Skip to main content

Key to equitable, inclusive development: Compassionate, sustainable capitalism



By Moin Qazi*
The field of social entrepreneurship has attracted great global interest on account of its role in providing sustainable solutions to a diverse range of challenging environmental and social problems – health, poverty and climate change – with limited resources.
Social entrepreneurs are drawn by a variety of social missions. They are passionate about tackling a problem, have an idea for a solution, and the determination to make that solution happen. This fertile field has given rise to extraordinarily ingenious people who have conjured brilliant ideas and used them with operational prowess to dramatically improve people’s lives. Social entrepreneurship is an appealing construct precisely because it gives primacy to social benefits while at the same time remaining firmly grounded in sound financial principles. Finding the balance between social purpose and financial viability is the toughest challenge for any social entrepreneur.
The social entrepreneurship community has now a big tent, and a major challenge is to protect the purity of its mission. At the core of social entrepreneurship is the recognition of a new mindset, one that believes in an agenda oriented around making the world a more just and equal place. Yet we are witnessing several unsavoury trends which are mudding the waters and putting this noble field under strain.
An increasing number of purely business ideas are being masqueraded as social innovations. Several so-called entrepreneurs are being hailed as game-changers or saviours, when the impact and outcome of their work is nowhere near proven, and still less studied are the damaging, unintended consequences of their enterprise. In many cases their mission is not their work, but they themselves. There is a huge mismatch between rhetoric and reality, as is the misalignment between their personal lifestyle and the public stance about the poor. Their compassion-laden pronouncements mask their real objectives.
These high-flying denizens are using the art of lobbying to manipulate the system to pass off self-serving interests as altruistic agendas. Several business magazines are boasting them on their covers and award juries are knighting them. These new social climbers need to be made to understand that the poor cannot be used as raw material for individual or corporate salvation. Robust ethical foundations must be at the core of any idea that aspires to be a social innovation.
Trust is the currency that facilitates acceptance of any new idea. Without trust, society runs the risk of moral bankruptcy. We cannot take trust for granted. It must be earned in all we do, every day. Microfinance was once hailed as one of the most revolutionary ideas of the century. But rigorous studies have demonstrated that the benevolent power of microfinance, more particularly microcredit, was overhyped and that it has only a modest role in improving the lives of the poor. Microcredit is so longer an ally in a social entrepreneur’s toolbox.
Since the term social innovation is still quite amorphous, several business leaders are conflating it to cover even purely profit-driven inventions. One of the prime determiners of meaningfulness and relevance of the innovations is their affordability to end-users while being sustainable for the providers also.
Technology, like all other modern tools, is an unmixed blessing. All technological changes, and the various innovations that originate in them, is a trade-off and may be better termed as a Faustian bargain. Alan Moore once said, “Technology is always a two-edged sword. It will bring in many benefits but also many disasters”. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. These are unevenly distributed among the population. Some benefit, while some others are harmed. The consequences of the changes are vast and unpredictable and often irreversible. This is so even with social innovations. It is in this context that Bertrand Russell warned that “unless men increase in wisdom as much as in knowledge, increase of knowledge will be increase of sorrow”.
The key to equitable and inclusive development is compassionate and sustainable capitalism which has to be built on a model that relies on reasonable profits as opposed to maximisation of profits. There are now people, particularly among the socially conscious ones, who are embracing the notion of “entrepreneurship for society” rather than “commercial” or “social” entrepreneurship.
In the natural sciences, experiments are carried out under painstakingly controlled conditions, most frequently in a laboratory setting. However, all economic and social experimentation takes place in the real world – which is no carefully controlled lab. This is the prime reason why economic and social experiments demand greater caution and restraint.
Poor societies have long been used as guinea pigs by development scientists. This is perfectly all right as long as the objectives are fair and rational. But the emergence of a tribe that sees the world through a business lens, and wants to use these vulnerable communities as a constituency for furthering its commercial goals, has set the activist camps on fire.
The avowed social mission of these self-serving entrepreneurs is only meant to camouflage their rapacious business interests. In this pursuit, they are using their semantic skills to garb their wolfish acts in sheep’s clothing.
Social science tends to focus on average outcomes and makes little allowance for negative tail-end effects. Most modern entrepreneurs are the product of business schools, where the training is focused on maximising shareholder value with only limited understanding of the ethical and social considerations essential to a truly visionary leadership.
In the present system, one section of society is trying to maximise profits totally unconcerned with the consequences it is having on the well-being of the larger society, while another section is investing its time and effort in dealing with the fallout. This system is not working.
The Nobel Prize was recently awarded for such randomised, controlled trials that have changed the face of development economics. What was earlier used for clinical trials of medicines has now become a tool for gauging the efficacy of financial and social medicines.
The tragedy is that foundations cobble up money to honour innovations by instituting awards, but they don’t have enough money for undertaking rigorous evaluation. This is one of the reasons why several unproven innovations are making up award lists. We need a lot more rigorous and intensive field studies to properly evaluate them.
The latest Nobel Prize marks a new chapter in development research, and it is a reflection of the concern which the economic community places on a need for stringent evaluation of social interventions. Much damage has already been done by ideas bolstered by sporadic and selective evidence that validated the claim of the protagonists, while playing down any negative effects. They have violated the principles of scientific enquiry and research that are essential tools for evaluating their role of these new innovations for the well-being of the larger society.
