the
greater the sales. In the cases studied [15 inclusive business models in IFC’s own portfolio] –
agricultural suppliers are being trained on productivity and quality as well as eco-efficiency,
labor standards, and other requirements for the traceability and certification that buyers
increasingly require. Distributors and retailers are being trained in marketing, accounting,
managing their cash flows and their employees, and complying with the brand standards of
the larger firm. In providing this training, inclusive business models often facilitate better
access for the poor to formal markets.”2

Many of the pioneering companies are covering all these additional costs themselves. For many
companies that are implementing or exploring inclusive business models, however, the additional
costs of providing capacity-building services to small and micro-enterprises in their value chain may
be a major constraint on the commercial viability or scaling of the model, especially if the producers
are not aggregated. Being able to share the financial costs, technical expertise needs and extension
efforts of such producer capacity building activities can make these models more viable. Such joints
initiatives usually have a public benefit as well as business benefit, justifying public sector or
philanthropic participation. Donors, foundations and NGOs can support burden-sharing efforts
through joint funding and capacity-building facilities and also by helping to establish or strengthen
producer organizations, enterprise development intermediaries and common databases, as outlined
later in this section
Building capacity of the poor as potential employees

While workforce development programs and vocational training initiatives ultimately benefit the
individual, there are again opportunities for companies, governments, donors and youth
organizations to pool resources in providing such initiatives. The role of some of the ICT companies
in this area was profiled in Part Two of the report. They have a particularly valuable ‘field-building’
role to play through the provision of e-learning opportunities and the use of information technology
to create common learning platforms and networks. There are opportunities for greater cooperation
between governments, donors, NGOs and companies in other industries, especially at the level of
individual sectors or value chains, to ensure that training programs more closely match labor market
needs, company requirements and job availability.
Building capacity of the poor as consumers

Lack of awareness and knowledge among low-income consumers of the benefits of certain products
and services relative to their costs will limit their uptake and business model sustainability. This is the
case for both productive inputs, for example agricultural technologies such as seeds, fertilizers,
irrigation etc. and essential consumer products and services such as healthcare, energy, education and
consumer finance. As outlined previously, low-income consumers have to be especially cautious and
discriminating in their purchases, particularly in the case of new untested products and services. As
with any new product launch, inclusive business launches can fail due to poor market research and
inadequate understanding of the real needs of the consumers – hence the importance of engaging
them in the market research activities outlined earlier. In the case of base of the pyramid markets lack
of consumer awareness and in many cases lack of basic literacy and financial literacy can be a major
impediment. The role of NGOs in working with companies, supported by donor funding can be
especially important in addressing this challenge. In particular, programs targeting at educating and
empowering girls and women as economic actors are proving to have substantial benefits and impacts
on poverty alleviation.

III. CREATE INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
As has been emphasized throughout the report financing is one of the most essential components at
every stage of building inclusive business models and market-based solutions. It is required by both the
private sector actors building such models and by low-income producers, employees and consumers to
enable them to participate in formal markets. It is also essential in facilitating multi-stakeholder
alliances and collaborative platforms aimed at building the market more generally for certain essential
products and services in sectors such as health and agriculture.
In almost all cases blended value propositions or hybrid financing models are required, combining
different types and sources of capital with different investment horizons and requirements for returns.
The interesting models emerging in the following areas warrant particular analysis, financial support
and collaborative effort:
• Challenge, innovation and replication funds for companies and entrepreneurs
• Joint capacity-building funds for intermediary organizations
• Global public-private partnerships and financing mechanisms
1. Challenge, innovation and replication funds for companies and entrepreneurs

As outlined in Part Three, a number of donor agencies and foundations are creating such funds aimed
at catalyzing and accelerating pro-poor investment and innovation by the private sector. There is
great variety in these funds in terms of how they are capitalized, structured, allocated and evaluated.
Some focus on a specific sector or even product or service. Others have a geographic focus. Most of
them employ a combination of both. Equally, there is variety in terms of the allocation of funds
between capital for investment purposes and funding for technical assistance and capacity-building
needs. There is a growing body of experience and evaluation studies on these incentive funds and
related award programs, but no single or easy to access repository for drawing on the models and
lessons learned to-date. Providing funding and technical support for such a database of practices is a
specific action that could benefit from collaboration between donors, companies and other
development partners.
2. Joint capacity-building funds for intermediary organizations

As was outlined in Part Two in the sections on microfinance and financial services for small and
growing businesses, these are two areas where there is great need, growing sophistication and
immense value from intermediation mechanisms. Collaborative efforts can play a vital role in
funding and building the capacity of intermediary organizations such as microfinance intermediaries
and organizations that are financing and providing technical assistance to small and growing
businesses. There are now numerous such facilities in the microfinance field and a growing number
in the latter area, with the capacity building fund launched by the Aspen Network for Development
Entrepreneurs offering one useful model.

3. Global public-private partnerships and financing mechanisms
The field of innovative public-private financing for crucial global goods is another area that is
undergoing important growth and innovation. Innovative public-private and philanthropic-
commercial funding mechanisms and financial instruments are being experimented with through
many of the global public-private partnerships in the health sector such as the Global Alliance for
Improved Nutrition (GAIN), the Global Fund for HIV/AIDs, TB and Malaria, and the GAVI
Alliance. Likewise, the burgeoning field of carbon finance is offering innovative new approaches to
pool public and private resources, and there is a growing need to make explicit links between funds
being allocated for climate change mitigation and adaptation to those being allocated for poverty
alleviation. Donors and foundations in particular can play a vital catalytic and convening role in
creating such mechanisms and in supporting research on innovative new funding models.

IV. CREATE OR STRENGTHEN MARKET
INTERMEDIARIES AND PLATFORMS
In almost all the most successful collaborative models that are helping to make markets more inclusive
for the poor, there are intermediary organizations or networks playing a vital role in providing some or
all of the following functions: identifying and brokering partnerships; mobilizing and allocating
resources; managing communications and conflict resolution; monitoring performance and impact;
ensuring a common advocacy voice; and spreading lessons, good practices and other useful
information needed to overcome obstacles. In many cases these intermediaries have been established
especially for the purpose of the initiative in question. As new cross-sector partnerships and
collaborative models of development become more mainstream the role of such intermediaries needs
to be better understood and supported. It is likely that many more will need to be created and/or
existing ones further strengthened.
As with the other areas for collaborative action that are outlined above, the creation of intermediaries
are important both for the poor as producers, employees and consumers, and for the private sector
actors engaging in inclusive business and development activities.
1. Market intermediaries and networks for producers, employees and

consumers
There is renewed interest in and valuable lessons to be learned from the role of producer associations,
microfinance intermediaries, small enterprise support centers, common supplier databases,
community-based organizations and social networks, and existing supplier and consumer networks
of utilities and consumer goods companies all aimed at helping the poor to aggregate their economic
and/or political capability and voice, and at the same time making it easier for larger private sector
actors and other development partners to reach large numbers of people. At the same time, there has
been the establishment of meta-level intermediary organizations to help build the field for a
particular sector. Examples include the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP), the Aspen
Institute of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) and the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN).
Traditionally, most of these intermediary organizations have been the domain of donors,
governments and NGOs, all of whom should continue to play an active role in funding them and
building their capacity. At the same time, there is the potential for increased engagement by
companies, social entrepreneurs and financiers in funding and providing technical assistance and
support to these intermediary organizations, in return for participating in and benefiting from them.
2. Corporate sector intermediaries and networks

As outlined in Part Four, the past decade has also seen growth in the number of business leadership
coalitions and networks that have been established to focus specifically on corporate responsibility or
the role of business in development. Examples range from business leadership organizations such as
the WBCSD, IBLF and Business for Social Responsibility to issue or sector-specific intermediaries
such as the Global Business Coalition Against HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria and the International
Council of Mining and Metals. These business intermediary organizations are funded primarily by
their corporate members, but there are opportunities for increased collaboration with donors and
foundations around specific research, outreach, capacity building and advocacy programs.

3. Multi-sector convening platforms
In addition to the business leadership coalitions above, there are also a small number of high profile
multi-stakeholder convening platforms such as the World Economic Forum, the Clinton Global
Initiative and the United Nations Global Compact. These platforms convene top corporate leaders,
entrepreneurs and financiers with leaders from other sectors to address specific development
challenges through a combination of high-level meetings and action networks, and through targeted
match-making efforts and practical commitments that mobilize resources to tackle these challenges
on-the-ground.
4. On-line networks
The explosion in the use of information technology and social networking capabilities has resulted
in another useful form of intermediation and match-making for diverse actors interested in business
and development and inclusive market approaches. Two such examples are NextBillion.org and
BusinessFightsPoverty.org. There is great potential for the creation and use of such on-line networks
and databases, including the mapping of inclusive business needs, models and partners structured
around specific sectors or locations.
Examples of two online networks that promote inclusive business
NextBillion.net was launched in May 2005 and serves BusinessFightsPoverty.org, launched in March 2008,
as a source of news and analysis that aims “to highlight is an open, informal platform for practitioners, experts,
the development and implementation of business and those who are just interested in fighting poverty
strategies that open opportunities and improve the through good business. The platform enables members
lives of the world’s approximately 4 billion low-income to exchange information and ideas and connect with
producers and consumers.” The site contains a blog, a one another. More than 6,500 members had joined as
newsroom, and a career center and hosts commentary of May 2010. Business Fights Poverty also hosts private
and discussion among bloggers and readers. Initially workspaces for groups of members that want to
launched by the World Resources Institute, the site is collaborate with one another on particular activities.
now co-managed with Acumen Fund and the William
Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan, with
additional support from Technoserve. A Spanish
language sister site, NextBillion en Español, is managed
in partnership with AVINA, FUNDES, and the
Opportunities for the Majority Initiative of the
Inter-American Development Bank.

V. SUPPORT MULTI-STAKEHOLDER ALLIANCES
As outlined in Part Four, multi-stakeholder collaborative initiatives can play a valuable role in helping
to make specific chains more inclusive and sustainable, in helping to guide and implement national or
regional development priorities, in enhancing the effectiveness of humanitarian initiatives, and in
improving mutual accountability and transparency of development outcomes.
These can take a variety of forms from relatively informal networks and communities of practice, to
formally established institutions or coalitions with their own dedicated secretariat and sometimes
their own governance and institutional structure, to targeted ‘innovation hubs’ focused on a specific
development challenge in a specific location or region. A number of examples were provided in Part
Four. In some cases there is overlap or blurring of the lines between these multi-stakeholder alliances
and the meta-level intermediary organizations described in the previous section. The aim of these
alliances is usually to integrate a variety of different stakeholder interests and resources and to achieve
systemic change as opposed to directly serving member interests. They are an evolving model that
requires ongoing assessment and engagement by all the development and private sector actors
interested in inclusive business and markets. As outlined in Part Four some of the key categories of
multistakeholder alliance that offer potential for improving development outcomes are as follows:
• Making value chains more inclusive and sustainable – sector-based alliances that aim to
overcome barriers to make value chains more inclusive and sustainable in key development sectors
and/or industry sectors, such as health, agriculture and financial services;
• Implementing national and regional development priorities – geographic focused alliances

that aim to support integrated approaches to development in particular locations from the local
to national and cross-border;
• Enhancing the effectiveness of humanitarian and social programs – alliances that aim to
ensure that philanthropic dollars, product donations and social investments are leveraged
effectively, especially in situations of humanitarian crisis and disaster;
• Improving mutual accountability and transparency – usually industry-focused global alliances

aimed at improving public accountability for the social and environmental performance and
impact of large corporations in developing countries;
• Advocating for progressive policy reform – these are alliances where companies join forces with
non-governmental organizations to advocate for policy reform at with the local, national or global
governance level.

VI. ADVOCATE FOR POLICY INNOVATION
There has been relatively little analysis on policy innovations by developing country and donor
governments that are specifically targeted at improving the enabling environment or providing
incentives for private sector innovation and direct engagement in poverty alleviation. Building on the
lessons of the World Bank’s Doing Business project that focuses on providing benchmarks and
monitoring of regulatory processes to support private sector development more generally, there is
potential for much greater action in this area. This could range from a combination of more rigorous
analysis and awareness raising of different policy innovations to joint advocacy aimed at achieving the
actual implementation of specific policy reforms by specific governments or government agencies.
Areas that particularly warrant collaboration include:
• Policy innovations by governments that either mandate or create incentives for private enterprises
operating in a country to develop more explicit and intentional inclusive business models and/or
that enable the emergence of new forms of social enterprise and social investment vehicle.
• Policy innovations by governments that increase the legal empowerment of the poor and their ability
to organize more effectively as economic actors, whether as producers, employees or consumers.
• Policy innovations and initiatives by bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and development
finance institutions to directly enable inclusive business models and markets, such as the challenge
funds and creation of dedicated partnership units outlined in Part Three.
• Policy innovations in developed countries that provide tax incentives and other tools to encourage
companies, entrepreneurs, financiers, foundations and the general public in their country to get
more directly engaged in global development either through trade and investment or via strategic
global philanthropy and volunteering programs.

CONCLUSION
Market-based solutions are not a panacea. In some cases they are neither relevant nor appropriate.
Yet, there is growing evidence that inclusive business and markets can play a crucial role in poverty
alleviation. They can unleash the immense potential of scientific, technological and process
innovation to tackle social and environmental problems. They can increase the cost effectiveness of
each development dollar spent and enhance the sustainability of certain development interventions,
allowing governments, foundations and non-governmental organizations to exit where appropriate.
And through harnessing competitive market forces and/or collaboration they can accelerate the
scaling of successful development solutions.
Collaborative efforts and multi-stakeholder alliances between the private, public and civil society
sectors can be especially important in helping to make market-based solutions more inclusive. There
are enough emerging examples of the potential of these collaborative models to warrant ongoing
analysis, investment and support by all key development and private sector actors. Many of these
models offer fundamentally new approaches to business and development. In doing so, they also offer
some of our greatest opportunities yet of enabling several billion people to lift themselves out of
poverty.

Appendix 1
The UN Global Compact’s 10 Principles
The UN Global Compact’s ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the
environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• The International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work
• The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
• The United Nations Convention Against Corruption
• The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within
their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights,
labour standards, the environment and anti-corruption:
Human Rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of
internationally proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Labour
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective
recognition of the right
to collective bargaining;
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation.
Environment
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental
challenges;
Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility;
and
Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly
technologies.
Anti-Corruption
Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including
extortion and bribery.

