Has Development failed?

This article questions whether the theory of 'development' as proposed by the UN, World Bank and IMF mostly, has failed. The article makes sense but has a ridiculous notion of development, only focusing on those 3 organisations who though shoot above their weight in some developing countries regarding their influence on policies, really have very little impact at all because they only worked at the governmental level until recently.

Development in its modern sense is about government -yes, in theory good governments lead to their citizens creating their own development by operating in a peaceful society which respects rights and gives the freedom to make the most of the market. Unfortunately most governments in impoverished countries are not like this, and trying to change those governments has (as history has shown) only made things worse. Stability and peace is the most important requirement for development. It would be nice to have functioning education, healthcare etc.. or even a functioning market, but without these, it is necessary to help create them.

If governments cannot create them, then other actors must and this is whether civil society comes in: NGOs, trade unions, co-operatives and of course, individuals. Of course there is a role for business/entrepreneurship too. Development is about all of these actors, and it is not failing; it is struggling to be efficient in overcoming the government deficiencies, the market deficiencies and the instability most developing countries are in.

Secondly development as seen by grass-roots organsiations, individuals themselves, and now even by the UN/IMF/WB is now seen as the opposite of what the article describes: it is about bottom-up, empowerment, skill provision, access to markets and so on. It is about partnership between different societal actors and it is about, eventually, reforming those limiting factors -especially government, through a gradual process. It takes time to educate citizens, train teachers or health workers, or create distribution channels for medicines, credit etc.

Once countries have skilled empowered citizens, they will inevitably be able to enter government or create new (capable) governments. If the WB/UN/IMF model has failed, that is really of little significance to development now, as those actors are now so minor. Much more important are civil society actors, entrepreneurs and 'foundations'. Development has barely even started yet... but in the last decade or more, it is sure that there are enough cases of it working in different ways in different countries to prove it can work. Just give all those actors the chance to do their bit and it will work, from the bottom-up.

Unfortunately development takes a long-time. That must be accepted. Unfortunately there are bad people doing bad things which is continually restricting development's potential. That must be accepted and worked around. There are many exciting examples of development taking off -explore the nextbillion.net, ashoka.org and hundreds more organisations that are connecting technology, people and organisations to create more success and scale-up successes to create greater impact.

‘Strategic’ CSR in China

Why should a company ‘do’* CSR? Because it is in its own benefit to do it.

What CSR should it ‘do’? That which benefits the company the most.

The word strategy always sound good, and in a CSR sense, it means doing something that is of maximum, long-term, benefit. Strategic CSR is not, necessarily a strategy in itself, but a commitment leading to a direction identifying certain areas a company will focus on which will improve itself and society (either at the same time, or at a later date). Thus an investment in staff makes it easier to attract new staff, reduces staff turnover (and hence recruitment costs), increases staff morale and productivity etc. An investment in the supply chain improves partnerships with suppliers, increases their efficiency, reduces risks from being associated with suppliers who break the law etc.

In the last few years, a new are has developed focusing on strategic CSR within a company; normally including a team crossing the functions of sales, marketing, research & development and corporate affairs. The objective: to develop products that fulfill a societal need, and to deliver that product to those who need it, profitably. Simple examples would be a company that makes soap that has tremendous hygiene benefits. Thus by improving the distribution a company can get soap to more people who need it and by reducing costs poorer people can afford it. It might not be easy to do either of these, but it can be possible and should be attempted because if it can be done, sales can be increased.

Many multinational companies are now focusing on this area; though not so much in China (as they are still obsessed with the higher margin middle and upper class customers), but i am sure it will be an area to watch for more. Interestingly though, China’s very open capitalist market economy has led to many companies employing these kinds of strategies anyway, without having a dual goal of helping society AND making a profit. They just want to make a profit; but the side-effect is to help society. It is easy to buy things like soap in even the most remote areas of China.

What is next, is the products and services that are harder to distribute en masse and harder to profitably sell to the poor; such as water purification systems, education, sanitary toilets, advanced farming tools, good quality roads and so on. The list of possible products and services the poor do not have in China, but need to improve their lives is a long one. The challenge is to develop a needs-based product, get it to customers and sell it to them profitably (yet at a price they can afford -or possible along with micro-loans).

China, with a huge market offers significant opportunities to do this by achieving economies of scale and scope. It is, of course, also a country with 20 million people in absolute poverty and around 200 million in poverty -second only to India. However China also offers numerous challenges, such as Intellectual Property Rights and logistics. The challenge to entrepreneurs (and of course, current businesses) out there is look for the needs that poor people have and try to serve that need profitably.

*I dislike the use of the word ‘do’ but ‘do’ is the simplest word that everyone will understand. To explain how to ‘do’ CSR is not possible in a simple blog post; though use of the word ‘do’ does imply something very simple, it is indeed definitely not.

Not Zimbabwe again

A topic I have not touched for a year or more; orginally writing about how the West should be ashamed for not doing something about a country that is constantly getting worse. Well, finally, as the problem has got worse, some other African countries have been forced to do something. Not because they really want to help of course, but because the problem is so bad that at least a third of Zimbabweans have fled their own country, many to South Africa. The migration is having such an impact on South Africa it has been forced to at least acknowledge the problem and started to apply some pressure.

The pressure makes no difference; Western countries ignore the problem; Zimbabwe gets worse. Inflation at 3,000% was bad, now it is above 15,000%. Prices triple every month. Salaries double every 3 months... an imbalance that means poverty is just getting worse and worse -a vicious cycle has taken hold leading to worse health problems and worse educational facilities. How can this cycle be broken? Even if Mugabe falls, even if the transition to a stable leadership could be relatively smooth (which would be a first through out the World), how long will it take to recover? to rebuild, to retraing, to re-attract talent...