There is no that doubt that millions of people lack access to basic services, but there are ethical questions to testing and selling products and services in the guise of a public service, especially if this disguise earns you subsidies or concessions from the public.
Everyone has heard depressingly familiar tales of poor and uneducated people saying how privileged they were made to feel as they were suddenly offered the chance to receive medicines and nutritious food they couldn’t usually afford – such interventions are in many cases part of clinical or field trials. These people are chosen because they do not understand the implications and agree to participate “without any fuss”.
A social innovation typically involves an unsettling of the status quo – and these disruptions may impose new costs for some members of a community or elements of an ecosystem. Yet when the impact is measured, there’s a tendency to avoid assessing the full range of positive and negative impacts, and to only focus on measurable effects within the “good part of the impact spectrum”, which is what is crucial to mobilise investment.
Much less effort is put in for measuring the potential negatives, knowing which is critical from the perspective of the user community. While it is true that several innovations become useful after a period of refinement, the final impact can only be measured by understanding the damage caused in the transition period.
Innovators must give importance to this window before embarking on large-scale experimentation, and must take measures to minimise the negative consequences.
We often mistake innovation for invention. Innovators are anything but inventors. They offer deliverables because their focus is on taking something already known and improving it. Inventions are the real breakthroughs, as they transform entire cultures for the better. But the real touchstone for genuine innovation and invention is their transformative potential – they should be able to change the lives of neglected people for the better.
However, the results of strategies which are not grounded in hard research will always be speculative. Several innovations fail because their promoters hurry into scaling up — big numbers are important to attract investors. All too often, the rush to scale up ends up compromising on key design elements that made the pilots a success.
A fresh nuance in the innovation discourse is the concept of ideas which have potential business value or strong commercial proposition and may have some collateral social benefits. In the new paradigm, the net benefit to society is usually outweighed by the profit accruing to the innovators’ financial backers – the investors and political actors who are now important players in the ecosystem. Most innovations are measured in terms of their business worth, and how effectively they can be pitched to the investment world.
The language of innovation is getting increasingly grounded in financial logic. Entrepreneurs may be quite well intentioned but their funders may have a narrow agenda. Startups should think before going for external funding because the moment they do, the investors will control and govern the business, and they can think only about returns and exit for the investors.
There are several beneficial social innovations that do not get strong champions because they lack business value. Such innovations must oftentimes be skewed to meet the needs of the funders and their rigid financial framework. This usually results in a compliance culture that’s highly regimented, leaving little scope for creativity or attention to important social dimensions.
Thus the tramlines are set. What can be measured becomes the defining metric, and what cannot be measured is completely overlooked, even though it may have meaningful impact for people. Instead of being viewed as long-term development stewards, managers are seen solely as agents of the owners – the shareholders – responsible primarily for maximising shareholder wealth.
We now have plenty of awards to celebrate social innovation-and there is enough to celebrate. But there is not much recognition for those in the social sector who are unable to scale. We do not support organisations that innovate on a continuous basis and bring about transformational change in the lives of neglected communities.
Societal change is very complex; it requires system change and the acknowledgement of agency. The path to change at scale needs many experiments, much innovation. Many ideas will not work on the ground and will have to be abandoned, but are persisted with for supporting the innovator’s claims and bolstering their credibility in the ecosystem. This practice has done immense damage to the field of social innovation.
For the social sector, recognising failure early, acknowledging one’s personal and institutional role in it, learning from the insights, and then correcting course is very critical.
Those who work towards transformational change will experience a higher failure rate-but these are precisely the ones who are most likely to deliver significant results. The desire to succeed at all costs often leads to lack of transparency about failure and destroys the critical link between innovation and scaling-up process and damages the entire sector. This often means that flawed strategies are replicated and iterative improvements are delayed. This culture has profound consequences for the sector.
There is now huge money in the field of innovation. But much of it comes from business-minded investors who are using this double-edged sword for their ruthlessly selfish agenda. Since the targeted population is mostly illiterate, the innovations usually do not get subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and negative effects are brushed off with deft diplomacy. Even small benefits are telescoped into messianic acts.
Since such innovations have the backing of powerful people, even genuine and widespread resistance can be overcome. The real dilemma is that most investors take an exit immediately after they have reaped benefits, and don’t have to see the longer term outcome of their investments. They may not be around to answer and become accountable when the evil consequences start appearing.
In their book “Poor Economics”, Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee list hundreds of “common sense” development projects-micro insurance, housing, food aid, microcredit-which either don’t help poor people or make them poorer. Many of the serious problems of farmers and the rural poor are largely a result of misguided projects that have severely impaired the local ecology, leading to soil degradation, acute shortage of water, and resistant pests. Such interventions also encourage “social Darwinism”.
Then there are several policies which have novel features that are not organically integrated. They have excellent ingredients but have to be meshed in the proper proportions so that they make an effective recipe. A policy must be seen as a living organism where each organ has its own unique role.
Every society is going through different forms of development and the necessary solutions and interventions must be appropriate for its unique cultural and economic context. By respecting the cultural outlook of the people and embracing their concerns, we enlist their buy-in, and that is what paves the way for enduring and sustainable success.