Appendix 2
Bilateral donors’ statement in support of private sector partnerships for development
As members of the international bilateral donor community, we recognize the tremendous impact that private sector actors can
have on development and we commit to working together to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These objectives
have been previously outlined in the Millennium Development Goal– Develop a Global Partnership for Development. In the ten
years since the MDGs were established, the international community has made great progress in developing partnerships with
business and we come together today to renew and give greater meaning to our commitment.
We recognize that the private sector is the engine of economic While there are various ways of engaging with the private
1 growth and development – creating jobs, goods and services
and generating public revenues essential to achieve the
5 sector, we recognize certain common elements exist
throughout all our partnerships. In particular, we believe true
Millennium Development Goals. Through our individual partnerships must leverage the skills, expertise and resources of
institutions we are engaging actively with both local and all parties, and that all parties must share in the risks and rewards
international businesses on development projects and we have of the partnership.
many successes to demonstrate the value of those relationships.
We recognize the important role donors can play to help
2 We also recognize the important role that multilateral

institutions and business organizations, including the UN
6 businesses overcome the challenges they face in contributing
to the MDGs, including the culture shift required in balancing
Global Compact, continue to play in advancing sustainable development objectives against maximizing return on
business models and markets to build an inclusive global investment, moving to inclusive business models, managing risk
economy. and measuring impact.
Rather than viewing the private sector merely as resource To foster a more robust private sector role in development, we
3 providers, we choose to recognize the private sector as equal
partners around key development issues and will enter into
7 as donors commit to:
a. Share the risk of investment to spur and leverage the
partnerships with local and international companies of various creative investments of private capital through the use of
sizes. We aim to collaborate with companies that focus not only catalytic and innovative financing, including matching
on profit margin, but also on social and environmental impact, grants, loans, equity and guarantees, and develop new
and whose work harmonizes with our developmental goals. partnership mechanisms which improve our collaboration.
b. Work with developing country governments to establish a
We recognize there are many different ways to engage with supportive enabling environment through policy and
4 the private sector:
a. We work with the private sector to implement inclusive
regulatory frameworks that create incentives for stronger
private sector participation in development.
business models – sustainable, market based solutions that c. Facilitate stronger relationships between private sector
are commercially viable and can deliver measurable, actors and other national stakeholders, including
impactful and scalable development results for those at governments, civil society and local small and medium
the base of the pyramid. enterprises to support country ownership.
b. We work with the private sector to promote responsible d. Promote partnerships that improve the lives of both men
business practices in areas such as human rights, labor, and women in order to secure equal opportunities.
environment and anti-corruption. e. Build the capacity of local private sector partners to
c. We work with the private sector to address operational and develop socially responsible business initiatives by
humanitarian challenges through corporate social providing targeted technical assistance.
responsibility programs which serve both development f. Increase awareness through facilitating dialogue,
interests and long-term business interests, improving not developing tools, and supporting learning which
only the quality of life in developing countries, but also the showcases the powerful and positive role that well-
competitive environment for companies, their license to functioning inclusive markets can play in achieving the
operate and their reputational capital. MDGs.
d. We actively engage the private sector in public-private
policy dialogue and advocacy around issues of global and We recognize the important role that science and technology
national importance, including achieving the MDGs,
addressing climate change, improving the investment
8 play in spurring creative and effective development solutions.
The private sector is a key driver of innovation, and we will work
climate and enhancing aid effectiveness. to integrate these innovations into our programs.

Appendix 2
Bilateral donors’ statement in support of private sector partnerships for development
We recognize that partnerships with the private sector have

9 the greatest impact when they are strategic – programs
become scalable and sustainable when they are integrated into
broader strategic initiatives.
10 We are committed to working with the least developed

countries and countries struggling in conflict and fragility,
as well as with middle income countries with thriving private
sectors.
11 We are committed to the Principles of Aid Effectiveness as

detailed in the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for
Action and will explore how these principles intersect with the
work of these partnership communities.
12 We encourage the private sector to commit to an ever

increasing role in and responsibility for international
development and invite businesses to further shape our
understanding of the roles they can play as development
partners, so that jointly we can promote a lasting global
partnership for development.
This statement was announced at the 2010 United Nations

Millennium Development Goals Summit. As of September 2010, it
has been endorsed by the following bilateral donors, with input also
provided by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
and International Finance Corporation (IFC):
Austrian Development Agency
Danida, Denmark
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Germany
Japan Official Development Assistance
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Department for International Development, United Kingdom
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

ENDNOTES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY see Kauffman Foundation the Poor. United Nations. New York: 2008.
(www.kauffmanfoundation.org); Endeavor 8. Coleman, Isobel. The Global Glass Ceiling: Why
1. Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Oxford
(www.endeavor.org); and the Aspen Network of Empowering Women is Good for Business. Foreign
University Press. Oxford: 2001.
Development Entrepreneurs Affairs. Volume 89 No. 3. Washington DC,
2. Commencement Address at Harvard University (www.aspeninstitute.org) May/June 2010.
made by Bill Gates, June 7th 2007
8. For definitions and analysis of key trends in the 9. A comprehensive overview of this important trend
3. See: World Business for Sustainable Development. area of social entrepreneurship see: Center for the is provided by: Conway, Gordon and Waage, Jeff.
(2009) Inclusive Business: Profitable business for Advancement of Social Enterprise. Developing the Science and Innovation for Development. UK
successful development. WBCSD and SNV Alliance Field of Social Entrepreneurship. Durham: Duke Collaborative on Development Sciences. 2010
for Inclusive Business, 2008 University Press, 2008.
10. World Development Report 2005: A Better
United Nations Development Programme. Elkington, John and Hartigan, Pamela. The Power Investment Climate for Everyone. World Bank
Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business of Unreasonable People: How social entrepreneurs Group, Washington DC: 200
with the Poor. New York: 2008. create markets that change the world. Harvard
11. Realizing the Potential of Africa’s Youth. Report of
World Economic Forum. The Next Billions: Business Press, 2008.
the Africa Commission. May 2009
Unleashing Business Potential in Untapped Markets. See also: www.ashoka.org; www.skollfoundation.org;
Geneva: 2009. Growth and Employment: Visions at Work. Progress
www.schwabfoundation.org
Report of the Africa Commission. July 2010
Karamchandani, Ashish, Kubzansky, Michael, and 9. Volans. The Phoenix Economy. Fifty Pioneers in the
Frandano, Paul. Emerging Markets, Emerging Toward a Brighter Future: A Transatlantic Call for
Field of Social Innovation. Volans: 2008
Models. Market-based solutions to the challenges of renewed Leadership and partnerships in Global
10. Monitor Institute. Investing for Social and Development. Transatlantic Taskforce on
global poverty. Monitor Group: 2009.
Environmental Impact: A design for catalyzing an Development. The German Marshall Fund of the
Rangan, V. Kasturi, John A. Quelch, Gustavo emerging industry. 2009. United States. Washington DC, 2009.
Herrero, and Brooke Barton, eds. Business Solutions
See also: World Economic Forum. Private Beyond Assistance. The HELP Commission Report
for the Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic
Investment for Social Goals: Building the blended on Foreign Assistance Reform. December 7, 2007.
Value. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.
value capital market. World Economic Forum,
Prahalad, C.K. and Allen L. Hammond. Serving the Our Common Interest. Report of the Commission
2005.
World’s Poor, Profitably. Harvard Business Review for Africa. March 11, 2005.
80(9): 48-57. Still Our Common Interest. Commission for Africa
Prahalad, C.K. and Stuart L. Hart. The Fortune at the
PART I Report 2010.
Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy + Business 1. United Nations Secretary-General quoted in: Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making business work
Magazine, First Quarter, no. 26 (2002). Innovating for a Brighter Future: The Role of Business for the poor. Report of the Commission on the
in Achieving the MDGs. United Nations Global Private Sector and Development. United Nations
4. Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa with Alexis
Compact, United Nations Foundation, United Development Programme, 2004.
Geaneotes and John H. Paul. “Scaling Up Inclusive
Nations Office for Partnerships and Dalberg Global
Business: Advancing the Knowledge and Action 12. For definitions on different sizes and types of
Development Advisers. New York: 2010
Agenda.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy enterprise see: OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms
School, Harvard University, 2010. See also: The Millennium Development Goals Report
13. About Doing Business. The Doing Business Project,
2010. United Nations, New York: 2010.
See also: Jenkins, Beth. Expanding Economic World Bank Group.
Opportunity: The Role of Large Firms. CSR Initiative Nelson, Jane and David Prescott. Business and the
14. Nelson, Jane. Business as Partners in Development:
Report No. 17. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Millennium Development Goals: A Framework for
Building wealth for countries, companies and
School, 2007. Action. UNDP and IBLF, 2003. (Up-dated in 2008).
communities. New York: The World Bank, UNDP
5. A Synthesis of the Making Markets Work for the Poor 2. Bilateral Donors’ Statement in Support of Private and IBLF, 1996.
Approach. A publication finance by the UK Sector Partnerships for Development. (Forthcoming,
15. World Business for Sustainable Development.
Department for International Development (DFID) to be released at UN MDG Summit in New York,
(2009) Inclusive Business: Profitable business for
and the Swiss Agency for Development and September 2010)
successful development. WBCSD and SNV Alliance
Cooperation (SDC). 2008. 3. Brainard, Lael, and Chollet, Derek. ed. Global for Inclusive Business, 2008
6. This framework is adapted from: Nelson, Jane. Development 2.0: Can philanthropists, the Public
16. United Nations Development Programme.
Building Partnerships: Cooperation between the and the Poor Make Poverty History? Chapter 9:
Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business
United Nations system and the private sector. New Effecting Change through Accountable Channels by
with the Poor. New York: 2008.
York: United Nations, 2000. Jane Nelson. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution, 2008. 17. Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa with Alexis
See Also: Nelson, Jane. Economic Multipliers: Geaneotes and John H. Paul. Scaling Up Inclusive
Revisiting the core responsibility and contribution of 4. Hudson Institute. 2010 Index of Global Philanthropy
Business: Advancing the Knowledge and Action
business to development. London: IBLF, 2003. and Remittances. Washington DC: 2010.
Agenda. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School,
Nelson, Jane. Business as Partners in Development: 5. World Investment Report 2010. Overview. United Harvard University, 2010.
Building wealth for countries, companies and Nations Conference on Trade and Development
See also: Jenkins, Beth. Expanding Economic
communities. New York: The World Bank, UNDP (UNCTAD).
Opportunity: The Role of Large Firms. CSR Initiative
and IBLF, 1996. 6. Ibid. Report No. 17. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
7. For detailed definitions and analysis of key trend 7. Making the Law Work for Everyone. Final report of School, 2007.
in the area of ‘high-impact’ entrepreneurs, the UN Commission on Legal Empowerment of

18. A number of strategic consulting firms, niche Banerjee, Abhijit, V. and Duflo, Esther. The Economic Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. IFC, International Business
consultancies and academic institutions have Lives of the Poor. Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Leaders Forum and Harvard Kennedy School, 2008.
started to produce publicly available research and Lab. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, See also: Karamchandani, Ashish, Kubzansky,
analysis on inclusive business models. Cambridge: 2006. Michael, and Frandano, Paul. Emerging Markets,
19. A Synthesis of the Making Markets Work for the Poor Karamchandani, Ashish, Kubzansky, Michael, and Emerging Models. Market-based solutions to the
Approach. A publication financed by the UK Frandano, Paul. Emerging Markets, Emerging challenges of global poverty. Monitor Group: 2009.
Department for International Development (DFID) Models. Market-based solutions to the challenges of 42. Interview with Henrietta Holsman Fore, Dar es
and the Swiss Agency for Development and global poverty. Monitor Group: 2009. Salaam, Tanzania. May 6th 2010.
Cooperation (SDC). 2008. Rangan, V. Kasturi, John A. Quelch, Gustavo
20. Ibid. Herrero, and Brooke Barton, eds. Business Solutions
for the Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic
PART II
21. Ibid.
Value. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007. LARGE CORPORATIONS
22. Attacking Poverty. World Bank Report 2000/2001.
27. The Next Four Billion: Market size and business 1. This framework is adapted from: Nelson, Jane.
World Bank. Washington DC, 2000.
strategy at the base of the pyramid. Executive Building Partnerships: Cooperation between the
23. Frank Porter Graham Lecture. Delivered by United Nations system and the private sector. New
Summary. World Resources Institute and IFC.
Hernando de Soto at the University of North York: United Nations, 2000.
Washington DC, 2007.
Carolina. Chapel Hill, October 26, 2004.
28. Narayan, Deepa, et al. Voices of the Poor: Can See Also: Nelson, Jane. Economic Multipliers:
24. Patient Capital. (accessed May 18, 2010) Revisiting the core responsibility and contribution of
Anyone Hear Us? Survey of over 60,000 men and
25. United Nations Development Programme. women in 60 countries in preparation for the 2001 business to development. London: IBLF, 2003.
Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business World Development Report. The World Bank Nelson, Jane. Business as Partners in Development:
with the Poor. New York: 2008. Group, 2000. Building wealth for countries, companies and
26. Publications on the poor as economic actors and 29. Narayan, Deepa, Pritchett, Lant and Kapoor, communities. New York: The World Bank, UNDP
their inclusion in formal markets include the Soumya. Moving Out of Poverty: Success from the and IBLF, 1996.
following: Bottom-Up. Palgrave McMillan and the World 2. Porter, Michael. E and Kramer, Mark. R. Strategy
Narayan, Deepa, et al. Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Bank. 2009. and Society: The Link Between Competitive
Hear Us? Survey of over 60,000 men and women in http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/ Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.
60 countries in preparation for the 2001 World TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTMOVOUTPOV/ Harvard Business Review, December 2006. Reprint
Development Report.The World Bak Group, 2000. R0612D
30. Ibid.
Narayan, Deepa, Pritchett, Lant and Kapoor, 3. Warner, Michael. Assessing Business Development
31. Ibid.
Soumya. Moving Out of Poverty: Success from the Impact. A management framework for improved
Bottom-Up. Palgrave McMillan and the World 32. Ibid. economic and socio-economic performance
Bank. 2009. 33. Collins, Daryl Morduch, Jonathon, Rutherford, reporting. Overseas Development Institute,
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/ Stuart & Ruthven, Orlanda. Portfolios of the Poor: London, April 2008.
TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTMOVOUTPOV/ How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. Princeton Ashley, Caroline. Measuring the impact of business
University Press, 2009. on development. Opinion 101. Overseas
Prahalad, C.K. and Allen L. Hammond. Serving the
World’s Poor, Profitably. Harvard Business Review 34. Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making business work Development Institute. London, April 2008.
80(9): 48-57. for the poor. Report of the Commission on the 4. Bernstein, Ann. The Case for Business in Developing
Private Sector and Development. United Nations Countries. Penguin Books. South Africa, 2010.
Prahalad, C.K. and Stuart L. Hart. The Fortune at the
Development Programme, 2004.
Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy + Business 5. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre.
Magazine, First Quarter, no. 26 (2002). 35. Decent Work. (Accessed 11 December 2009) Tracking the positive and negative impacts of over
Prahalad, C.K. The Fortune at the Bottom of the 36. Ibid. 5100 companies worldwide. http://www.business-
Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profit. Upper 37. The Next Four Billion: Market size and business humanrights.org/
Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing, 2005. strategy at the base of the pyramid. World Institute for Human Rights and Business.
Hart, Stuart L. (2005). Capitalism at the Crossroads: Resources Institute and IFC. Washington DC, 2007 http://www.institutehrb.org/
The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the 38. The Business of Health in Africa: Partnering with the 6. Ibid.
World’s Most Difficult Problems. Upper Saddle River, Private Sector to Improve People’s Lives. IFC and 7. WBCSD (Forthcoming). Surveying the Measuring
NJ: Wharton School Publishing, 2005. McKinsey & Company. Washington DC, 2009. Impact Landscape: Approaches for Business.
The Next Four Billion: Market size and business 39. Clinton, Bill. Giving: How each of us can change the Geneva: WBCSD.
strategy at the base of the pyramid. World world. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, 2007. 8. ICMM (Forthcoming) Mining: Partnerships for
Resources Institute and IFC. Washington DC, 2007 40. Part of the Solution: Leveraging business and Development. A Toolkit to analyze the social and
Collins, Daryl Morduch, Jonathon, Rutherford, markets for low-income people. Lessons for the economic contribution of the mining sector.
Stuart & Ruthven, Orlanda. Portfolios of the Poor: Ford Foundation Corporate Involvement Initiative. International Council of Mining & Metals.
How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. Princeton The Ford Foundation. New York, 2003. 9. World Business Council for Sustainable
University Press, 2009. 41. Jenkins, Beth, Ishikawa, Eriko, Barthes, Emma and Development. Measuring Impact: Framework
World Economic Forum. The Next Billions: Giacomelli, Marisol. Supporting Entrepreneurship at Methodology. Geneva: WBCSD, 2008.
Unleashing Business Potential in Untapped Markets. the Base of the Pyramid through Business Linakges.
Geneva: 2009. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue. June 10-12 2008,