But first we need to convince our governments to do something. To get rid of Mugabe and his cronies and try to help Zimbabwe find itself a decent leadership. Then we can think of trying to help. The future is not good. If anything it is, unfortunately, a case of how bad can a dictator mess up a country, before it actually self-implodes? It seems, regrettably, like we might be finding out in the next year. At least something might change soon -but only because the situation is so bad. And what do we do about it?

Macro Micro-finance

The greatest problem for countries to trade their way out of poverty is lack of infrastructure, especially roads. Even if the government funded the big main roads throughout the country, and the government maintained them, what about the small roads connecting through to the villages? Well if we presume that these small roads are only used by the villagers themselves to transport goods out of the village, or into it, then the villagers could pay for and maintain the road. They have free labour to some extent (in the off-season) and only need the materials/expertise (though we are talking simple roads here).

If we believe that improved roads really will help the village trade and increase their income, why not lend them money to build the road and get them to pay it back over time; once their incomes go up. The loan would be guaranteed by the whole village as they all have a stake in it. This idea of collaborative, group-ownership, lending model might work. The returns might not be great; and the loan would have to be paid back over quite a long time, as the initial cost is quite high -but it could still be profitable, and the primary purpose is to utilise funding more effectively in ways to support development.

Now, once the road is built, villagers' incomes increase and so they can become traditional microfinance clients, and this can be much more profitable.

Mission Creep

Corporations face a choice of whether to diversify or to specialise. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages to both. However the decision on what to do is normally driven by the need to make the company as successful (i.e profitable) as it can be, in the long-term. Thus if the objective is already decided it can be easy to list the pros and cons and see whether to diversify or specialise.

For NGOs, it is not as simple: NGOs are driven by a vision: to make the World better, and each NGO has it own mission: how it will make the World better. Though it is rare, once an NGO achieves 1 mission (i.e. campaigning for better environmental protection), it can then move onto another mission towards this overall vision. Most large NGOs do this within the context of restricting themselves to what kind of missions they will undertake: normally based on their expertise and their beliefs -so they may concentrate on the environment, or poverty, or education etc.

Larger NGOs are quite well funded, however they still face potential mission creep, though for smaller NGOs it is a much greater concern, for NGOs all require funding (from just a few dollars a week to millions) and that funding must come from something and be directed towards something else. Often the 2 are connected, sometimes they are not. Faced with the opportunity to get money, most NGOs will try to get it, changing their programs or approach accordingly (which may no longer best address the needs of who/what they want to help). Is this good or bad? Every NGO must make decisions on a case-by-case basis, but it is very tough to reject funding.

Additionally many NGOs have their own little 'cash cow' which they use to raise money, and they spend resources on generating income -how much should they spend? Well, the international standard is no more than 20% of expenditure should be for admin or for fundraising. A 'cash cow' could be money from the government, from a business, from the public, from selling a product or service etc. But what 'cash cows' to pursue that support the mission; and which to reject? Again a case-by-case decision must be made considering various factors. One thing is for sure, Mission Creep in an NGO is a tricky issue and an issue most companies don't face. They have to worry more about strategies and less about objectives. NGOs often worry about objectives because theirs are more fluid and less defined.

Women

If the World was equal women would, on average, be in half of all positions. In reality most, globally, dominate the 'working in the field' and 'looking after the home/family' positions and are under represented in many others. The devil's advocate (or the economist) could argue that the division of labour means people do the job they are best at. True women are probably best at bringing up kids; but maybe they are also the best at running countries, institutions and businesses too?

After listening to a special podcast from one of my favourite websites, I had a new epiphany. Previous I was all for women's rights, and women being at least equal to men. I had also read some of the (slightly scary) articles about Women soon not needing Men (biologically) -well, whatever. I had, also, realised that when Women are allowed to do things, they often do them better than Men -maybe because they need to prove themselves (having not been allowed to to it before) or maybe they just work harder than Men. I am well aware that Men and Women are better at different things.

Being involved in the Development World I am well aware of the crucial role that women play in rural communities (particularly). They care for the elderly, care for the young, look after the land if the men work elsewhere (migration) for cash, look after the home and more. They are the life of a community. They are very busy, but very competent. But they are 'stuck' in this role, without being able to use their wonderful abilities to achieve more. They are also discriminated against (physically and mentally) at home and in communities, often lack any voice individually or collectively in communities (as Men are seen as more important, culturally, especially in China) etc. So, the idea of empowering women came about a while ago. We are a year into our own Rural Women Empowerment Program -and it is such a simple concept but so exciting.

Allow me to elaborate. You have these women, who are normally quite busy, but sometimes have some free time; they are mostly uneducated but have huge responsibilities (including managing household finances as well as everything else previously mentioned). They rarely read (some cannot read). So you give them something to read, something relevant about childcare, farming, finances, womens health etc. Then you get them to get together with some other women to discuss what they are reading, share ideas and work on common challenges. Then they have a greater collective voice in the community, are more effective at their 'work' saving them time etc etc. Many of them can then work together to start micro-businesses (needlework, selling food, for example) from micro-finance. The result: just from giving them something useful to read and facilitating/encouraging the formation of collective groups is incredible.

