Returning to India, I’m struck once again by the dramatic differences between the sights, sounds, and smells (emphasis on the smells) of Chennai and those of New York or San Francisco. The perpetual honking of auto-rickshaws and smell of spices mixed with human bodies serves as a daily reminder that this is not San Francisco and I should not treat Chennai as if it is. This is an obvious statement when observing culture, so why isn’t the same logic applied to social impact?
Why do we still operate and fund social enterprises, which are trying to achieve impact in developing countries, from the comforts of a developed world city 20,000km away?
The question is not new, but the problem persists. Many social enterprises that are aimed at improving conditions in developing countries are still operated out of cities such as New York and San Francisco, which are far removed from the center of action. Ever since social entrepreneurship became the “it” industry for generation Y, more and more young professionals have expressed an interest and have engaged in social start-ups situated in the developing world. While I am encouraged that more people are getting involved, I doubt the effectiveness of the enthusiasts who have not spent a significant amount of time in the place they’re trying to help. I do not think a week-long field visit qualifies as significant. This leads to an issue: what is often perceived as valuable by the social entrepreneur is not similarly perceived by the rural consumers. The simple fact is that it is not possible to understand the nuances of the context and in particular what the target consumer needs without investing a lot of time to experience it.
