Sixteen years ago, Prahalad and Hart introduced the possibility of both profitably serving the poor and alleviating poverty. This first iteration of the Bottom/Base of the Pyramid approach focused on selling to the poor. In 2008, after ethical criticisms leveled at it, the field moved to BoP 2.0, instead emphasizing business co-venturing. Since 2015, we have witnessed some calls for a new iteration, with the focus broadening to a more sustainable development approach to poverty alleviation. In this paper, we seek (...) to answer the question: How has the BoP approach evolved over the past 16 years, and has it delivered on its early promise? We conducted a systematic review of 276 papers published in journals in this period, utilizing a rigorous correspondence analysis method to map key trends, and then further examined the 22 empirical studies conducted on the BoP approach. Our results suggest that the field has evolved, passing through a number of trends and coming full circle—with our analysis pointing to more recent BoP literature emphasizing similar themes to those espoused in the initial BoP iteration, rather than reflecting the principles espoused in either BoP 2.0 or BoP 3.0. Our analysis also points to a lack of clear evidence that the BoP concept has delivered on its promise either to businesses or to BoP participants. (shrink)

The idea that business can play a role in alleviating poverty has caught the imagination of academics and practitioners alike. An emerging consensus points to the critical importance of partnerships in market initiatives addressed to the base of the pyramid (BOP). But despite the calls for cross sector partnerships in BOP initiatives, our collective understanding of how these actually work has not advanced proportionally. This study attempts to address this issue by examining the dynamics at play in nine networks that (...) integrated the BOP with mainstream markets in nine developing nations of North, Central, and South America. Our field-based analysis generated a number of tentative propositions structured around three broad issue-areas: alliance formation (drivers that compelled companies to engage in strategic partnerships), alliance implementation (choice of governance mechanisms, resources for enhancing trust and reciprocity between partners, and conflict-resolution mechanisms), and performance outcome (the extent to which an organization’s commitment to an alliance impacted its performance and its societal context). (shrink)

With over three billion people currently living below the poverty line, finding better ways to lift people out of poverty is a concern of scholars from a range of disciplines. Within Management Studies, the focus is on developing market-based solutions to poverty alleviation through Bottom/Base-of-the-Pyramid initiatives. To date, these have enjoyed limited success, sometimes even exacerbating the problems they attempt to solve. As a result, there is a growing academic and practitioner push for a third iteration—BoP 3.0—that moves closer to (...) a sustainable development model of poverty alleviation. Through a grounded theory study of 21 Philippines-based organizations implementing poverty alleviation initiatives at the community level, this paper seeks to add to the existing suite of tools and guidance in the BoP field. It does so by questioning how these organizations approach the development and implementation of market-based approaches to poverty alleviation. Our results suggest that these organizations adopt a more community-centric approach, focusing on the creation of a self-reliant community before all else. We find this to be the result of a deeper understanding of the drivers of poverty in the communities they work with. Through the extrapolation of key themes and issues in our data, we propose a new conceptual model for building BoP 3.0 initiatives. This model consists of three intertwined theoretical dimensions: understanding issues as matters of concern; identifying limitations; and navigating time. These elements are linked by three active phases that allowed the organizations to move from one dimension to the next: sensemaking; entrainment; and investment. (shrink)

In 1998-1999, Prahalad and colleagues introduced the base/bottom of the pyramid concept in an article and a working paper. This article’s goal is to answer the following question: What has become of the concept over the decade following its first systematic exposition in 1999? To answer this question, the authors conducted a systematic review of articles on the BOP, identifying 104 articles published in journals or proceedings over a 10-year period . This count excludes books, chapters, and teaching cases. The (...) review shows that the BOP concept evolved dramatically following Prahalad’s original call to multinational enterprises . Deemphasizing the role of MNEs over time, published BOP articles portray a more complex picture, with wide variations in terms of BOP contexts, of BOP initiatives, and of impacts of the BOP approach. A simple framework for organizing the reviewed articles helps discuss findings, identify the gaps that still exist in the literature, and suggest directions for future research. (shrink)

Companies of all types face unprecedented threats from global problems such as climate change, and growing demands from investors and other stakeholders to operate sustainably and deliver greater benefit to environment and society. Conventional business models focused on delivering customer value and company profits are too narrow to help companies meet these challenges. This chapter offers sustainable business models as an alternative strategy tool to enable companies to address these challenges and position themselves to thrive in the future. SBMs expand (...) the scope of value propositions by adding other stakeholders and considering impact as well as value, enabling companies to strategize for long-term sustainability within their business model. SBMs employ more sophisticated value creation mechanisms that often combine different value creation logics in unique ways, resulting in business models that are difficult for competitors to copy. Finally, SBMs make it possible for companies to strategize not merely for their own value capture, but for value sustenance that plans for lasting benefit from value creation for both firm and stakeholders. Without this long-term perspective, sustainability is unlikely. SBMs are not easy—they require a systemic and long-term focus that often runs counter to the short-term view fostered by the broader economic system. However, when designed and executed well, their multiple benefits outweigh their challenges. (shrink)

With over three billion people currently living below the poverty line, finding better ways to lift people out of poverty is a concern of scholars from a range of disciplines. Within Management Studies, the focus is on developing market-based solutions to poverty alleviation through Bottom/Base-of-the-Pyramid initiatives. To date, these have enjoyed limited success, sometimes even exacerbating the problems they attempt to solve. As a result, there is a growing academic and practitioner push for a third iteration—BoP 3.0—that moves closer to (...) a sustainable development model of poverty alleviation. Through a grounded theory study of 21 Philippines-based organizations implementing poverty alleviation initiatives at the community level, this paper seeks to add to the existing suite of tools and guidance in the BoP field. It does so by questioning how these organizations approach the development and implementation of market-based approaches to poverty alleviation. Our results suggest that these organizations adopt a more community-centric approach, focusing on the creation of a self-reliant community before all else. We find this to be the result of a deeper understanding of the drivers of poverty in the communities they work with. Through the extrapolation of key themes and issues in our data, we propose a new conceptual model for building BoP 3.0 initiatives. This model consists of three intertwined theoretical dimensions: understanding issues as matters of concern; identifying limitations; and navigating time. These elements are linked by three active phases that allowed the organizations to move from one dimension to the next: sensemaking; entrainment; and investment. (shrink)