Micro-finance is now becoming well-known, and is making a greater impact across the world. over 90% of all micro-finance clients are... Women. They are ones who have the time and ability to implement small business ideas; they just need the seed capital and training to do it. And it is making a difference, a huge difference. Our Micro-finance program has lent to over 5,000 people and not had a single payment default on interest of 10+% (which is low for micro-finance, due to local situations).

Anyway, back to the epiphany (of sorts) was that for the jobs that Women are most under-represented in; i.e. politics, Women might actually be the best ones at those jobs: better at understanding different people's opinions, better at negotiating, better at 'reading people', more inclined to help people and be less ruthless and so on. Apparently there is a UN Security Council resolution about Women being involved in more political processes, though i wonder how this is enforced...

So we shouldn't be helping women get certain jobs because they have equal right to them, we should be helping them get them because they can do them better and though that might mean Men like me lose out, it means Women can help make this World a better place cause all the Men can't manage to do it! hmmm

Values for Sustainable Development

So, though the World is more and more acutely aware of how unsustainable it is, the World continues to get more unsustainable. Weird that isn't it? I have wondered for a while how this bizarre effect takes place. The more extreme example I can think of is HIV/AIDs.

I know there is obviously a lack of education and awareness about the disease; but if 25% of a population, or in some villages 60% have HIV/AIDs and are actually, visibly dying from it, why doesn't the rest of the village realise and address the issue? Is it just because everyone catches it before it is too late to realise? In which case, why is it, when these people then tell a nearby unaffected village about HIV/AIDs, that that village seems to ignore them, catch HIV/AIDs themselves etc.

I might be oversimplifying things somewhat, especially for such a complex issue. But People are pretty stupid. I've commented before on the problems of the disconnect that is the main cause of today's problems -we do not see the (unsustainable) impact of our actions, but even when we do see the negative impact of our actions, we still don't care. We absolve ourselves of responsibility, find some solution (to the detriment of someone else) and move on. It is a dog eat dog world. But when you've eaten all the dogs, then what will be left for you to eat?

So if you were given the chance to try to spread a few values that you thought might be the ones, that if everyone agreed with, and acted based upon, would lead to a sustainable World? Well, I led a short discussion and though the list could be endless and so many of the values are overlapping we came up with:
-Respect
-Interdependence
-Equality
-Responsibility

I believe that if everyone lived those values and understood those values the World would be a much better place. As it happens the project we've been running to teach the top high school students in China about these values through discussion on key SD issues is just finishing it's first phase. So far about 2,000 students reached and, for a pilot, it has been fantastic. Let's see what more we can do next time.

Community

Everyone and everything is part of a community, though how large the community is and who/what is in it varies. Human beings seem to change communities more than most species, moving between communities and changing communities more and more often. At what cost?

Communities developed as people realised they needed to trust others to survive and work with others for the common good of their community. Nowadays we leave communities searching for spouses, education, jobs, fun, adventure or just something new and different. Ironically the people that are forced to leave communities are often the ones that do not -they are forced to leave because occasionally they did something to offend the community, but most likely because the community is unable to provide for those within it any more.

A sense of community is essentially similar to a sense of social responsibility, though a sense of community is easier to define and provides more tangible benefits to those within it. It is, I believe, not a bad thing to move communities, but the bad thing is that once we move out of a community we often do not move into another one, or we do not recognise the one we have moved into -how big is it? who is in it? what are the commonalities holding the community together?

We don't recognise our community because we are not trying to; we are not trying to because we do not recognise the value of a community -to us or to others. We do often end up in some kind of community, whether we want to or not, but then we are not entirely aware of it, and are not sure if it is the right community for us. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. These new communities that we join are often short-lived or only based on a social nature; thus there is no long-term commitment to the community, especially it's physical environmental nature.

We need to identify our community and it's impacts. We need to recognise it for what it is worth and strive to improve the value we get from it, and the collective value within it, as well as how it interacts with other communities. I worry that as we lose our sense of community, we venture into the unknown -with unknown consequences, both short and long-term. What community are you a part of?

Participation

Levels of Participation is what possibly used to be 1 aspect separating businesses from NGOs from governments -but the recent trend has been for everyone to take-up participation in different ways which is now another example of the blurring of the line between the 3.

Governments all try different models of participation as democracies or even as autocracies too various degrees; with citizens able to vote on certain people or decisions as well as have access to information and the ability to input into ideas, processes etc through consultations.

NGOs have long had to use participation to find volunteers and raise funds and utilise some sort of research to start an idea and then to affect real change engage people in their activities as much as possible.

Businesses used to only use participation for market research and employee unions, but now involve employees much more, customers and their ideas much more and stakeholder engagement is the buzz word around to identify new opportunities and understand potential risks.

Though all kinds of participation are different within sectors and within organisations there still is a trend for all 3 sectors to increase their participation: for government it is a way to increase their legitimacy (which is getting lower), for businesses it is a way to increase trust and hopefully increase profits and for NGOs it helps increase their impact.

Participation for me is a great thing as it helps create mutual accountability between groups, increases communication, gains greater agreement, inspires confidence and generates ideas amongst other things. Of course there are limits to how much participation is useful -however I believe these limits should be decided by the 'participants' rather than those deciding. If it requires too much time for too little benefit, let the 'participants' say! If 'participants' are not qualified for certain discussions, let them realise so!

Power to the people, greater participation and greater involvement can unite this world slowly and surely to achieving better things for more people in better ways. After all, who will complain if an idea they contribute to fails? Though they might not take responsibility, they will still be happy about the process of decision making -and this is the key point for participation. The process is more important than the result and if 'successful' will often achieve better results in the wider sense.