See also: WBCSD. Supporting Local Economic business work for the poor. Report of the of the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue
Growth in Ghana: Newmont. Geneva: WBCSD, Commission on the Private Sector and June 10-12, 2008, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
2009. Development. United Nations Development Washington, DC: International Finance
WBCSD. EcoSecurities: Measuring the Development Programme, 2004. Corporation, International Business Leaders
Benefits of Emissions Reductions. Geneva: WBCSD, UNDP. Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
2009. Business with the Poor. New York: UNDP, 2008. Kennedy School, 2008.
10. World Business Council for Sustainable Jenkins et al. Business Linkages: Lessons, See also: Geaneotes, Alexis, Eriko Ishikawa, and Jane
Development. Measuring Impact: Framework Challenges, and Opportunities. Washington, DC: Nelson. Developing Inclusive Business Models: A
Methodology. Geneva: WBCSD, 2008. IFC, the International Business Leaders Forum, and Review of Coca-Cola Sabco’s Manual Distribution
the Harvard Kennedy School, 2007. Centers in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Washington, DC:
11. Oxfam. Oxfam Poverty Footprint: Understanding
IFC and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy
Business Contribution to Development. Oxfam, Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa. Business
School, 2009.
2009. Linkages: Enabling Access to Markets at the Base of
the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue 29. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth et al. Business
12. London, Ted (2009). “Making Better Investments
March 3-5, 2009, Jaipur, India. Washington, DC: Linkages: Supporting Entrepreneurship at the Base
at the Base of the Pyramid.” Harvard Business
International Finance Corporation, International of the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue
Review 87(5): 106-113.
Business Leaders Forum, and the CSR Initiative at June 10-12, 2008, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
13. Ibid. Washington, DC: International Finance
the Harvard Kennedy School, 2009.
14. See inter alia www.bsr.org; www.iblf.org; Corporation, International Business Leaders
Nelson, Jane. Building Linkages for Competitive and
www.wbcsd.org; ; Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
Responsible Entrepreneurship. Vienna and
Kennedy School, 2008.
15. See www.icti-care.org and Cambridge, MA: UNIDO and the Fellows of
www.americanchemistry.com Harvard College, 2007. 30. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth et al (2008). Business
Linkages: Supporting Entrepreneurship at the Base
16. WBCSD. Global Water Tool. World Business Council International Business Leaders Forum. A Guide to
of the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue
for Sustainable Development. Geneva, 2010 Inclusive Business. IBLF, 2010.
June 10-12, 2008, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
17. United Nations Global Compact. CEO Water 24. Adapted from Pfitzer, Marc and Ramya Washington, DC: International Finance
Mandate. www.unglobalcompact.org Krishnaswamy. The Role of the Food & Beverage Corporation, International Business Leaders
(Accessed March 24, 2010) Sector in Expanding Economic Opportunity. Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
18. KPMG. International Survey of Corporate Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Report Kennedy School.
Responsibility Reporting 2008. KPMG, 2008. No. 20. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard Kennedy
31. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa
School, 2007.
See also: (2009). Business Linkages: Enabling Access to
25. Adapted from Pfitzer, Marc and Ramya Markets at the Base of the Pyramid. Report of a
Integrated Reporting: Closing the loop on strategy.
Krishnaswamy. The Role of the Food & Beverage Roundtable Dialogue March 3-5, 2009, Jaipur, India.
KPMG Global Sustainability Services. KPMG
Sector in Expanding Economic Opportunity. Washington, DC: International Finance
Sustainable Insight quarterly, April 2010.
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Report Corporation, International Business Leaders
19. Carrots and Sticks – Promoting Transparency and No. 20. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard Kennedy Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
Sustainability. An update on trends in Voluntary and School, 2007. Kennedy School.
Mandatory Approaches to Sustainability Reporting.
Additional information from SABMiller. 2008. 32. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa
KPMG, Unite for Corporate Governance in Africa,
Smallholder Agriculture Programme Review. (2009). Business Linkages: Enabling Access to
Global Reporting Initiative, United Nations
Executive Summary. Document circulated at Markets at the Base of the Pyramid. Report of a
Environment Programme. 2010.
Chatham House event July 10, 2008, based on the Roundtable Dialogue March 3-5, 2009, Jaipur, India.
20. The Transparent Economy: Six tigers stalk the global May 2008 Smallholder Agriculture Programme Washington, DC: International Finance
recovery – and how to tame them. The Global Review conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers for Corporation, International Business Leaders
Reporting Initiative in collaboration with Volans SABMiller. Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
and project partners Dow, Novo Nordisk and SAP.
26. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth et al. Business Kennedy School.
Global Reporting Initiative, 2010.
Linkages: Supporting Entrepreneurship at the Base 33. World Economic Forum. The Next Billions: Business
21. The World Turned Upside Down. A special report on of the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue Strategies to Enhance Food Value Chains and
innovation in emerging markets. The Economist. June 10-12, 2008, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Empower the Poor. Report prepared in
April 15 2010. Washington, DC: International Finance collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group.
22. Nelson, Jane. Building Linkages for Competitive and Corporation, International Business Leaders Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2009.
Responsible Entrepreneurship. UNIDO and the Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
34. See, inter alia:
Fellows of Harvard College, 2007. Kennedy School, 2008.
Prahalad, C.K. The Fortune at the Bottom of the
See also: 27. Adapted from Ashley, Caroline, Peter De Brine,
Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profit. Upper
Stanton, D. and T. Polatajko. Business Linkages: Amy Lehr, and Hannah Wilde (2007). The Role of
Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing,
Their Value and Donor Approaches to Them. UK the Tourism Sector in Expanding Economic
2005.
Department for International Development. Opportunity. Corporate Social Responsibility
Initiative Report No. 23. Cambridge, MA: The Hart, Stuart L. (2005). Capitalism at the Crossroads:
London, 2001.
Harvard Kennedy School, 2007. The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the
23. See inter alia: World’s Most Difficult Problems. Upper Saddle River,
28. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth et al. Business
UNDP. Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making NJ: Wharton School Publishing, 2005.

UNDP. Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing 42. Conway, Gordon and Waage, Jeff. Science and A new specialist HIV company dedicated to
Business with the Poor. New York: UNDP, 2008. Innovation for Development. UK Collaborative on delivering advances in HIV treatment and care.”
World Economic Forum. The Next Billions: Development Sciences (UKCSD), 2010. Press release dated November 3, 2009. Online at
Unleashing Business Potential in Untapped Markets. 43. Ibid. http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2009/2
Report prepared in collaboration with the Boston 009_pressrelease_10123.htm
44. 2010 Annual Letter from Bill Gates. Bill & Melinda
Consulting Group. Geneva: World Economic (accessed December 15, 2009).
Gates Foundation. Seattle, 2010.
Forum, 2009. 56. Kramer, William J., Beth Jenkins, and Robert S.
45. Smart Aid: Research Drives Development.
World Economic Forum. The Next Billions: Business Katz. Expanding Economic Opportunity: The Role of
Developments magazine. UKAid. Issue 47, 2009.
Strategies to Enhance Food Value Chains and the Information and Communications Technology
46. Moran, M. et al. Neglected Disease Research & Sector. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative
Empower the Poor. Report prepared in
Development: How much are we really spending? Report No. 22. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard
collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group.
The George Institute for International Health, Kennedy School, 2007.
Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2009.
Sydney, Australia. 2009. Cited in Conway, Gordon
35. Enterprise for a Sustainable World. Base of the 57. Conway, Gordon and Waage, Jeff. Science and
and Waage, Jeff. Science and Innovation for
Pyramid Protocol. Online at http://www.bop- Innovation for Development. UK Collaborative on
Development. UK Collaborative on Development
protocol.org (accessed December 16, 2009). Development Sciences (UKCSD), 2010.
Sciences (UKCSD), 2010.
36. Karamchandani, Ashish, Michael Kubzansky, 58. Unleashing Technology to Advance Social and
47. CropLife. Facts and Figures. The Status of Global
and Paul Frandano (2009). Emerging Markets, Economic Development. A perspective from
Agriculture. CropLife International, Brussels, 2009.
Emerging Models: Market-Based Solutions to the Microsoft Community Affairs. Microsoft Unlimited
Cited in Conway, Gordon and Waage, Jeff. Science
Challenges of Global Poverty. Monitor Inclusive Potential, 2010.
and Innovation for Development. UK Collaborative
Markets, 2009. on Development Sciences (UKCSD), 2010. 59. Mobile Marvels. A special report on telecoms in
37. Jenkins, Beth and Ishikawa, Eriko with Geanotes, emerging markets. The Economist, September 26th
48. Conway, Gordon and Waage, Jeff. Science and
Alexis and Paul, John. H. Scaling Up Inclusive 2009.
Innovation for Development. UK Collaborative on
Business: Advancing the Knowledge and Action Development Sciences (UKCSD), 2010. See also: 60. Ibid.
Agenda. Washington, DC: International Finance Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) 61. Wiring up: Technology-led development in the
Corporation and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard www.egfar.org emerging world. A report from the Economist
Kennedy School, 2010. Intelligence Unit. 2007.
49. The Center for Global development has
The 14 companies studied for this report were: undertaken valuable research and consultations 62. World Development Report 2010: Development and
Anhanguera (Brazil); Apollo Reach (India); Cemar on market-oriented ‘pull mechanisms’ to stimulate Climate Change. Main Messages of the World
(Brazil); Coca-Cola Sabco (a number of countries in demand for technologies and engage the private Development Report 2010. World Bank.
Sub-Saharan Africa); Dialog (Sri Lanka); ECOM (a sector. Useful publications include: Washington DC: 2009.
number of countries in Central America); FINO
Levine, R, Kremer, M, Albright, A. Making Markets See also:
(India); Idea Cellular (India); Jain (India); Manila
Work for Vaccines. Working Group Report. Center Task Force on Low-Carbon Prosperity. World
Water (the Philippines); MiTienda (Mexico);
for Global Development. Washongton DC, 2005. Economic Forum. 2009
Tribanco (Brazil); Uniminuto (Colombia); and Zain
(Madagascar). Elliott, Kimberly Ann. Pulling Agricultural Brainard, Lael, Jones, Abigail, and Purvis, Nigel.
Innovation and the Market Together. CGD Climate Change and Global Poverty: A billion lives in
38. Mejía, Francisco and Bueno, Manuel. Using
Working Paper 215. Center for Global the balance? Brookings Institution Press.
Platforms to Gain Scale in BOP Markets (Parts 1 to
Development. Washington DC, 2010. Washington DC: 2009
3). Blog posts on NextBillion.net, 2009. (Parts 1,2
and 3) Online at http://www.nextbillion.net/blog/ 50. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and LaFluer, Vinca, Purvis, Nigel and Jones, Abigail.
using-platforms-to-gain-scale-in-bop-markets- Development. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Double Jeopardy: What the Climate Crisis Means for
part-1-of-3 Global Business Network. New York, 2010. the Poor. Report of Brookings Blum Roundtable
39. Ibid. 51. Reverse Innovation hits Harvard’s most influential 2008.
list. GE Reports. http://www.gereports.com Dervis, Kemal, Jones, Abigail, Kornbluh, Karen and
40. Karamchandani, Ashish, Michael Kubzansky, and
(Accessed 25th February 2010) Puritz, Sarah. Climate Crisis Credit Crisis: the Quest
Paul Frandano. Emerging Markets, Emerging
Models: Market-Based Solutions to the Challenges of 52. Olyset Manufacturing in Africa. www.olyset.net for Green Growth. Report of Brookings Blum
Global Poverty. Monitor Inclusive Markets Report, (accessed on 30th June 2010). Roundtable 2009.
2009. See also: www.acumenfund.org 63. Fighting Climate Change: Human solidarity in a
Note: Monitor Inclusive Markets are also 53. Mahmud, Adeeb and Marcie Parkhurst. Expanding divided world. Human Development Report, UNDP
undertaking a Pan-Africa Inclusive Markets Project, Economic Opportunity: The Role of Pharmaceutical 2007/2008. UNDP, New York: 2008.
which is supported by a coalition of public and Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility 64. Beddington, John quoted in Conway, Gordon and
private donors and is studying inclusive models in Initiative Report No. 21. Cambridge, MA: The Waage, Jeff. Science and Innovation for
a variety of industry sectors in Kenya, Tanzania, Harvard Kennedy School, 2007. Development. UK Collaborative on Development
Ghana, South Africa and Senegal. 54. “Nestlé opens R&D Centre in West Africa to Sciences. London, 2010.
41. Hammond, Allen. Taking Base of the Pyramid improve local agricultural crops.” Press release 65. Hart, Stuart, L. Taking the Green Leap. Cornell Global
Strategies to Scale. Parts 1 to 5. Blog posts on dated April 30, 2009. Online at Forum on Sustainable Enterprise. The Johnson
NextBillion.net, 2008. Online at at http://www. http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/PressRelease School Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise.
nextbillion.net/blog/taking-bop-strategies-to- s (accessed December 15, 2009). Cornell University, June 2009.
scale-pt-1. 55. GlaxoSmithKline. “ViiV Healthcare Launches:

66. Nelson, Jane. Corporate Action on Climate 77. Hills, Greg and Mahmud, Adeeb. Volunteering for 2009 Annual Report.
Adaptation and Development: Mobilizing business Impact: Best Practices in International Corporate 92. Peterson, Kyle and Pfitzer, Marc. Lobbying for
partnerships to build climate change resilience in Volunteering. FSG Social Impact Advisers, 2007. Good. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter
developing countries and communities. Chapter 13 78. Enterprise Solutions to Poverty. Opportunities and 2009.
in Brainard, Lael, Jones, Abigail, and Purvis, Nigel. Challenges for the International Development See also: Porter, Michael, E and Kramer, Mark, R.
Climate Change and Global Poverty: A billion lives in Community and Big Business. The Shell Foundation. Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive
the balance? Brookings Institution Press. London, 2005. Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.
Washington DC: 2009
79. Moock, Joyce Lewinger. Rockefeller Foundation: Harvard Business Review, December 2006. Reprint
See also: Tackling Climate Change on the ground. How we invest in capacity building. Rockefeller R0612D
Corporate case studies on land use and climate Foundation. (undated) 93. Ibid.
change. The World Business Council for
80. Unleashing technology to Advance Social and 94. Ibid.
Sustainable Development. Geneva, December
Economic Development. A perspective from
2009.
Microsoft Community Affairs. 2009. See also
Food Sustainability: A guide to private sector action. www.microsoft.com/citizenship HIGH-IMPACT ENTREPRENEURS
United Nations, 2009.
81. Corporate Citizenship Signature Programs. 95. Schramm, Carl. J. Building Entrepreneurial
67. Porter, Michael. E and Kramer, Mark. R. Strategy Developing Health Globally. Fact Sheet. 2010. Economies. Foreign Affairs. July/August, 2004.
and Society: The Link Between Competitive See also www.ge.com/citizenship 96. For detailed definitions and analysis of key trends
Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.
82. World Economic Forum. Summary of Global in the area of ‘opportunity’ and ‘high-impact’
Harvard Business Review, December 2006. Reprint
Agenda Council on Humanitarian Assistance. WEF, entrepreneurs, see Kauffman Foundation ();
R0612D
Geneva, 2010. Endeavor (); and the Aspen Network of
68. Bishop, Mathew and Greene, David. philanthro- Development Entrepreneurs ()
83. Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy.
capitalism: How the rich can save the world.
Email correspondence with CECP staff. July 2010. 97. For definitions and analysis of key trends in the
Bloomsbury Press. 2008
area of social entrepreneurship see:
84. Partners Pledge US$30 Million to Strengthen African
69. For copies of the Hudson Institute’s reports on
Think Tanks. Press release issued by the Hewlett Center for the Advancement of Social Enterprise.
private philanthropic flows to developing
Foundation, May 11, 2009, Dakar, Senegal. Developing the Field of Social Entrepreneurship.
countries see: www.global-prosperity.org
Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.
85. The Novartis Foundation for Sustainable
70. The Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances
Development. Corporate publication. See also Elkington, John and Hartigan, Pamela. The Power
2010: A Comprehensive Guide to the Sources and
www.novartisfoundation.org of Unreasonable People: How social entrepreneurs
Magnitude of Global Giving to the Developing
create markets that change the world. Harvard
World. The Center for Global Prosperity, the 86. This section draws on: Nelson, Jane. CSR and Public
Business Press, 2008.
Hudson Institute. Washington DC: 2010. Policy: New Forms of Engagement between Business
and Government. CSRI Working Paper No. 45. See also: www.ashoka.org;
71. UNDP official statistics. www.undp.org (accessed
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard www.skollfoundation.org;
July 10, 2010)
University, 2008. www.schwabfoundation.org;
72. European Foundation Center. 2007 Survey of www.lemelsonfoundation.org; and
87. Bonini, Sheila M.J, Mendonca, Lenny T, and
European Foundations’ and Corporate Donors’ www.acumenfund.org
Oppenheim, Jeremy M. When social issues become
Funding for Global Development. Mimeo. Brussles:
strategic: Executives ignore sociopolitical issues at 98. For definitions and analysis of key trends in social
European Foundation Center, 2007.
their own peril. The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 2, intrapraneurship see:
See also: Marten, Robert and Witte, Martin Jan. 2006. The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for Corporate
Transforming Development? The role of
88. How business interacts with government. McKinsey Changemakers. SustainAbility, Skoll Foundation,
philanthropic foundations in international
Global Survey Results. McKinsey & Company, IDEO and Allianz. London, 2008
development cooperation. Global Public Policy
2010. Pinchot, Gifford and Pellman, Ron. Intrapreneuring
Institute Research Paper Series No. 10, 2008.
89. Foreword by Angel Gurria, Secretary-General of in Action: A handbook for business innovation.
73. Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy.
the OECD in: Partnering to Strengthen Public Berret-Koehler. San Francisco, 1999.
www.corporatephilanthropy.org
Governance: The Leadership Challenge for CEOs and The Phoenix Economy. Fifty Pioneers in the Field of
(Accessed August 14, 2010)
Boards. World Economic Forum, with Business for Social Innovation. Volans, London, 2008
74. Rukanova, S. EFC 2007 Survey of European Social Responsibility, AccountAbility, Harvard
Foundations’ and Corporate Donors’ Funding for See also: www.pinchot.org;
Kennedy School and International Business
Global Development. European Foundation Centre. www.sustainability.com and www.volans.com
Leaders Forum. Geneva, 2008.
Brussels, 2008. 99. Endeavor Mission Statement. www.endeavor.org
90. The UN Global Compact Principle 10 is derived
75. Bonbright, David, Kiryttopoulou, Natalia, and (accessed 16th April 2010)
from the United Nations Convention against
Iversen, Lindsay. Online Philanthropy Markets: From Corruption. It states: Businesses should work 100. Global Heroes. A special report on
‘Feel-Good’ Giving to Effective Social Investing. A against corruption in all its forms, including entrepreneurship. The Economist. March 14th
study funded by the Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit extortion and bribery. 2009
Sector Research Fund. Keystone, January 2008. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/issues/ 101. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, a research
76. Lundsgaarde, Erik. Emerging Non-State Actors in transparency_anticorruption/index.html network that tracks and analyzes national
Global Development: Challenges for Europe. EDC (accessed8/6/2010.) entrepreneurial activity in more than 45 countries
2010. Working Paper No. 7, April 2010. 91. Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) Zoltan, Acs. How Is Entrepreneurship Good for

Economic Growth? Innovations. MIT, Winter 2006 trepreneurs/tipping-the-world-the-power-of- of the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue
102. Aspen Network for Development Entrepreneurs. collaborative-entrepreneurship June 10-12, 2008, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
.www.aspeninstsitute.org 117. Elkington, John and Hartigan, Pamela. The Power Washington, DC: International Finance
of Unreasonable People: How Social Entrepreneurs Corporation, International Business Leaders
103. From Poverty to Prosperity: Understanding the
Create Markets that Change the World. Harvard Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
Impact of Investing in Small and Medium
Business Press. Cambridge, 2008. Kennedy School, 2008.
Enterprises. Data Survey and Case Study Analysis
of SEAF Investments. SEAF, October 2007. 118. Unreasonable people power: The growing influence 133. www.cfwshops.org (accessed 12th April 2010)
104. Ibid. of social entrepreneurs. The Economist. January 134. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth et al (2008). Business
22nd 2008. Linkages: Supporting Entrepreneurship at the Base
105. Paths to Prosperity: Promoting Entrepreneurship in
119. Pinchot, Gifford and Pellman, Ron. Intrapreneuring of the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue
the 21st Century. Monitor Group. Cambridge,
in Action: A handbook for business innovation. June 10-12, 2008, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
January 2009.
Berret-Koehler. San Francisco, 1999. Washington, DC: International Finance
106. Research studies on obstacles to opportunity Corporation, International Business Leaders
entrepreneurship include the following: The Pinchot Perspective. www.pinchot.com
Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard
Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Report of the United 120. Ibid. Kennedy School.
Nations Commission on the Private Sector and 121. The Social Intrapraneur: A Field Guide for Corporate 135. Rhyne, Elizabeth. Microfinance for Bankers and
Development. United Nations. New York, 2004. Changemakers. SustainAbility, IDEO and the Skoll Investors: Understanding the Opportunity at the
Donor Committee for Enterprise Development. Foundation, with support from Allianz. London, Bottom of the Pyramid. McGraw Hill Publishing,
www.enterprise-development.org 2008. 2009.
Nelson, Jane. Building Linkages for Competitive and 122. Kinsley, Michael (ed) Creative Capitalism. A 136. Prahalad, C.K. (2005). The Fortune at the Bottom of
Responsible Entrepreneurship. Vienna and Conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profit.
Cambridge, MA: UNIDO and the Fellows of other Economic Leaders. Simon and Schuster, 2008. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School
Harvard College, 2007. A New Approach to Capitalism in the 21st Century. Publishing.
107. Ratha, Dilip, Mahapatra, Sanket, and Plaza, Sonia. Speech by Bill Gates to the Annual Meeting of the 137. Center for Urban Development Studies, Harvard
Beyond Aid: New Sources and Innovative World Economic Forum, Davos. January 24 2008. University Graduate School of Design. 2000.
Mechanisms for Financing Development in Sub- 123. Future Leaders Programme. World Business Council “Grameen Bank, Bangladesh.” Chapter 3 in
Saharan Africa. Policy Research Working Paper for Sustainable Development. www.wbcsd.org Housing Microfinance Initiatives: Synthesis and
4609. The World Bank. Washington DC, April 2008. Regional Summary: Asia, Latin America, and Sub-
124. First Movers Fellowship Program. Aspen Business in
Saharan Africa with Selected Case Studies. USAID
108. Using Prizes to Spur Innovation. McKinsey Quarterly Society Program. www.aspeninstitute.org
and DAI. Online at www.mireda.org/
article, 2009.
DOCUMENTS.00479.pdf, pages 55-65.
109. The Business of Empowering Women. McKinsey & PRIVATE FINANCIERS Also see Chandra Barua, Dipal, General Manager,
Company. 2010 Grameen Bank. 1999. “The Experience of Grameen
125. Innovative Financing for Development. World Bank
110. Ibid. Group. Washington DC, 2009. Bank Housing Program, Bangladesh.” Online at
111. For statistics on youth demographics see: http://www.iadb.org/sds/
126. There’s Nothing Micro About Poverty: The World
The Youth Employment Network. International doc/IFM-ChandraBarua-E.pdf.
Bank Group and Microfinance. The World Bank, the
Labour Organisation. www.ilo.org/yen Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) 138. Investments. Grassroots Business Fund.
112. Report of the UN High-Level Panel of the Youth and the IFC. Washington DC. (Undated) http://www.gbfund.org (accessed May 12th 2010)
Employment Network. United Nations. New York, 127. Core Beliefs. ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth. 139. IFC Advisory Services’ Access to Finance 2009
September 2001. http://www.icicifoundation.org/core-beliefs- Highlights Report. IFC, Washington, DC: 2009.
113. Macy, Christy. A Promising Future? Time is running 27.htm (Accessed August 25 2010) 140. Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for Adaptation (HARITA).
out for this generation. Youth magazine. 128. Collins, Daryl Morduch, Jonathon, Rutherford, Project Brief. Oxfam America, March 2010.
International Youth Foundation. Issue no. 4, Stuart & Ruthven, Orlanda. Portfolios of the 141. World’s First Microinsurance Fund Raises a Record
Summer 2010. Poor:How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. US$137 million. Press release. Leapfrog
114. Developing the Field of Social Entrepreneurship. Princeton University Press, 2009. Investments. May 17th 2010.
Duke University’s Center for the Advancement of 129. Ibid. http://www.leapfroginvest.com
Social Entrepreneurship, 2008. 142. Sutton, Christopher N. and Beth Jenkins. The Role
130. Ibid.
115. Dees, Greg. The Meaning of “Social of the Financial Services Sector in Expanding
131. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa.
Entrepreneurship”. Original draft: October 31, 1998. Economic Opportunity. Corporate Social
Business Linkages: Enabling Access to Markets at the
Reformatted and Revised: May 30, 2001. Responsibility Initiative Report No. 19. Cambridge,
Base of the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable
http://www.caseatduke.org/ MA: The Harvard Kennedy School, 2007.
Dialogue March 3-5, 2009, Jaipur, India.
116. Ashoka Fellows are Changing Systems. Ashoka Washington, DC: International Finance 143. FUNDEFIR (no date). “Bankomunales.” Online at
Innovators for the Public. Corporation, International Business Leaders http://www.fundefir.org.ve/bankomunales.html
See also: Drayton, Bill. Tipping the world: The power Forum, and the CSR Initiative at the Harvard (accessed December 17, 2009). Also see Mayer,
of collaborative entrepreneurship. What Matters. Kennedy School, 2009. Lauren (2006). [No title]. Online at
McKinsey & Company. http://www.fundefir.org.ve/articulos_web/Breakin
132. Adapted from Jenkins, Beth et al (2008). Business
http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/social_en g%20out%20of%20Poverty%20to%20print.pdf
(accessed December 17, 2009)