*Development expert

Comments

TRENDING

Aurangzeb’s last will recorded by his Maulvi: Allah shouldn't make anyone emperor

By Mohan Guruswamy  Aurangzeb’s grave is a simple slab open to the sky lying along the roadside at Khuldabad near Aurangabad. I once stopped by to marvel at the tomb of an Emperor of India whose empire was as large as Ashoka the Great's. It was only post 1857 when Victoria's domain exceeded this. The epitaph reads: "Az tila o nuqreh gar saazand gumbad aghniyaa! Bar mazaar e ghareebaan gumbad e gardun bas ast." (The rich may well construct domes of gold and silver on their graves. For the poor folks like me, the sky is enough to shelter my grave) The modest tomb of Aurangzeb is perhaps the least recognised legacies of the Mughal Emperor who ruled the land for fifty eventful years. He was not a builder having expended his long tenure in war and conquest. Towards the end of his reign and life, he realised the futility of it all. He wrote: "Allah should not make anyone an emperor. The most unfortunate person is he who becomes one." Aurangzeb’s last will was re...

Beyond his riding skill, Karl Umrigar was admired for his radiance, sportsmanship, and affability

By Harsh Thakor*  Karl Umrigar's name remains etched in the annals of Indian horse racing, a testament to a talent tragically cut short. An accident on the racetrack at the tender age of nineteen robbed India of a rider on the cusp of greatness. Had he survived, there's little doubt he would have ascended to international stature, possibly becoming the greatest Indian jockey ever. Even 46 years after his death, his name shines brightly, reminiscent of an inextinguishable star. His cousin, Pesi Shroff, himself blossomed into one of the most celebrated jockeys in Indian horse racing.

PUCL files complaint with SC against Gujarat police, municipal authorities for 'unlawful' demolitions, custodial 'violence'

By A Representative   The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has lodged a formal complaint with the Chief Justice of India, urging the Supreme Court to initiate suo-moto contempt proceedings against the police and municipal authorities in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The complaint alleges that these officials have engaged in unlawful demolitions and custodial violence, in direct violation of a Supreme Court order issued in November 2024.