What is the role of NGOs?

NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) is a very loose term covering all kinds of organisations: normally anything that is not a government or for-profit enterprise. It could include churches, chambers of commerce, business association, lobby groups, trade unions, charities and more.. However the way it is generally used is to describe an organisation that is organised like a business in order to serve a social purpose and without focusing on profits.

Thus typically there are 'grass-roots' NGOs often formed from a few volunteers campaigning for a local issue or providing care for some disadvantaged section of society; there are larger charities that provide welfare to those in need and there are the bigger Development NGOs that aim to influence government and business and effectively use resources to e.g. reduce poverty on a large scale.

Moving quickly past such a brief summary, in recent times there has been a blurring between business and NGOs into the so-called world of 'social enterprises' whose primary goal is to serve society but who wish to make profits at the same time. Many think that these are more effective at solving societal problems as it is more sustainable, more competitive and more efficient. It is noted that the best way to solve problems requires large-scale solutions and these kinds of scales or innovations are often only achieved through a profit incentive and a functioning market to make organisations more effective.

NGOs are often profitable in some sense: selling a service to make money (e.g. running a home for disabled people) or providing benefits to a corporate partner (e.g. advise on reducing their environmental footprint or training their suppliers) -they just pay less tax and promise to spend any profit on further programs. They do not have owners as such, and this is normally seen as their advantage: no money to stock-holders or to rich private owners. However it is also seen as a disadvantage: who are they accountable to?

Interestingly NGOs and businesses alike seem to be converging on a model that governments ar supposed to use -but often fail to do so. The model of being accountable to various stakeholders locally and otherwise. Governments are notoriously slow to change, and rarely due if changes negatively impact those in power, or those who might get in power. Now that many companies engage with local groups; NGOs engage with local governments and communities it seems like both sectors are listening.

It's pretty clear that NGOs are not changing the World; neither are ineffective governments (which are still too frequent around); and neither are aid agencies. Business, it seems, could be the answer; but it requires a stable environment and infrastructure and this is often lacking. Thus the current trend for NGOs to work with governments and businesses (using Aid) to try to focus on this issue 'sustainable livelihoods'. Is this the future role for NGOs?

As the most trusted type of organisation in the World, will NGOs be able to bring partners and stakeholders together to find solutions to allow business to flourish -to create meaningful jobs? Jobs, is the ultimate issue here -and this is really only something that a business (whether it is for-profit or not; including collaboratives) can provide. This week the good news is that more people have jobs now than ever before, but more people do not have jobs too (as the population constantly grows).

I am excited by some of the work that Plan is doing in China: trialling new methods and schemes that government (especially in developing countries) is unable to try (too slow, too corrupt, too cumbersome, too political, too hierarchical, too poorly trained); raising issues that otherwise have no-one to raise them and so on. The end result should be either government, business, or individuals doing something different that is better than what they were doing before.

The problem is so much that NGOs do is not sustainable, not an efficient use of resources -and often fails. Not that it is always their fault: after all most businesses fail too. Interestingly NGOs tend to try much much harder than businesses to make their projects a success. I am still looking for the balance between time/money spent researching, measuring etc vs. actually doing, subsidising, training etc.

In the future I see NGOs having to better define their 'ownership' in order to work out where they fit in society; since their roles overlap with all other sectors (including the media). I see them struggling to keep their 'independence' whilst being involved in so many 'partnerships' (including revenue generating activities). I think accountability will be come a bigger issue: NGOs will have to carefully balance how they spend their money on staff (pay more to get better?) and on research and evaluation. But I hope that NGOs will be given more slack to fail more, learn lessons and so on. International NGOs will need to start incubating ideas, being more innovative, spinning off from themselves to remain flexible and innovative and better define their relationships and purpose to other (grass-roots) NGOs.

In many areas NGOs are in competition with each other for resources: a good thing no doubt; but more partnerships are likely to form to prevent competition ruining funding streams or affecting transparency. NGOs have undoubtedly become more professional; and the next step is to move into the relm of M&A, spin-offs and so on. It excites me to end this post with the concept of taking the real world to NGOs: could venture capitalism have a role with development? How can you define the worth of an NGO? There already exists 'tables' of NGOs which are most effective with their money. It would be great if these very basic methodologies could develop -and who knows what might happen?

Business is having its time turning into an NGO through social enterprises; now NGOs need to do their bit to come towards business by tackling the challenges outlined above. And, who knows maybe a time will come when NGOs and Business will be one and the same -all serving to create jobs and services that society needs, whilst being accountable (and responsible) to society.

having what it takes

Recently I've been thinking about the whole topic of interviews, skills, competencies etc and have had to explain to a few people what it is that people look for when recruiting someone. Of course every job is different, but I do want to discuss a couple of key concepts.

It is not what you know that matters that much. It is what you are capable of doing and what you want to do. If you have the capability and the ideas of how to direct that capability to achieve the results, then that is wonderful.

It is not what you achieve, but how you achieve it. Sounds contrary to my previous statement; but in my point of view this is crucial for modern organisations. It is not just about issues like corruption or management, it is related to an organisation's culture. Will you be someone who is inspired to achieve a numerical result or inspired to achieve the result of that result? Will you be content with reaching a goal or want to go further? Are you motivated by the number or the consequence? Do you have a plan or a vision? First you need to have a vision or a dream of where that plan leads to, then you create the plan. You have to be inspired by the vision primarily, not just the plan.