144. Pickens, Mark, Microfinance Analyst, CGAP Press. Washington DC, 2006. Agency, 2010.
Technology Program (2009). Mobile Money by the 157. Ibid. 172. CEO Climate Policy Recommendations to G8 Leaders
Numbers. Online at – July 2008. World Business Council for Sustainable
158. Ibid.
http://technology.cgap.org/2009/06/04/mobile- Development and World Economic Forum. July
money-by-the-numbers/ (accessed July 8, 2009). 159. Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making business work
2008.
for the poor. Report of the Commission on the
145. Pickens, Mark, David Porteous, and Sarah Rotman 173. Report of the Secretary-General’s High-
Private Sector and Development. United Nations
(2009). Scenarios for Branchless Banking in 2020. Level Advisory Group on Climate Change
Development Programme, 2004.
CGAP-DFID Focus Note No. 57. Financing. United Nations, New York: 5 November
160. Emerging Market Private Equity Association.
146. Dolan, Jonathan. Accelerating the Development of 2010
http://www.empea.net/
Mobile Money Ecosystems. Washington, DC: IFC See also: The World Bank. “Glossary of Selected
and the Harvard Kennedy School, 2009. 161. Ibid.
Innovative and Conventional Financial Instruments
147. Core Banking Systems Case Studies, Vol. 1 and 2. 162. Ibid. and Mechanisms.” Concessional Finance and
IBS Publishing. Online at 163. Development Impact. Emerging Capital Partners. Global Partnerships Multilateral Trusteeship and
http://www.ibsintelligence.com/index.php?option http://www.ecpinvestments.com/1039.xml?d=103 Innovative Financing (CFPMI). The World Bank,
=com_virtuemart&Itemid=70 (accessed 9&p=1010 (Accessed June 10, 2010) October, 2009.
December 17, 2009). Ketkar, Suhas and Ratha, Dilip (eds). Innovative
164. The Positive Power of Capital. Actis.
See also: http://www.equitybank.co.ke/about. http://www.act.is/461/actis_profile Financing for Development. The World Bank,
php?subcat=8 (Accessed June 9, 2010) Washington DC: 2009
148. FSD Kenya. The state of financial service 165. A “Win-Win” for Investors and Communities. Ferranti de, David et al. Innovative Financing for
delivery in Kenya today. Presentation at “The Future Calvert Foundation’s Mission and History. Global Health: Tools for analyzing the options.
of Financial Service Delivery in Kenya,” 22 May www.calvert-foundation.org/about/mission Brookings Global Economy and Development. The
2009, sponsored by the Central Bank of Kenya and (Accessed October 2, 2010) Global Health Financing Initiative. Working Paper
FSD Kenya. Cited in Pickens, Mark, David Porteous, 2, August 2008.
166. Bonbright, David, Kiryttopoulou, Natalia, and
and Sarah Rotman (2009). “Scenarios for The Global Fund. Partnering for Global Health: The
Iversen, Lindsay. Online philanthropy markets: from
Branchless Banking in 2020.” CGAP-DFID Focus Global Fund and the Private Sector. The Global Fund,
‘Feel-Good’ Giving to Effective Social Investing. A
Note No. 57. Geneva: 2010.
study funded by the Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit
149. Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa. Business Sector Research Fund. Keystone, January 2008. International Health Partnership and Related
Linkages: Enabling Access to Markets at the Base of Initiatives (IHP+). “IHP+ Core Team Report.” April
167. Ibid.
the Pyramid. Report of a Roundtable Dialogue 2009-May 2010.
March 3-5, 2009, Jaipur, India. Washington, DC: 168. Ibid.
International Finance Corporation, International 169. Koskelo, Jyrki I. and Kyte, Rachel. Banking
Business Leaders Forum, and the CSR Initiative at on Sustainability: Financing Environmental and PART III
the Harvard Kennedy School, 2009. Social Opportunities in Emerging Markets. 1. United Nations Development Programme.
150. Karim Khoja. Connecting a Nation. Innovations. MIT Foreword. International Finance Corporation. Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business
Press, Winter 2009 Washington: 2007 with the Poor. Growing Inclusive Markets Initiative,
170. World Bank. “Global Challenges: Global UNDP. New York: 2008.
151. Jenkins, Beth. Developing Mobile Money
Ecosystems. International Finance Corporation and Public Goods.” 2. Ministerial Declaration. The Role of Governments in
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Harvard http://web.worldbank.org?WBSITE/EXTRNAL/ABO Promoting Corporate Responsibility and Private
Kennedy School. CSRI Report No. 30. 2008. UTUS (Accessed June 11, 2010) Sector Engagement in Development. United Nations
See also: World Bank. Global Development Challenges Global Compact Leaders Summit. New York: June
152. IFC Advisory Services’ Access to Finance 2009
facing Humanity. Global Public Goods and 23-25, 2010.
Highlights Report. IFC. Washington DC, 2009.
Development – A Guide for Policy Makers. World 3. Adapted from: A Better Investment Climate for
153. The 50 Top Microfinance Institutions. Forbes
Bank Seminar Series at Kobe and Hiroshima Everyone. World Development Report 2005. The
magazine. http://www.forbes.com/2007/
Universities, May 2005. World Bank Group. Washington DC: 2004
12/20/microfinance-philanthropy-credit-biz-
cz_ms_1220microfinance_table.html Glossary. Providing Global Public Goods. Office of 4. Ibid.
(accessed May 10th 2010) Development Studies, United Nations
5. Smith, Warrick. Unleashing Entrepreneurship. In
Development Programme.
154. Who We Are. The Consultative Group to Assist the Brainard, Lael (editor) Transforming the
http://www.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globaliza
Poorest (CGAP) http://www.cgap.org/p/site/c/ Development Landscape: The Role of the Private
tion/glossary.html (Accessed June 11, 2010)
(Accessed August 28th 2010) Sector. Brookings Institution Press. Washington
171. Derviş, Kemal and Milsom, Sarah Puritz. DC: 2006.
155. Odell, Kathleen. Measuring the Impact of
Development Aid and Financing Global Public
Microfinance: Taking Another Look. Grameen 6. Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulation.
Goods: The example of Climate Protection. Chapter
Foundation Publication Series. Grameen The World Bank, International Finance
7 in Kharas, Homi, Jung, Woojin and Makino, Koji
Foundation, 2010. Corporation, and Oxford University Press.
(eds). Catalyzing Development: A New Vision for Aid.
Washington DC: 2004.
156. Patricof, Alan J. and Sunderland, Julie E. Venture Conference Edition – The 4th Seoul Conference on
Capital for Development. Chapter 6 in Brainard Lael Official Development Assistance. The Brookings 7. For more detailed information on enabling
(ed). Transforming the Development Landscape: The Institution, Korea International Development conditions for small enterprise development see:
Role of the Private Sector. Brookings Institution Agency and Japan International Cooperation The Donor Committee for Enterprise

Development. http://www.enterprise- 22. The section on non-governmental organizations Public Health Systems in Developing Countries.
development.org/ draws on the following report: Harvard Kennedy School, International Business
UNDP. Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Nelson, Jane. The operation of non-governmental Leaders Forum and Clinton Global Initiative. 2006.
business work for the poor. Report of the organizations (NGOs) in a world of corporate and Nelson, Jane. Business as a Partner in Strengthening
Commission on the Private Sector and other codes of conduct. Paper prepared for the Public Health Systems in Developing Countries.
Development. New York: UNDP, 2004. 52nd Annual Conference Rocky Mountain Mineral Harvard Kennedy School, International Business
UNIDO. Development of Clusters and Networks of Law Institute. 2006. Leaders Forum and Clinton Global Initiative. 2006.
SMEs: The UNIDO Programme. Vienna: UNIDO, 2001. 23. Salamon, Lester. M. Speech made to the 7. World Health Organisation. 2006 World Health
Nelson, Jane. Building Linkages for Competitive and International Association of Volunteer Effort Report. WHO, Geneva:2006
Responsible Entrepreneurship. United Nations Conference, the Netherlands, January 2001. 8. Overseas Development Institute. Global Health:
Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) and 24. Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. Making partnerships work. Briefing Paper. Overseas
Harvard Kennedy School. Cambridge: 2007. Carnegie Commission. New York, 1997. Development Institute, London: January 2007
8. Ward, Halina. Public Sector Roles in Strengthening 25. The Other Partner: NGOs and Private Sector Funding See also: Developing Successful Global Health Alliances.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Taking Stock. The for International Development and Relief. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Seattle: April
World Bank Group. Washington DC: 2004. InterAction. Washington DC: 2009. 2002.
9. Business & Development: Challenges and 26. The 2010 Index of Global Philanthropy and Levine, Ruth. Millions Saved: Proven Successes in
opportunities in a rapidly changing world. The Remittances. The Hudson Institute. Washington Global Health. Center for Global Development,
World Business Council for Sustainable DC: 2010. Washington DC: 2007.
Development. Geneva: 2010. 27. Worthington, Samuel A. and Pipa, Tony. Private 9. Thomas, Rosalind, H. Development Corridors and
10. Private Sector Development Strategy: Prosperity for Development Assistance: The Essential Role of INGOs Spatial Development Initiatives in Africa. January
All, Making Markets Work. The UK Department for and Foundations in the 21st Century Aid 2009.
International Development. London: 2008. Architecture. Paper prepared for Brookings 10. Ibid.
11. Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business Institution project on aid-effectiveness. July 2010.
with the Poor. Report of the Growing Inclusive 28. Ibid
Markets Initiative, United Nations Development
PART V
Programme. New York: 2008. 1. Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa with Alexis
PART IV Geaneotes and John H. Paul. “Scaling Up Inclusive
12. For details on the Ruggie mandate and copies
1. Zadek, Simon. Responsible Competitiveness: Making Business: Advancing the Knowledge and Action
of all official reports and related studies see the
Sustainability Count in Global Markets, Harvard Agenda.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre.
International Review, Summer 2008: 72-77 School, Harvard University, April 2010.
www.business-humanrights.org
2. Grayson, David. Business-led Corporate 2. Ibid.
13. Email correspondence with IFC. 31 July 2010.
Responsibility Coalitions: Learning from the example
14. Global Monitoring Report 2009. A Development of Business in the Community in the UK. Corporate
Emergency. World Bank Group: 2009. Social Responsibility Initiative, Harvard Kennedy
15. Business Civil Leadership Center. Partnering for School. Cambridge: 2007.
Global Development: The Evolving Links between 3. FSG. Beyond Partnership: Concerted Action. FSG,
Business and International Development Agencies. Boston: 2010.
US Chamber of Commerce and Corporate
4. Zadek, Simon and Radovich, Sasha. Governing
Citizenship Company, 2009.
Collaborative Governance: Enhancing development
16. New Donors. Brookings outcomes by improving partnership governance and
17. New Donors. accountability. CSRI Working Paper No. 23. Harvard
18. Davis, Steve and Woetzel, Jonathan. Making the Kennedy School. Cambridge: 2006.
Most of Chinese Aid to Africa. McKinsey Quarterly, 5. This section draws on Nelson, Jane. Building
June 2010. Partnerships: Cooperation between the United
19. The Role of Foundations. 2009 Annual Letter from Nations system and the private sector. United
Bill Gates. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Seattle, Nations, New York: 2002.
2009. See also:
20. Marten, Robert and Witte, Jan Martin Witte. Millions Fed: Proven Success in Agricultural
Transforming Development: The Role of Development. International Food Policy Research
Philanthropic Foundations in International Institute, Washington DC:2009.
Development Cooperation. GPPi Research Paper 6. This section draws on Nelson, Jane. Building
No. 10. 2008. Partnerships: Cooperation between the United
21. Worthington, Samuel A. and Pipa, Tony. Private Nations system and the private sector. United
Development Assistance: The Essential Role of INGOs Nations, New York: 2002.
and Foundations in the 21st Century Aid See also:
Architecture. Paper prepared for Brookings
Nelson, Jane. Business as a Partner in Strengthening
Institution project on aid-effectiveness. July 2010.