How the slogan Jai Bhim gained momentum as movement of popularity and revolution

By Dr Kapilendra Das*  India is an incomprehensible plural country loaded with diversities of religions, castes, cultures, languages, dialects, tribes, societies, costumes, etc. The Indians have good manners/etiquette (decent social conduct, gesture, courtesy, politeness) that build healthy relationships and take them ahead to life. In many parts of India, in many situations, and on formal occasions, it is common for people of India to express and exchange respect, greetings, and salutation for which we people usually use words and phrases like- Namaskar, Namaste, Pranam, Ram Ram, Jai Ram ji, Jai Sriram, Good morning, shubha sakal, Radhe Radhe, Jai Bajarangabali, Jai Gopal, Jai Jai, Supravat, Good night, Shuvaratri, Jai Bhole, Salaam walekam, Walekam salaam, Radhaswami, Namo Buddhaya, Jai Bhim, Hello, and so on. A soft attitude always creates strong relationships. A relationship should not depend only on spoken words. They should rely on understanding the unspoken feeling too. So w...

CPM’s evaluation of BJP reflects its political character and its reluctance to take on battle against neo-fascism

By Harsh Thakor*  A controversial debate has emerged in the revolutionary camp regarding the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s categorization of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Many Communists criticize the CPM’s reluctance to label the BJP as a fascist party and India as a fascist state. Various factors must be considered to arrive at an accurate assessment. Understanding the original meaning and historical development of fascism is essential, as well as analyzing how it manifests in the present global and national context.

State Human Rights Commission directs authorities to uphold environmental rights in Vadodara's Vishwamitri River Project

By A Representative  The Gujarat State Human Rights Commission (GSHRC) has ordered state and Vadodara municipal authorities to strictly comply with environmental and human rights safeguards during the Vishwamitri River Rejuvenation Project, stressing that the river’s degradation disproportionately affects marginalized communities and violates citizens’ rights to a healthy environment.  The Commission mandated an immediate halt to ecologically destructive practices, rehabilitation of affected communities, transparent adherence to National Green Tribunal (NGT) orders, and public consultations with experts and residents.   The order follows the Concerned Citizens of Vadodara coalition—environmentalists, ecologists, and urban planners—submitting a detailed letter to authorities, amplifying calls for accountability. The group warned that current plans to “re-section” and “desilt” the river contradict the NGT’s 2021 Vishwamitri River Action Plan, which prioritizes floodpla...

Haven't done a good deed, inner soul is cursing me as sinner: Aurangzeb's last 'will'

Counterview Desk The Tomb of Aurangzeb, the last of the strong Mughal emperors, located in Khuldabad, Aurangabad district, Maharashtra, has this epitaph inscribed on it: "Az tila o nuqreh gar saazand gumbad aghniyaa! Bar mazaar e maa ghareebaan gumbad e gardun bas ast" (the rich may well construct domes of gold and silver on their graves. For the poor folks like me, the sky is enough to shelter my grave).

How polarization between different ideological trends within the communist movement sharpened in India

By Harsh Thakor*  This article is a rejoinder to A Note on Slogans of “Left Unity,” “Unity of the Communist Revolutionaries” and “Mass Line” by Umair Ahmed, published on the Nazariya blog .

राजस्थान, मध्यप्रदेश, पश्चिम बंगाल, झारखंड और केरल फिसड्डी: जल जीवन मिशन के लक्ष्य को पाने समन्वित प्रयास जरूरी

- राज कुमार सिन्हा*  जल संसाधन से जुड़ी स्थायी समिति ने वर्तमान लोकसभा सत्र में पेश रिपोर्ट में बताया है कि "नल से जल" मिशन में राजस्थान, मध्यप्रदेश, पश्चिम बंगाल, झारखंड और केरल फिसड्डी साबित हुए हैं। जबकि देश के 11 राज्यों में शत-प्रतिशत ग्रामीणों को नल से जल आपूर्ति शुरू कर दी गई है। रिपोर्ट में समिति ने केंद्र सरकार को सिफारिश की है कि मिशन पुरा करने में राज्य सरकारों की समस्याओं पर गौर किया जाए। 

Implications of deaths of Maoist leaders G. Renuka and Ankeshwarapu Sarayya in Chhattisgarh

By Harsh Thakor*  In the wake of recent security operations in southern Chhattisgarh, two senior Maoist leaders, G. Renuka and Ankeshwarapu Sarayya, were killed. These operations, which took place amidst a historically significant Maoist presence, resulted in the deaths of 31 individuals on March 20th and 16 more three days prior.