The how matters, because when you join an organisation you do just that -join an organisation. This requires communication, teamwork, motivation and so on. When you work with someone who challenges you, inspires you, provides ideas, helps you generate ideas then you are very lucky! But that is what makes an organisation a success and that is what makes an individual a success: even if a job does just require you sitting by a computer and a phone, there are still people around you to talk to, to eat lunch with and at the other end of the email or phone!

Real teamwork cannot be measured. It is not just having team meetings; it is about helping others to achieve and helping others to help you achieve.

Now, all this said, having these qualities (or an organisation that allows these qualities to develop and exist) is not easy. I'm yet to find either a person or an organisation that is perfect -but still, when you are interviewing someone you want to try to find that perfect person, and you want to try to develop that perfect organisation.

And if you don't, then you need to! Which comes to the final quality: Perfectionism is not an optional trait. Everyone needs to aim to be perfect, to achieve perfection somehow -when you define perfection aim high (and realistically) -and yes perfectionism requires persistence. The problem is, how many leaders know any of this, let alone try to make it happen? I hear about some organisations where all this is true.. let it be known that I hope to create an organsiation like this some day!

partnerships

Reflecting back on a 'Strategic Marketing' course at University reminds me that I did learn something.. and indeed, still remember something of use from University. Namely that though partnerships tend to be seen as a end in themselves, and a very popular concept nowadays, partnerships to really be a mean to an end.. and once the end is achieved (or as close as can be), the partnership should be dissolved (therefore when it is created, such a dissolution point should be planned for).

I also remember that the professor's definition of strategic partnership made for interesting thinking: combining different strengths of organisations together for example, or that a partner often enters a partnership hoping to actually beat its partner -partnerships are rarely equal and partner's unstated goals rarely the same. Of course there was much more to the course, such as the difficulties of creating and integrating joint activities, managing them and so on.

In my work I look at strategic benefits in a philanthropy way: between organisations of different sectors, which explicitly have different objectives from partnerships: a company might hope to improve its reputation whereas a charity might want to help poor people. However these partnerships are often fairly successful.

What about partnerships where all partners' over-riding goal is a philanthropic one? This strikes me as interesting because everything in 'business' is about motivation: if the motivation is so strong and commitment so great, might success be achieved? So the recent trend for all kinds of people to start joining coalitions or partnerships to fight some aspect of poverty. Many are not real partnerships; indeed a coalition is often just a membership of a club where you contribute something and a central secretariat actually does something with it. But for actual partnerships; with each partner contributing something, doing something, having a direct stake in the outcome etc -then are these partnerships more successful (the typical MBA textbook will state how often mergers fail to add value, or how often partnerships do not bring much benefit to either partner!) than traditional business partnerships (which my professor was talking about)?

I hope to find out more over the course of my career; one thing is sure, is that these new partnerships (Cross Sector Partnerships, Corporate Community Engagement and so on) are rarely assessed adequately in the context of how successful the partnership is (if it is actually a partnership, rather than just a 'sponsorship'); and only the outcome of the partnership is assessed (and often badly).

prioritising

In business it is tough to prioritise. Can you really choose what is more important to your business -your employees or your customers? You obviously need both; and this is just a very simple example. There are many situations where prioritising is difficult and complex.

Leading CSR thought is along the lines of integrating CSR and responsibility into management decisions. In this way the impact of decisions can be viewed through a 'responsibility lens'' thus if there are guidelines within a company for how to select priorities, the litmus test is where is sustainability or responsibility in these guidelines.

I write about the difficulties of prioritisation because we, as human beings face similar problems daily. The world, it seems, is now moving climate change up the ladder of priorities, but at what cost? Will the environment (in a traditional sense) or poverty reduction drop down a few rungs to compensate?

It is clear we cannot focus on all issues; and all have their merit. It is also clear that all issues are inter-related. Yes you cannot generate economic growth if the people who generate wealth are dying from HIV/AIDs, and their future successors are not being educated or looked after. But at the same time, you cannot generate wealth, if there is no water for growing crops or cooling factories, or for drinking. Another simple example, but this I believe is an issue we are struggling to deal with.

There are too many issues with complicated solutions and not enough will power or resources to solve them all. The Copenhagen Consensus was an interesting concept, when it started in 2003 -and its great to discover it is still going. The Copenhagen Consensus process aims to establish a framework in which solutions to problems are prioritized based upon the best information possible. The idea is a great one, and they have wonderful educational resources which I think every institution should use to stimulate debate and ideas.

Their founding conference in 2004 came up with these top 4 priorities: HIV/AIDs, Nutrition (Micronutrients), Trade liberalisation, Malaria. (Interestingly the youth conference came up with Malnutrition/Hunger, Communicable Disease, Governance/Corruption and Education). Now they are updating their framework and preparing for a similar conference in 2008. What will the priorities they come up with be then? Will Climate Change still take 3 of the bottom 4 places?

Thankfully there is some follow-up, including an interesting book (a rich set of arguments and data for prioritising our response most effectively).

On a personal level, as much as we may all care about helping others, there is the question that we hate to ask ourselves.. Is watching a 2 hour movie going to really make much difference to the World? Is our job really what we want? This discussion shall be had another time!

HIV/AIDs as a reflection of our society

just watched a movie called A closer walk which I encourage everyone to watch; one of the many very good points is that HIV/AIDs and our failure to stop it spreading reflects about our society in general. Of course every society is different between regions, countries, cities etc; but there are some interesting thoughts that came into my mind.