REFERENCES
AccountAbility and the United Nations Industrial Giving to Effective Social Investing. A study funded by the Collins, Daryl, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford, and
Development Organization (UNIDO). SME Clusters and Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector Research Fund. Orlanda Ruthven. Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s
Responsible Competitiveness in Developing Countries. Keystone, January 2008. Poor Live on $2 a Day. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Vienna: UNIDO, 2006. Press, 2009.
Bonini, Sheila M.J, Mendonca, Lenny T, and Oppenheim,
Acs, Zolton. “How is Entrepreneurship Good for Jeremy M. When social issues become strategic: Executives Commission for Africa. Our Common Interest. London:
Economic Growth?” Innovations, winter 2006: 97-107. ignore sociopolitical issues at their own peril. The McKinsey Department for International Development (DFID), 2005.
Quarterly, Number 2, 2006.
Ashley, Caroline. Measuring the impact of business on Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy.
development. Opinion 101. Overseas Development Bosma, Niels and others. “2008 Executive Report.” Global Shaping the Future: Solving Social Problems through
Institute. London, April 2008. Entrepreneurship Monitor. Boston: Babson College, 2008. Business Strategy. Based on research by McKinsey &
Company. CECP, New York: 2010.
Ashley, Caroline, Peter De Brine, Amy Lehr, and Hannah Brainard, Lael, Jones, Abigail and Purvis, Nigel, eds.
Wilde. “Role of the Tourism Sector in Expanding Climate Change and Global Poverty: A billion lives in the Conway, Gordon and Waage, Jeff. Science and Innovation
Economic Opportunity.” CSRI Report No. 23. Cambridge, balance? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, for Development. UK Collaborative on Development
MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2007. 2009. Sciences. 2010
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-
Brainard, Lael, and Derek Chollet, eds. Development 2.0: Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, International
rcbg/CSRI/publications/report_23_EO%20Tourism%20Fi
Can Philanthropists, the Public, and the Poor Make Poverty Business Leaders Forum, and Edelman. “Business and
nal.pdf
History? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, International Development: Opportunities,
Autio, Erkko. “2007 Global Report on High-Growth 2008. Responsibilities, and Expectations.” CSRI Report No. 5.
Entrepreneurship.” Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard
Brainard, Lael, and Derek Chollet, eds. Too Poor for Peace?:
Boston: Babson College, 2007. University, 2005.
Global Poverty, Conflict, and Security in the 21st Century.
Bays, Jonathan, Tony Goland and Joe Newsum. “Using Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, International
Prizes to Spur Innovation.” McKinsey Quarterly, July 2009: Business Leaders Forum, and World Economic Forum.
Brainard, Lael, ed. Transforming the Development
2-5. “Partnering for Success: Business Perspectives on
Landscape: The Role of the Private Sector. Washington, DC:
Multistakeholder Partnerships.” CSRI Report No. 4.
Baumol, William, J, Litan, Robert, E, Schramm, Carl, J. The Brookings Institution, 2006.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard
Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism and the economics of
Brown, Halina Szejnwald, Martin de Jong, and Teodorina University, 2005.
growth and prosperity. Yale University Press. New Haven:
Lessidrenska. “The Rise of the Global Reporting Initiative
2007. Davies, Robert and Jane Nelson. “The Buck Stops Where?:
(GRI) as a Case of Institutional Entrepreneurship.” CSRI
Managing the Boundaries of Business Engagement in
Bekefi, Tamara. “Tanzania: Lessons in Building Linkages Working Paper No. 36. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
Global Development Challenges.” International Business
for Competitive and Responsible Entrepreneurship.” School, Harvard University, 2007.
Leaders Forum (IBLF) Policy Paper 2003, Number 2.
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative and United
Brown, Tim. Change by Design: How design thinking
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why
transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Harper
CSRI Report No. 9. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.
Business. New York: 2009.
School, Harvard University, 2006. Basic Books. New York: 2000.
Center for Advancement of Social Enterprise. Developing
Bekefi, Tamara. “The Global Road Safety Partnership and Dees, J. Gregory. “The Meaning of ‘Social
the Field of Social Entrepreneurship. Durham: Duke
Lessons in Multisectoral Collaboration.” CSRI Report No. Entrepreneurship.’” Photocopy, Center for the
University Press, 2008.
6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Duke
University, 2006. Center for Business and Government, Social Enterprise University, 2001.
Initiative, World Economic Forum and UNAIDS. “HIV/AIDS
Bekefi, Tamara. “Viet Nam: Lessons in Building Linkages Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Emerging Markets, Ltd.
and Business in Africa and Asia: A Guide to Partnerships.”
for Competitive and Responsible Entrepreneurship.” Partnerships for Small Enterprise Development. New York
CSRI Report No. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative and United and Vienna: United Nations Development Programme
School, Harvard University, 2004.
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (UNDP) and UNIDO, 2004.
CSRI Report No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Churet, Cécile. Business for Development: Business
Dervis, Kemal, Jones, Abigail, Kornbluh, Karen and Puritz,
School, Harvard University, 2006. solutions in support of the Millennium Development Goals.
Sarah. Climate Crisis Credit Crisis: the Quest for Green
Conches-Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council
Bernstein, Ann. The Case for Business in Developing Growth. Report of Brookings Blum Roundtable 2009.
for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2005.
Countries. Penguin Books. South Africa, 2010.
Dhillon, Navtej and Yousef, Tarik (eds). Generation in
Clay, Jason. Exploring Links Between International Business
Besley, Tim and Roberto N. Zagha, eds. Development Waiting: The unfulfilled promise of young people in the
and Poverty Reduction: A case study of Unilever in
Challenges in the 1990s: Leading Policymakers Speak from Middle East. Brookings Institution Press. Washington DC:
Indonesia. Oxford: Oxfam GB, Novib Oxfam Netherlands
Experience. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group, 2009.
and Unilever, 2005.
2005.
Diam, Cathy and others. Changing Lives Through Energy.
Clinton, Bill. Giving: How each of us can change the world.
Birdsall, Nancy. “Cheerleaders, cynics and worried E+Co. September 2009.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York, 2007.
doubters.” Global Agenda Magazine, January 2003.
Dolan, Jonathan. “Accelerating the Development of
Cohen, Jessica and Easterly, William (eds). What Works in
Bishop, Mathew and Greene, David. philanthro- Mobile Money Ecosystems.” CSRI Report No. 39.
Development? Thinking Big and Thinking Small. Brookings
capitalism: How the rich can save the world. Bloomsbury Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard
Institution Press. Washington DC: 2009.
Press. 2008 University, January 2009.
Coleman, Isobel. The Global Glass Ceiling: Why
Bonbright, David, Kiryttopoulou, Natalia, and Iversen, Donahue, John D. and Richard Zeckhauser. “Public-
Empowering Women is Good for Business. Foreign Affairs.
Lindsay. Online Philanthropy Markets: From ‘Feel-Good’ Private Collaboration.” Oxford Handbook of Public Policy.
Volume 89 No. 3. Washington DC, May/June 2010.

Edited by Michael Moran, Rein Martin, and Robert E. Gates, Bill. Commencement speech at Harvard International Business Leaders Forum. Inclusive Business
Goodin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. University. June 7th 2007. Sourcebook: Case Studies Across Asia. IBLF, London: 2010.
Drayton, Bill. Tipping the world: The power of collaborative Gates, Bill. A New Approach to Capitalism in the 21st International Business Leaders Forum. Inclusive Business
entrepreneurship. What Matters. McKinsey & Company. Century. Speech to the Annual Meeting of the World Guide. IBLF, London: 2010.
Economic Forum, Davos. January 24 2008.
Drucker, Peter F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New International Business Leaders Forum. The Business of
York: HarperCollins, 1985. Gereffi, Gary. A Commodity Chains Framework for Jobs: Developing Enterprise and Employability through
Analyzing Global Industries. Institute of Development Collaboration. IBLF, London: 2009.
Edwards, Michael. Small Change: Why business won’t save
Studies, 1999.
the world. Berrett-Koehler. San Francisco: 2008. International Business Leaders Forum. Under the
Global Reporting Initiative. The Transparent Economy: Six spotlight: Building a better understanding of global
Elkington, John and Hartigan, Pamela. The Power of
tigers stalk the global recovery – and how to tame them. business-NGO partnerships. IBLF, London: 2008.
Unreasonable People: How social entrepreneurs create
The Global Reporting Initiative in collaboration with
markets that change the world. Harvard University Press. International Business Leaders Forum. The Business of
Volans and project partners Dow, Novo Nordisk and SAP.
Boston: 2008. Enterprise: Meeting the challenge of economic development
Global Reporting Initiative, 2010.
through business and community partnerships. IBLF,
Elkington, John, Alejandro Litovsky, and Charmian Love.
Grayson, David. “Business-Led Corporate Responsibility London: 2002.
The Phoenix Economy: 50 Pioneers in the Business of Social
Coalitions: Learning from the Example of Business In The
Innovation. London: Volans Ventures Ltd., 2009. International Finance Corporation. The Business of Health
Community in the UK.” Corporate Social Responsibility
in Africa: Partnering with the Private Sector to Improve
Elkington, John. The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for Initiative, Cranfield School of Management, UK and
People’s Lives. IFC, Washington DC, 2009.
Corporate Changemakers. SustainAbility, Ltd., 2008. Business in the Community, UK. CSRI Report No. 26,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard Isusi, Iñigo. European SMEs and Social and Environmental
Elliott, Kimberly Ann. Pulling Agricultural Innovation and
University, 2007. Responsibility. Observatory of European SMEs, no. 4.
the Market Together. CGD Working Paper 215. Center for
Brussels: European Communities, 2002.
Global Development. Washington DC, 2010. Grayson, David. Inspiration: Successfully engaging Europe’s
smaller businesses in environmental and social issues. Jackson, Ira and Jane Nelson. Profits with Principles: Seven
European Commission, Directorate-General for
Working Paper. The Copenhagen Centre, 2003. strategies for delivering value with values. New York:
Enterprise. Responsible entrepreneurship: A collection of
Currency Doubleday, 2004.
good practice cases among small and medium-sized Hammond, Allen L., William J. Kramer, Robert S. Katz,
enterprises across Europe. Brussels: European Julia T. Tran, and Courtland Walker. “The Next 4 Billion: Jenkins, Beth and Gilbert, Richard (eds). Business
Communities, 2003. Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Partnerships for Development in Africa: Redrawing the
Pyramid.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute boundaries of possibility. Business Action for Africa in
European Foundation Center. 2007 Survey of European
and IFC, 2007. association with CSR Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School,
Foundations’ and Corporate Donors’ Funding for Global
2010.
Development. Mimeo. Brussels: European Foundation Hart, Stuart L. Capitalism at the Crossroads: The
Center, 2007. Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World’s Jenkins, Beth, Eriko Ishikawa, Alexis Geaneotes and John
Most Difficult Problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton H. Paul. “Inclusive Business Solutions: Expanding
Fairbanks, Michale, Fal, Malik, Escobari-Rose, Marcela,
School Publishing, 2005. Opportunity and Access at the Base of the Pyramid.
and Hooper, Elizabeth. In the River they Swim: Essays from
Report of a Conference held October 7-8, 2010 in
around the world on enterprise solutions to poverty. Hart, Stuart, L. Taking the Green Leap. Cornell Global
Washington DC.
Templeton Press. Pennsylvania: 2009. Forum on Sustainable Enterprise. The Johnson School
Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise. Cornell Jenkins, Beth and Eriko Ishikawa with Alexis Geaneotes
Fishback, Bo. “A New Model to Catalyze a Movement of
University, June 2009. and John H. Paul. “Scaling Up Inclusive Business:
High-Growth Entrepreneurs.” Kauffman Laboratories for
Advancing the Knowledge and Action Agenda.”
Enterprise Creation. November 16, 2009. Hills, Greg and Mahmud, Adeeb. Volunteering for Impact:
Fitzgerald, Niall and Mandy Cormack. “The Role of Best Practices in International Corporate Volunteering. FSG
University, April 2010.
Business in Society: An Agenda for Action” Social Impact Advisers, 2007.
Jenkins, Beth with Eriko Ishikawa. “Business Linkages:
CSRI Report No. 12. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Hoffman, Kurt, et al. Enterprise Solutions to Poverty:
Enabling Access to Markets at the Base of the Pyramid –
School, Harvard University, 2006. Opportunities and challenges for the International
A report of a roundtable dialogue.” CSRI Report No. 35.
Ford Foundation, The. Part of the Solution: Leveraging Development Community and Big Business. Edited by Marc
business and markets for low-income people. Lessons for Lopatin. London: Shell Foundation, 2005.
University, 2009.
the Ford Foundation Corporate Involvement Initiative. Hudson Institute. The Index of Global Philanthropy and
Jenkins, Beth, Eriko Ishikawa, Emma Barthes, and Marisol
The Ford Foundation. New York, 2003. Remittances 2010: A Comprehensive Guide to the Sources
Giacomelli. Supporting Entrepreneurship at the Base of the
Forstater, Maya, Alex MacGillivray and Peter Raynard. and Magnitude of Global Giving to the Developing World.
Pyramid through Business Linkages: Report of a Roundtable
Responsible Trade and Market Access: Opportunities or The Center for Global Prosperity, the Hudson Institute.
Dialogue. Harvard Kennedy School, International Finance
obstacles for SMEs in developing countries?. Vienna: Washington DC: 2010.
Corporation, 2008.
UNIDO, 2006 Initiative for Global Development. “The IGD
Jenkins, Beth, et al. “Business Linkages: Lessons,
Fox, Tom. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Development Guide: A business approach to ending
Opportunities, and Challenges.” CSRI Report No. 16.
Development: In quest of an agenda.” Development 47, extreme global poverty.” Seattle, WA: Initiative for Global
no. 3 (2004): 29-36. Development, May 2006.
University, 2007.
Friedman, Benjamin M. The Moral Consequences of International Business Leaders Forum. The Impact of UK
Economic Growth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. Companies and the Millennium Development Goals. IBLF,
London: 2010.