First I started thinking about social stigmas -related to sex, related to old or disabled people, related to people of other races and sexes. And the obvious truth that we start with a negative stigma of almost anything different or anything we do not understand, but once we come into close contact with it and reach across the divide to make a personal connection, then we can lose the stigma. But the problem is if we think this way then we start with holding stigmas towards so many people and have to work to overcome them -rather than the opposite. I understand the evolutionary perspective of having to earn trust and fear people or things that are different or we do not understand for own survival; but today we come into contqact with so many people and things that are different: much more than in the past; and we effect so many more people that are so different to us, without even knowing it!

How can we change these stigmas? Are we as humans, humane people? It seems not. Despite knowledge and awareness we often do nothing, for so many reasons -some simple and some complex. The more reasons there are, the more solutions there are -which makes it harder to solve on one hand, but also offers more opportunities for us to do something -just pick one small solution that fits our personal situation. Despite evident visibility on our own streets of people less fortunate, we as humans don't seem to do anything about it. It's not often about desire, or about means, or ability (though all often are missing); but more generally about behaviour.

What does it take for society to change? To take responsibility for itself? I mean, our society is killing itself in so many ways... Yes, there are 'bigger picture' ideas: of there being more people creating more diseases killing more people, of poverty being inevitable no matter what and so on.. but what strikes me, is that we COULD actually do something about it.. it is not just out of our hands!

Now for a problem I do not have an answer for- if in some countries 40% people have HIV/AIDs and whole families and friendship networks are dying from it; why is HIV/AIDs becoming a bigger problem? Surely everyone is affected by it; surely they can see it, see the effects and will want to stop it -for their own, selfish sake -but this is not happening. If there are cultural reasons for this (man involving the role of women in society) then how come the culture does not change? Yes, we need to understand different cultures, respect them etc. But there is no point in preserving a culture if it is not fit for the modern society.. if by preserving a culture it wipes its own people out. They need to change their culture to survive (and not necessarily change to a certain or specific culture; but make some kind of change)!

Finally a point was made by the Director of the movie, that there are somethings that are fundamental rights and others that are a privilege: The rich may have more priviledges than the poor, but we should not have more rights.

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

I am a convert! -after the BAWB Global Forum in Cleveland, I've been researching more and more about this so-called 'Bottom of the Pyramid' concept -that it is in business's own interest to help society, and the best way to do so is, through doing more business. Sometimes known as 'doing business with the poor', this is not necessarily a new concept: indeed the poor have been integrated into (and benefited) from global supply chains for a while -and will continue to do so.

The 'new' trend (by that I mean a trend that only recently academic studies have discovered is happening and started researching, though i am sure inspired individuals and business throughout time has been involved in this trend for centuries) is basically about how important innovation and entrepreneurship is to doing business with the poor -and therefore I am convinced that entrepreneurs have been doing this for years. It's great that Multinationals are getting more involved, since they can scale-up and mainstream.

The fundamental learning point is very much about understanding the market. The market might for your business yet, but if you can provide a useful service, the market will buy it. The product or service does not necessarily have to benefit society per se; but by creating a successful product or service, it will provide some benefit in its use and in knock-on wealth creation (jobs, distribution etc). There is 1 caveat though, in that these products or services should not be harmful. Writing this, it is clear that the best example of BOP is the illegal drugs market -where there are incredible innovations in supply chain, distribution, marketing and so on -and huge buyers of poor people some how become buyers (unfortunately often through crime).

Now companies are listening more, engaging more and experimenting more: another example of CSR just being good business -a logical evolution of what had been happening previously. Often serving this market requires a new product or service, and often it requires rethinking the associated business functions entirely. Thus businesses need to encourage more entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, give their employees free-rain, flexibility, and take a long-term approach to profit making. Society needs to encourage innovation more; it needs to encourage entrepreneurship in its educational systems, in its economic frameworks, in its recognition and status socially and so on. Much more needs to be done about this urgently. We need more leaders with more ideas to solve the many challenges we face.

Supply Chain and Development

After a recent conference on Supply Chain Management I came to realise a few things. The most important is how great a lot of the stuff Brands are doing: they are (for various reasons) demonstrating fantastic leadership and I believe had made a big difference in the last 10+ years. There are of course multiple problems still to contend with; especially considering what they are doing is not driven my much local pressure; and most of what they are doing should, to some extent, be done by the government (enforcing Health and Safety laws, working hours laws etc).

There are some fantastic pilots taking place that really bring 'CSR' to local managers in factories and engage with all stakeholders in such programs (including, crucially, the workers) -so that the managers themselves see the business benefits of CSR -and are actually able to understand CSR as a holistic concept, rather than what they see at the moment (compliance, training etc). There is further to go, not least in addressing the scale-up challenges involved.

Scaling-up is the buzz word in the development world (where I work) and it is clear that the CSR world needs to take a leaf from the development world's book -or at least learn the lessons the development world has gained from many years of failures, and some successes attempting such grand initiatives. The Business world may be great at scaling up marketing, but scaling up CSR/development programs is different. For too long pilots have occurred in the supply chain and not expanded, there has been a lack of involvement of government, policy makers and academics, there has been limited attempts at partnership with other sectors (or with competitors) and not enough capacity building.

Maybe Supply Chain Staff should meet Marketing staff and realise that distributing products requires partnerships and adequate distribution channels, as well as effective communications, effective research and so on.

This takes me to the lesson the Supply Chain only seems to have recently learnt: the need to engage with stakeholders and more than this, provide for the stakeholders to make the decisions. In the development world the community is encouraged to make decisions -an example might be an offer of funding for a community to improve the community. Now, the funder might not actually care what the community chooses to do with the money, what they care about is the process the community went through to make the decision. Thus the community has buy-in and is accountable to itself as well as the funder, and the community will learn the lessons. At the conference people were finally talking about the need for a bottom-up approach; an engagement approach and so on.

There is of course a lack of people around who can facilitate this process, inspire the stakeholders to be involved, or trust the stakeholders enough! But, for Supply Chain Improvements to really take off, that is what must happen. The Buyers will need to reach a stage where they trust their suppliers and step back -audit less not more.

A Factory is different to a village community though, so Buyers need to empower the managers to willingly want to empower and engage with their employees and other stakeholders. Not much sustainable benefit to the buyers doing all the 'csr' on behalf of a factory they do not own! When a Factory manager spoke to us, he was not knowledgeable about CSR as a concept -and indeed most auditors are not 'csr experts' -they are auditors, and this is the problem. Most trainers (either from the company, ngos or consultancies) are training bits and pieces as required by whoever pays their services.

Development looks at comprehensive needs of a community, takes into account external factors, spends as much on research before a programme and evaluation after the programme (plus disseminating learning points) as the programme itself. Development requires spending LOTS of money, but aims to do small things well, then identify opportunities to scale-up -often involving government, business and other stakeholders.

The key to development though is that those being 'developed' want to be developed -they see the benefits, and this is not something the supply chain movement started with; and is something it has tried to create -Brands are having to go in and convince the factories of the benefits of CSR. Will this and other lessons be learnt? I suggest a dialogue between development NGOs and the Supply Chain actors; share some lessons, and then lets make sure that what is happening is sustainable. I don't believe much of the supply chain movement is sustainable. There are some fantastic examples, but these are few, and the sample a tiny proportion of all 'supliers' that exist -which is almost any company that sells something to someone!

Though the migrant workers complained at the conference about lack of training and how they wanted innovative training, career development opportunities and so on; they are much better off than in their villages -if not they would not be there. Ambition is a great thing. How about they take some of these lessons back to the factory outside their village, and take some leadership upon themselves? I think there needs to be some re-thinking about scaling-up. Let's hope that future conferences focus on that. Too much good stuff is happening to be wasted on having such low impact.

Is this great stuff bringing the whole field up? Maybe some of the factories in apparel, toys and electronics in a couple of geographical areas are getting better. Is the entire field of factories getting better, no matter where they are based or what product they are making? No, but some leaders need to start re-thinking, re-planning and being more ambitious.

Market Failure

The Stern Report states that we are witnessing the biggest market failure ever -and the consequences are climate change. It would be hard to argue with this. The report contains many suggestions and most are dependent on someone -business or government mostly doing something; rather than just talking. Whether this will happen or not depends on how sever climate change becomes (and the short-term impacts) and particularly on public opinion.

Public opinion does seem to be, finally, changing. After a recent conference on Supply Chain, I wonder if there are some lessons that could be learned from what has been going on there in the last 10-15 years or so, since public opinion started to become vocal through NGOs (though how much the average public really cared might still be debatable). The labour conditions is actually not a case of market failure: but it is a case of how a non-financial/tangible/measurable matter became a more important driver than economics.. In climate change we cannot wait until we run out of cheap coal before we find alternatives!

It is interesting how, I believe, average people still do not care much about poor labour conditions (often workers do have a choice of going back to the countryside if they wanted to, for lower wages and more poverty) or even about starving people in Africa -since that still persists even though it could be easily solved if there was the individual will. Instead changes come about through a few passionate people and the systems they use to stimulate change: specifically the International NGO and the media -both are leading the campaigns about climate change too. Good job they exist; good job they are doing something. Ironically various Sustainable Development Communication email lists are buzzing with the problem of people being confused with so many messages, and none of them seemingly working. It seems that the more popular an idea becomes, the more competition there is in the arena, the worse a problem becomes the harder it is to mobilise people with a simple message, simple solution, simple actions.

There have been lists around for years about how we could save water or energy, yet toilets still use up way too much water in a single flush than they need, and shops still sell inefficient light bulbs. The simple message is that we need more individuals who are going to make brave decisions: either for ethical reasons or because they can spot a market opportunity. Climate Change surely offers both as well -the World just needs more individuals to make the different, be different, and then they (and the World) can reap the benefits.

Decline in leadership- what next?

When your leadership role decines, and this seems inevitable, what do you do? Try to postpone the inevitable; try to prevent it through eliminating the competition; accept the decline and manage it to your own benefit or are there other options?

Some could argue the USA faces this option in the next 20-30 years. As sure as people cannot live forever, empires cannot live forever and the USA will need to sacrifice its individual dominance of the World at some point -maybe to China, maybe to China and India combined, or maybe it will just have to share its dominance with either of those (or Europe etc)?

Previous empires have tended to implode through over-stretching or because the competition beat them (often in a group) or because someone else just developed to be better.

Let me introduce: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. Now this seems to imply that the USA will not give up its leadership position.

Fair enough -let PNAC research this (and who knows how much support it actually has from the 'powers that be'. But what would be better for the USA is to also have another think-tank entitled: Project for the Non-American Century which could explore what the future might look like under a different country (or group of countries)'s leadership. It could explore what the US could do to ensure it still benefits from this decline, how to deal with the psychological implications, how to prevent a nuclear attack on the (overtaking) competition and so on.

Even more interesting it could explore peaceful means of how the US could retain its leadership role in a way that is good for itself and others; in partnership with others. Unfortunately political international partnerships (e.g UN) rarely work due to the inherent fundamental need to preserve one's self-interest over all else... simple game theory does not adequately explain irrationality based on human kind's selfishness; or if it does (I am not an expert) then why has no one put forward suggestions to make partnerships like the UN Security Council or WTO work better?