Jenkins, Beth, et al. “Supporting Entrepreneurship at the KPMG. Integrated Reporting: Closing the loop on strategy. London, Ted. “Making Better Investments at the Base of
Base of the Pyramid through Business Linkages” CSRI KPMG Global Sustainability Services. KPMG Sustainable the Pyramid.” Harvard Business Review 87(5) 2009: 106-
Report No. 31. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Insight quarterly, April 2010. 113.
Harvard University, 2008.
KPMG. Carrots and Sticks – Promoting Transparency and London, Ted. “A Base-of-the-Pyramid Perspective on
Jenkins, Beth. “Developing Mobile Money Ecosystems.” Sustainability. An update on trends in Voluntary and Poverty Alleviation.” Working Paper of the William
International Finance Corporation and Corporate Social Mandatory Approaches to Sustainability Reporting. KPMG, Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan and the
Responsibility Initiative, CSRI Report No. 30. Cambridge, Unite for Corporate Governance in Africa, Global United Nations Development Programme, 2007.
MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2008. Reporting Initiative, United Nations Environment
London, Ted, hart, Stuart et al. Next Generation Business
Programme. 2010.
Jenkins, Beth. “Expanding Economic Opportunity: The Strategies for the Base of the Pyramid: New Approaches for
Role of Large Firms.” CSR Initiative Report No. 17. Kramer, Mark, Parkhurst, Marcie and Vaidyanathan, Building Mutual Value. FT Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, 2007. See Lalitha. Breakthroughs in Shared Measurement and Social 2010.
seven industry sector reports in the Expanding Economic Impact. FSG – Social Impact Consultants, Boston: 2009.
Luetkenhorst, Wilfried. “Corporate Social Responsibility
Opportunity series, available online at:
Kramer, Mark and John Kania. “Game Changing CSR.” and the Development Agenda: The Case for Actively
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-
CSRI Working Paper No. 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Involving Small and Medium Enterprises.” Intereconomics
rcbg/CSRI/pub_reports.html.
Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2006. 39, no. 3 (2004): 157-167.
Jenkins, Beth. “Expanding Economic Opportunity: The
Kramer, Mark, Marc Pfitzer and Karin Jestin. “Uncommon Lundsgaarde, Erik. Emerging Non-State Actors in Global
Role of Large Firms.” CSRI Report No. 17. Cambridge, MA:
Partners: The Power of Foundation and Corporation Development: Challenges for Europe. EDC 2010. Working
Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2007.
Collaboration.” CSRI Working Paper No. 21. Cambridge, Paper No. 7, April 2010.
Jordan, Stephen and Taryn Bird. “Partnering for Global MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2006.
Macy, Christy. A Promising Future? Time is running out for
Development: The Evolving Links Between Business and
Kramer, Mark, Marc Pfitzer and Paul Lee. Competitive this generation. Youth magazine. International Youth
International Development Agencies.” Washington, DC:
Social Responsibility: Uncovering the economic rationale for Foundation. Issue no. 4, Summer 2010.
Business Civic Leadership Center, US Chamber of
corporate social responsibility among Danish small and
Commerce, 2009. Magariños, Carlos A. Economic Development and UN
medium-sized enterprises. People and Profit Project of the
Reform: Towards a common agenda for action. Vienna:
Kaplinsky, Raphael and Jeff Readman. Integrating SMEs in Danish Commerce and Companies Agency and Danish
UNIDO, 2005.
Global Value Chains: Towards Partnership for Development. Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs, 2005.
Vienna: UNIDO, 2001. Mahmud, Adeeb and Marcie Parkhurst. “Role of the
Kramer, William J., Beth Jenkins, and Robert S. Katz. “Role
Health Care Sector in Expanding Economic Opportunity.”
Karamchandani, Ashish, Michael Kubzansky, and Paul of the Information and Communications Technology
CSRI Report No. 21. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
Frandano. Emerging Markets, Emerging Models: Market- Sector in Expanding Economic Opportunity.” CSRI Report
Based Solutions to the Challenges of Global Poverty. No. 22. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School,
Monitor Group, 2009. Harvard University, 2007. Making the Law Work for Everyone. Final report of the UN
Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor. United
Kauffman Foundation and The International Economic Kytle, Beth and John Gerard Ruggie. “Corporate Social
Nations. New York: 2008.
Development Council. “Entrepreneurship Summit: Responsibility as Risk Management.” CSRI Working Paper
Executive Summary.” Ewing Marion Kauffman No. 10. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Marten, Robert and Witte, Martin Jan. Transforming
Foundation, 2008. Harvard University, 2005. Development? The role of philanthropic foundations in
international development cooperation. Global Public
Kaul, Inge and Pedro Conceição, eds. The New Public LaFluer, Vinca, Purvis, Nigel and Jones, Abigail. Double
Policy Institute Research Paper Series No. 10, 2008.
Finance: Responding to Global Challenges. New York: Jeopardy: What the Climate Crisis Means for the Poor.
Oxford University Press, 2006. Report of Brookings Blum Roundtable 2008. McDonnell, Thomas A. “It’s All About Innovation,” in
Kauffman Thoughtbook 2009. Ewing Marion Kauffman
Kling, Arnold and Schultz, Nick. From Poverty to Lalwani, Nishant and Michael Kubzansky. “Stretching the
Foundation, 2008: 2-5.
Prosperity: Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities and the Fabric of MFI Networks.” Monitor Group, 2009.
Lasting Triumph Over Scarcity. Encounter Books, New McKinsey & Company. How business interacts with
Lamy, Pascal. “Corporate Social Responsibility – Beyond
York: 2009. government. McKinsey Global Survey Results. McKinsey &
Buzz Words.” Foreward. Corporate Responsibility and the
Company, 2010.
Kharas, Homi, Jung, Woojin and Makino, Koji (eds). Competitive Advantage of Nations. Tracey Swift and
Catalyzing Development: A New Vision for Aid. Conference Simon Zadek. London: The Copenhagen Centre and McKinsey & Company. Using Prizes to Spur Innovation.
Edition – The 4th Seoul Conference on Official Development AccountAbility, 2002. McKinsey Quarterly article, 2009.
Assistance. The Brookings Institution, Korea International McKinsey & Company. The Business of Empowering
Landes, David S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why
Development Agency and Japan International Women. McKinsey & Company. 2010
some are so rich and some so poor? New York: W.W.
Cooperation Agency, 2010.
Norton & Company, 1999. McMillan, John. Reinventing the Bazaar: A natural history
Kinsley, Michael (ed) Creative Capitalism. A Conversation of markets. W.W. Norton & Company. New York: 2002.
Levine, R, Kremer, M, Albright, A. Making Markets Work
with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other Economic Leaders.
for Vaccines. Working Group Report. Center for Global Mejía, Francisco and Bueno, Manuel. Using Platforms to
Simon and Schuster, New York: 2008.
Development. Washongton DC, 2005. Gain Scale in BOP Markets (Parts 1 to 3). Blog posts on
Kotler, Philip and Lee, Nancy, R. Up and Out of Poverty: NextBillion.net, 2009. (Parts 1,2 and 3) , 2009
Locke, Richard, Fei Quin, and Alberto Brause. “Does
The Social Marketing Solution. Wharton School
Monitoring Improve Labor Standards?: Lessons from Microsoft. Unleashing Technology to Advance Social and
Publishing. Upper Saddle River: 2009.
Nike.” CSRI Working Paper No. 24. Cambridge, MA: Economic Development. A perspective from Microsoft
KPMG. International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2006. Community Affairs. Microsoft Unlimited Potential, 2010.
Reporting 2008. KPMG, 2008.

Monitor Company Group, LP. Paths to Prosperity: Nelson, Jane. “Building Public Sector Capacity to Address Nelson, Jane. Leadership, Accountability, and Partnership:
Promoting Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century. January HIV/AIDS: The Role of the Private Sector.” CSRI Working Critical Trends and Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility.
2009. Paper No. 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative (CSRI) Report 1.
Harvard University, 2005. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government,
Moss, Todd. (Chair). A Doing Business facility: A proposal
for Enhancing Business Climate Reform Assistance. The Nelson, Jane. “Business as a Partner in Overcoming
Supporting Business Climate Reforms Working Group Malnutrition: An Agenda for Action.” Corporate Social Nelson, Jane. The Business of Peace: The private sector as a
Advancing Africa’s Private Sector Series. Center for Global Responsibility Initiative, The Conference Board and partner in conflict prevention and resolution. International
Development, Washington DC: March, 2010. International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF). CSRI Report Alert, IBLF, and Council on Economic Priorities, 2000.
No. 14, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School,
Moyo, Dambisa. Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and Odell, Kathleen. Measuring the Impact of Microfinance:
how there is better way for Africa. Farrar, Straus and Taking Another Look. Grameen Foundation Publication
Giroux. New York: 2009. Nelson, Jane. “Business as a Partner in Strengthening Series. Grameen Foundation, 2010.
Public Health Systems in Developing Countries: An
Murphy, Shannon. “Business and Philanthropy Oliver, Amanda, ed. Finding Capital for Sustainable
Agenda for Action.” Corporate Social Responsibility
Partnerships for Human Capital Development in the Livelihoods Businesses: A finance guide for business
Initiative, The Conference Board and International
Middle East.” CSRI Working Paper No. 52. Cambridge, managers. Conches-Geneva, Switzerland: WBCSD, 2004.
Business Leaders Forum (IBLF). CSRI Report No. 13.
MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2009.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Nadvi, Khalid and Stephanie Barrientos. “Industrial University, 2006. Development (OECD). Harmonising donor practices for
Clusters and Poverty Reduction: Towards a methodology effective aid delivery. DAC Guidelines and Reference
Nelson, Jane. “Corporate Citizenship in a Global Context.”
for poverty and social impact assessment of cluster Series. Paris: OECD, 2003.
CSRI Working Paper No. 13. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
development initiatives.” Vienna: UNIDO, 2004.
Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2005. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Narayan, Deepa, et al. Can Anyone Hear Us?: Voices from Development (OECD). The DAC Guidelines: Poverty
Nelson, Jane. “CSR and Public Policy: New Forms of
47 Countries. Voices of the Poor, vol. 1. New York: Oxford Reduction. Paris: OECD, 2001.
Engagement between Business and Government.” CSRI
University Press, 2000.
Working Paper No. 45. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Oxfam. Oxfam Poverty Footprint: Understanding Business
Narayan, Deepa, Pritchett, Lant and Kapoor, Soumya. School, Harvard University, 2008. Contribution to Development. Oxfam, 2009.
Moving Out of Poverty: Success from the Bottom-Up.
Nelson, Jane. “Leadership, Accountability, and Pedersen, Esben Rahbek and Huniche, Mahad. (eds).
Palgrave McMillan and the World Bank. 2009.
Partnership: Critical Trends and Issues in Corporate Social Corporate Citizenship in Developing Countries: New
Nelson, Jane and Beth Jenkins. “Investing in Social Responsibility.” Report of the CSR Initiative Launch Event. Partnership Perspectives. Copenhagen Business School
Innovation: Harnessing the Potential of Partnership CSRI Report No. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Press, Copenhagen: 2006.
between Corporations and Social Entrepreneurs.” CSRI School, Harvard University, 2004. Peterson, Kyle and Pfitzer, Marc. Lobbying for Good.
Working Paper No. 20. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy
Nelson, Jane. “Leveraging the Development Impact of Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2009.
Business in the Fight against Global Poverty.” CSRI Pfitzer, Marc and Ramya Krishnaswamy. “The Role of the
Nelson, Jane and Beth Jenkins. “Role of the Private Sector Working Paper No. 22. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Food & Beverage Sector in Expanding Economic
in Expanding Economic Opportunity through School, Harvard University, 2006. Opportunity.” CSRI Report No. 20. Cambridge, MA:
Collaborative Action. Report of a Leadership Dialogue,”
Nelson, Jane. “Operating in Insecure Environments.” CSRI Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2007.
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, CSRI Report No.
Working Paper No. 25. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Pinchot, Gifford and Pellman, Ron. Intrapreneuring in
29. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard
School, Harvard University, 2006. Action: A handbook for business innovation. Berret-
University, 2007.
Nelson, Jane. “The Operation of Non-Governmental Koehler. San Francisco, 1999.
Nelson, Jane and David Prescott. Business and the
Organizations (NGOs) in a World of Corporate and Polak, Paul. Out of Poverty: What works when traditional
Millennium Development Goals: A Framework for Action.
Other Codes of Conduct.” CSRI Working Paper No. 34. approaches fail. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. San
UNDP and IBLF, 2003.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard Francisco: 2008.
Nelson, Jane and Eriko Ishikawa and Alexis Geaneotes University, 2007.
“Developing Inclusive Business Models: A Review of Porter, Michael. E and Kramer, Mark. R. Strategy and
Nelson, Jane. “The Public Role of Private Enterprise: Risks, Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and
Coca-Cola’s Manual Distribution Centres in Ethiopia and
Opportunities and New Models of Engagement.” CSRI Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review,
Tanzania.” CSRI Report No. 38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Working Paper No. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Cambridge: December 2006.
Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2008.
Nelson, Jane, David Prescott and Stefanie Held. Porter, Michael and Kramer, Mark. The Competitive
Nelson, Jane. Building Partnerships: Cooperation between Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy. Harvard Business
Partnering for Success: Business Perspectives on
the United Nations system and the private sector. New Review, Cambridge: December 2002.
Multistakeholder Partnerships. CSRI Report 4. World
York: United Nations, 2000.
Economic Forum (WEF), 2005. Prahalad, C.K. and Allen L. Hammond. “Serving the
Nelson, Jane. Business as Partners in Development: World’s Poor, Profitably.” Harvard Business Review 80(9):
Nelson, Jane. “Building Linkages for Competitive and
Building wealth for countries, companies and communities. 48-57.
Responsible Entrepreneurship: Innovative Partnerships
New York: The World Bank, UNDP and IBLF, 1996.
to Foster Small Enterprise, Promote Economic Growth, Prahalad, C.K. and Stuart L. Hart. “The Fortune at the
and Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries.” Vienna Nelson, Jane. Economic Multipliers: Revisiting the core Bottom of the Pyramid.” Strategy+Business 26: 54-67.
and Cambridge, MA: UNIDO and Harvard Kennedy responsibility and contribution of business to development.
School, 2007. London: IBLF, 2003. Prahalad, C.K. and Stuart L. Hart. “The Fortune at the
Bottom of the Pyramid.” Strategy + Business Magazine,
First Quarter, no. 26 (2002).