The Leadership of the US needs to be responsible to itself and to others by creating several scenarios of the future and explore each one in detail. Instead of just presuming there is only 1 possible scenario (continued dominance) and exploring how to best ensure that scenario happens. As we are slowly, slowly realising we are an interconnected species on a small planet (witness climate change) and we have to put the 'whole' ahead of ourselves. Other species seem to be able to do this. Are human beings up to the task?

I would hate to see yet another cold war of some king... one that might end up warming up just a little too much..

bbc

I'm a big supporter of the role of 'the market' to allocate resources effectively and balance long-term with short-term consequences. It is not perfect by any means and despite the interesting use of the stock market to counter for long-term impacts (e.g. futures), the time lag between our reaction to certain problems and our decision to do something about it is still too great.

There is though, always other problems, such as out lack of ability of how to do something about a problem (once we eventually realise it is a problem).There are also some things where a 'market concept' has not developed -and maybe cannot develop. One example is politics; which should be the model 'market' but is often not; another is the Media. For several years I have held a great interest in the role of the media, its power, its use, its ownership, its impartiality and so on. What strikes me as interesting is to consider the 'marketisation' of the media, into monopoly ownership (is it a bad thing? if so, won't bad things naturally fail to be replaced with better things?), onto the internet (how many of us would love to spend all out time viewing all that media up there -too much!) and how it impacts it's content.

I think the UK is in an interesting situation regarding the media. There are some media providers who are purely commercial (though still regualted by the government and forced to show a certain number of 'educational shows', or to limit the amount of advertisements, for example) and then there is the BBC. The BBC is about broadcasting TV and radio (nationally and globally), funding and making content for itselves and others and providing the UK's most popular website (and a top site globally). Although it is sort of a non-profit entity, its existence is entirely dependent on the government to give it its 'license' -i.e. remit on what it can or cannot do. Thus the government controls the BBC -but the funding comes directly from the people (everyone must buy a TV license), though this is not a tax it is barely a 'user fee' since usage of the BBC is so loosely related to how much is paid (compared to a normal market commodity).

As much as the BBC loves to hate the government it has to rely on the individuals within the government who are willing to support something that might be bad for the government (its controllers). Indeed what makes the BBC so interesting is this weird balance of control and ownership.. because it impacts what the BBC is able to do, and crucially, what the content is.Thus the media is a unique issue to discuss in the context of responsible leadership.

Many argue (at a macro level) about the crucial role the media has to play in informing the public, in playing an active role in supporting democracy, freedoms (of speech etc). Others can argue (at a micro level) about whether the media should promote domestic talent (since it is paid for by domestic money) or whether it is stifling other competition. It makes the mind boggle to consider how complex a responsibility the BBC has -given its international role, its influence across so many types of media and its remarkably high level of trust that almost everyone holds in it (in a world where no-one trusts any thing nowadays!).

My take is that there is a responsibility to stimulate a healthy democracy and debate, there is a responsibility to inform people about issues that they need to be educated about (climate change, poverty or whatever), there is a need to provide fantastic documentaries even if so few people watch them, there is a need to provide a platfor for new talent and new ideas and there is also a need to show shows that people actually want (e.g.soap operas).

Getting the balance right is not easy; it seems the BBC is doing ok with this balance at the moment, and the government is doing a fair job of both controlling and not controlling the BBC in a way that is best for the 'public good' (who can decide what THAT is?). I hope that it continues in it unique and weird form to continue to be a fantastic organisation.

Pandas

The 5 other animals that are in the same species as the Panda (debated as to what exact species the Panda is) have all disappeared -most of them hundreds of thousands of years ago, and not because of mankind. Now the Panda has started disappearing, partly from human activity and partly from other animals or natural changes.

To some extent, yes, it is because of humans that the Panda is now facing extinction -but at the same time, it is also simple evolution that the panda has failed to react adequately to climate changes; failed to change its eating habits; failed to escape from or attack predators; failed to mate quick enough etc.

Much is made of manking altering nature for our own good, well should we be artificially protecting the panda; which currently only survives in zoos or protected reserves. I believe only 1 panda has been returned to the wild (ever); no matter how much we can increase the population of pandas, what is the point if they cannot survive alone in the wild, unsupported?

Do we have an obligation to protect species from going extinct? Should we continue to keep them alive in order to study them, their breeding habits and so on, so we can increase our knowledge of nature, animals and history? Are we only protecting the panda because it is cute (and other animals that are not cure, are disappearing)? and so on....

What should we do, what is the responsible thing to do? I can definitely see value in protecting the panda in order to study it and learn from it; but then i think that what we should do is have these kinds of discussions about the panda, about extinctions and about mankind's place in this world. Instead of information in zoos about how we should support the panda, donate money to WWF and environmental conservation, we should be telling children the panda's story and discussing with them these and other philosophical questions.

Rarely does anyone learn about philosophy at school, unless they take it at 16, 18 or older as some academic option, but at a time when the debates are growing into the general public demain about the role of business in society, about the role of humans on our planet, about the role of the person flying on holiday (is there a right to travel?), then i think that a great philosophy class could tie all of this together in a fun and interesting way (the panda is a great example). This helps the future generations learn about the past, explore the present and challenge the current preconceptions. Right now the most responsible thing we can do is explore new ways of living; of surviving -we cannnot go on as we are.