Prahalad, C.K. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Rukanova, S. EFC 2007 Survey of European Foundations’ The Africa Commission. Realizing the Potential of Africa’s
Eradicating Poverty through Profits. Upper Saddle River, and Corporate Donors’ Funding for Global Development. Youth. Report of the Africa Commission. May 2009
NJ: Wharton School Publishing, 2005. European Foundation Centre. Brussels, 2008.
The Africa Commission. Growth and Employment: Visions
Ramachandran, Vijay, Gelb, Alan and Shah, Manju Kedia. SBP. “Small Business Development in South Africa.” An at Work. Progress Report of the Africa Commission. July
Africa’s Private Sector: What’s Wrong with the Business SBP Occasional Paper, August 2009. 2010
Envrionment and What to Do About It. Center for Global
Schramm, Carl J. “Expeditionary Economics: Spurring The Commission for Africa Our Common Interest. Report
Development. Washington DC: 2009.
Growth after Conflicts and Disasters.” Foreign Affairs, of the Commission for Africa. March 11, 2005.
Rangan, V. Kasturi, John A. Quelch, Gustavo Herrero, and May/June 2010.
The Commission for Africa Still Our Common Interest.
Brooke Barton, eds. Business Solutions for the Global Poor:
Schramm, Carl J. “Building Entrepreneurial Economies.” Commission for Africa Report 2010.
Creating Social and Economic Value. Hoboken, NJ: John
Foreign Affairs, July/August 2004.
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007. The Economist. Global Heroes: A Special Report on
Schramm, Carl J. “Our Role in the Evolution of Entrepreneurship. March 14, 2009: S3-S20.
Ratha, Dilip, Mahapatra, Sanket, and Plaza, Sonia. Beyond
Capitalism,” in Kauffman Thoughtbook 2009. Ewing
Aid: New Sources and Innovative Mechanisms for Financing The Economist. The World Turned Upside Down. A special
Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2008: 8-20.
Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Policy Research report on innovation in emerging markets. The Economist.
Working Paper 4609. The World Bank. Washington DC, Schumpeter. “Fish out of Water.” The Economist 393 April 15 2010.
April 2008. (2009): 78.
The Economic. Mobile Marvels. A special report on
Raynard, Peter and Maya Forstater. Corporate Social SEAF. From Poverty to Prosperity: Understanding the telecoms in emerging markets. The Economist, September
Responsibility: Implications for Small and Medium Impact of Investing in Small and Medium Enterprises – 26th 2009.
Enterprises in Developing Countries. Vienna: UNIDO, 2002. Data Survey and Case Study Analysis of SEAF Investments.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. Wiring up: Technology-
October 2007.
Rees, Caroline and David Vermijs. “Mapping Grievance led development in the emerging world. A report from the
Mechanisms in the Business and Human Rights Arena” Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Anchor Books. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2007.
CSRI Report No. 28. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy New York: 1999.
The HELP Commission. Beyond Assistance. The HELP
School, Harvard University, 2008. Shell Foundation. Enterprise Solutions to Poverty. Commission Report on Foreign Assistance Reform.
Rees, Caroline. “Corporations and Human Rights: Opportunities and Challenges for the International December 7, 2007.
Accountability Mechanisms for Resolving Complaints Development Community and Big Business. The Shell
Transatlantic Taskforce on Development. Toward a
and Disputes,” CSRI Report No. 27. Cambridge, MA: Foundation. London, 2005.
Brighter Future: A Transatlantic Call for renewed Leadership
Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2008. Smith, Stephen, C. Ending Global Poverty: A Guide to What and partnerships in Global Development. Transatlantic
Responsible Business in Africa: Chinese Business Leaders’ Works. Palgrave Macmillan. New York: 2005. Taskforce on Development. The German Marshall Fund of
Perspectives on Performance and Enhancement the United States. Washington DC, 2009.
Smith, Wendy. Give a Little: How your small donations can
Opportunities. Simon Zadek, Chen Xiaohong, Li Zhaoxi, transform the world. Hyperion, New York: 2009. Timberlake, Lloyd, ed. Doing Business with the Poor: A field
Jia Tao, Zhou Yan, Kelly Yu, Maya Forstater, Guy Morgan | guide. Conches-Geneva, Switzerland: WBCSD, 2004.
November 2009 | CSRI Working Paper No. 54 Soderberg, Nancy and Katulis, Brian. The Prosperity
Agenda: What the World wants from America – and what we Trelstad, Brian. “Simple Measures for Social Enterprise.”
Rhyne, Elizabeth. Microfinance for Bankers and Investors: need in return. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ: 2008. Innovations, summer 2008: 105-118.
Understanding the Opportunity at the Bottom of the
Pyramid. McGraw Hill Publishing, 2009. Stanton, David and Tony Polatajko. Business Linkages: UK Department for International Development. Private
Their value and donor approaches towards them. London: Sector Development Strategy: Prosperity for All, Making
Rockefeller Foundation. Scenarios for the Future of DFID, 2001. Markets Work. DFID, London, 2008.
Technology and Development. The Rockefeller Foundation
and the Global Business Network. New York, 2010. SustainAbility, Ltd. and United Nations Global Compact. UK Department for International Development and Swiss
Gearing Up: From corporate responsibility to good Agency for Development Cooperation. A Synthesis of the
Rosenberg, Mark L, Hayes, Elisabeth S, McIntyre Margaret governance and scalable solutions. London: SustainAbility, Making Markets Work for the Poor Approach. UK
H, Neill, Nancy. Real Collaboration: What it Takes for Global Ltd., 2004. Department for International Development (DFID) and
Health to Succeed. University of California Press, 2010. the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC).
Sutton, Christopher N. “Role of the Utilities Sector in
Ruggie, John G. Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: 2008.
Expanding Economic Opportunity.”
Issues, Actors and Practices. CSRI Working Paper 6. CSRI Report No. 24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy United Nations. Food Sustainability: A guide to private
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard School, Harvard University, 2007. sector action. United Nations, 2009.
University, December, 2004.
Sutton, Christopher N. and Beth Jenkins. “The Role of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
Ruggie, John. “Business and Human Rights: The Evolving Financial Services Sector in Expanding Economic (UNCTAD). World Investment Report 2010. Overview.
International Agenda.” CSRI Working Paper No. 38. Opportunity.” CSRI Report No. 19. Cambridge, MA: Geneva: 2010.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2007.
University, 2007. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
Tennyson, Ros. The Partnering Toolbook: An essential (UNCTAD). World Investment Report 2001: Promoting
Ruggie, John. “Human Rights Policies and Management guide to cross-sector partnering. The Partnering Initiative Linkages. Geneva: United Nations, 2001.
Practices of Fortune Global 500 Firms: Results of a in cooperation with the Global Alliance for Improved
Survey.” CSRI Working Paper No. 28. Cambridge, MA: United Nations Development Programme. Unleashing
Nutrition and the United Nations Development
Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2006. Entrepreneurship: Making business work for the poor.
Programme, 2001. For other publications in the
Report of the Commission on the UN Private Sector and
Partnering Toolbook Series see
Development. New York: UNDP, 2004.
www.thepartneringinitiative.org

United Nations Development Programme (2008). Wise, Holly and Sokol Shtylla. “The Role of the Extractive World Economic Forum. The Next Billions: Unleashing
“Creating Value for All: Strategies for Doing Business with Sector in Expanding Economic Opportunity.” CSRI Report Business Potential in Untapped Markets. WEF, Geneva:
the Poor.” New York: UNDP. No. 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, 2009.
United Nations General Assembly. “Strengthening the World Economic Forum. The Next Billions: Business
role of the private sector and entrepreneurship in Witte, Jan Martin and Wolfgang Reinicke. Business Strategies to Enhance Food Value Chains and Empower the
financing for development,” Report of the Secretary- Unusual: Facilitating United Nations Reform through Poor. Report prepared in collaboration with the Boston
General, 59th session, May 19, 2005. Partnerships. New York: United Nations Global Compact, Consulting Group. Geneva: World Economic Forum,
2005. 2009.
United Nations Global Compact. Innovating for a Brighter
Future: The Role of Business in Achieving the MDGs. United Wolf, Martin. Why Globalization Works. New Haven: Yale World Economic Forum. Partnering for Success: Business
Nations Global Compact, United Nations Foundation, University Press, 2004. perspectives on multi-stakeholder partnerships.
United Nations Office for Partnerships and Dalberg International Business Leaders Forum, Harvard Kennedy
World Bank, The. Doing Business in 2004: Understanding
Global Development Advisers. New York: 2010. School and WEF, Geneva: 2005.
regulation. Washington, DC: International Bank for
UNIDO and United Nations Global Compact. Survey of Reconstruction and Development / the World Bank, World Economic Forum. Global Governance Initiative:
Small and Medium Enterprises in the Global Compact. 2004. Annual Report 2005. WEF, Geneva: 2005.
Vienna: UNIDO, 2003.
World Bank, The. Doing Business in 2005: Removing World Economic Forum. Global Governance Initiative:
UNIDO. “SME Cluster and Network Development in obstacles to growth. Washington, DC: International Bank Annual Report 2004. WEF, Geneva: 2004.
Developing Countries: The Experience of UNIDO.” Private for Reconstruction and Development / the World Bank,
World Economic Forum. Private Investment for Social
Sector Development Technical Working Paper No. 2. 2005.
Goals: Building the blended value capital market. WEF,
World Bank, The. Doing Business in 2006: Creating jobs. Geneva: 2005.
UNIDO. “Assistance to Industrial SMEs in Vietnam.” Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction
World Economic Forum’s Technology Pioneers.
Private Sector Development Technical Working Paper No. 5. and Development / the World Bank, 2006.
Embracing Disruption: Redesigning the Future. World
World Bank, The. Global Monitoring Report 2004: Policies Economic Forum, Geneva: 2009.
UNIDO. Business Partnerships for Industrial Development. and Actions for Achieving the Millennium Development
World Economic Forum. Partnering to Strengthen Public
Why UNIDO Business Partnerships are Important. Vienna: Goals and Related Outcomes. New York: The World Bank
Governance: The Leadership Challenge for CEOs and
UNIDO, 2002. Group and International Monetary Fund, 2004.
Boards. World Economic Forum, with Business for Social
UNIDO. Development of Clusters and Networks of SMEs: World Bank, The. Partnerships in Development: Progress in Responsibility, AccountAbility, Harvard Kennedy School
The UNIDO Programme. Vienna: UNIDO, 2001. the Fight Against Poverty. New York: The World Bank and International Business Leaders Forum. Geneva, 2008.
Group, 2004.
UNIDO. Industrialization, Environment and the Millennium World Economic Forum. Task Force on Low-Carbon
Development Goals in Sub-Saharan Africa: The new frontier World Bank, The. World Development Report 2005: A Prosperity. World Economic Forum. 2009
in the fight against poverty. Industrial Development Better Investment Climate for Everyone. Washington, DC:
World Resources Institute and IFC. The Next Four Billion:
Report. Vienna: UNIDO, 2004. Oxford University Press, 2004.
Market size and business strategy at the base of the
United Nations Millennium Project. Investing in World Bank, The. Attacking Poverty. World Bank Report pyramid. World Resources Institute and IFC. Washington
Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium 2000/2001. World Bank. Washington DC, 2000 DC, 2007
Development Goals. New York: United Nations, 2005.
World Bank, The. World Development Report 2010: Zadek, Simon. “The Logic of Collaborative Governance:
United States Agency for International Development Development and Climate Change. World Bank. Corporate Responsibility, Accountability, and the Social
(USAID). The Global Development Alliance: Public-private Washington DC: 2009. Contract.” CSRI Working Paper No. 17. Cambridge, MA:
alliances for transformational development. Washington, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2006.
World Bank, The. Innovative Financing for Development.
DC: USAID, 2006.
World Bank Group. Washington DC, 2009. Zadek, Simon and Sasha Radovich. “Governing
Yunus, Muhammad. Creating a World Without Poverty: Collaborative Governance: Enhancing Development
World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Social Business and the Future of Capitalism. Public Outcomes by Improving Partnership Governance and
Business and Development: Challenges and Opportunities
Affairs, New York: 2007. Accountability.” CSRI Working Paper No. 23. Cambridge,
in a Rapidly Changing World. WBCSD, Geneva, 2010.
MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 2006.
Waddock, Sandra. “Building the Institutional
Infrastructure for Corporate Social Responsibility.” CSRI Zadek, Simon, Peter Raynard and Cristiano Oliveira.
Tackling Climate Change on the ground. Corporate case
Working Paper No. 32. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy Responsible Competitiveness: Reshaping Global Markets
studies on land use and climate change. The World
School, Harvard University, 2006. Through Responsible Business Practices. London:
Business Council for Sustainable Development. Geneva,
AccountAbility and Fundação Dom Cabral, 2005.
Ward, Halina. Public Sector Roles in Strengthening December 2009.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Taking Stock. The World
Bank Group, Washington DC, 2004.
“Inclusive Business: Profitable Business for Successful
Warden, Staci. Joining the Fight Against Global Poverty: Development.” Brochure of the WBCSD-SNV Inclusive
A Menu for Corporate Engagement. Center for Global Business Alliance. 2008.
Development, Washington DC: 2007
Warner, Michael. Assessing Business Development Impact. Measuring Impact: Framework Methodology. Geneva:
A management framework for improved economic and WBCSD, 2008.
socio-economic performance reporting. Overseas
Development Institute, London, April 2008.

THE CSR INITIATIVE, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL
The CSR Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School is a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder program
that seeks to study and enhance the public contributions of private enterprise. It explores the
intersection of corporate responsibility, corporate governance, and public policy, with a focus on the
role of business in respecting human rights and addressing global development issues. The Initiative
undertakes research, education, and outreach activities that aim to bridge theory and practice, build
leadership skills and support constructive dialogue and collaboration among different sectors.
The program consists of a small core team that works with a network of nonresident fellows and
with a business and development leadership group, which consists of companies and development
agencies that are active in the field of building public-private partnerships to achieve international
development goals.
www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI
Harvard Kennedy School
Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA

BOP ExpandingOpportunity+ (Fullreport) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOP ExpandingOpportunity+ (Fullreport) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOP ExpandingOpportunity+ (Fullreport) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

Approaches that harness markets and the private sector

Written by Jane Nelson

© 2010 CSR Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School

Rights and Permissions

PART TWO Private Sector Leadership 41

PART FOUR Collaborative Leadership to Scale and Sustain Impact 245

PART FIVE Recommendations: An Agenda for Joint Action 289

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 5

The role of the private sector

Defining inclusive business and markets

6 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

Pathways out of poverty

The challenges of building inclusive business and markets

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 7

Leveraging core business operations and value chains:

8 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

Enhancing corporate philanthropy, volunteering and community social investment:

Participating in public policy dialogue, advocacy and institution building:

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 9

10 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 11

PART FIVE: Recommendations for joint action

12 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

2) Proactive leadership from the private

Create innovative financial

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 13

I. THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 15

Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor

World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change

16 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

1. Trends in global development

(ii) The search for new approaches by governments

In terms of global development, there is a growing emphasis on ‘country ownership’ of development

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 17

The Millennium Declaration in 2000 led to an unprecedented global

18 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 19

20 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

(v) The transformative impact of scientific research and innovative new

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 21

2. Key private sector actors

22 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 23

24 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 25

Coordination Skills & capacity

Trade unions Non-profits

INCLUSIVE BUSINESS Related

Poor as consumers services

Private Sector People (incl

26 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 27

28 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS 29

1. Understanding the poor as producers, employees and consumers

30 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY and ACCESS

The Bank’s Moving Out of Poverty study states: