Corporate social responsibility at the base of the

2024年3月7日发(作者：大众轿车)

JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–1914ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirectJournalofBusinessRa,?,AndresValentinbabDepartmentofManagement,BelkCollegeofBusiness,UniversityofNorthCarolina,Charlotte,9201UniversityCityBlvd.,Charlotte,NC28223,UnitedStatesBelkCollegeofBusiness,UniversityofNorthCarolina,Charlotte,9201UniversityCityBlvd.,Charlotte,NC28223,UnitedStatesarticleinfoabstractThebaseofthepyramidpropositionholdsthattransnationalcorporations(TNCs)canpro?ticleexplorestheethicaldimensionsofbusinessventurestargetingthe2.6billionmoderateandextremelypoor(MEP)ownthatMEPpopulationsarebothcognitivelyandsociallyvulnerable,ndanempowermenttheoryofmorallylegitimateBoPbusinessventuresandprovideamulti-stageopportunityassessmentprocessthatallowsTNCmanagerstodetealysisisusedtodemonstratetheinadequacyofaninstrumental,oreconomic,conceptionofcorporatesocialresponsibility(CSR)andtode-fendanethicalconceptionofCSR.?ehistory:Received1February2012Receivedinrevisedform1May2012Accepted1September2012Availableonline15March2013Keywords:BaseofthepyramidCorporatesocialresponsibilityEthicalCSRPovertyLegitimacyExplouctionThebaseofthepyramid(BoP)proposition(Prahalad&Hammond,2002;Prahalad&Hart,2002)holdsthattransnationalcorporations(TNCs)canexploitneglectedentrepreneurialopportunitieswhilesimultaneouslyalleviatingpovead(2004)describestheBoPasaninvisiblemarketoffourbillionpeoplelivingonlessthan$2perday,andHart(2004)describeitasahugebaseofpotentialcustomersearninglessthan$1500PPP(purchasingpowerparity)ategiesarerecommendedaswin–aimedthatpursuingBoPstrategies“meansliftingbillionsofpeopleoutofpovertyanddesperation”(Prahalad&Hart,2002)andenhancingthe“dignityandchoice”ofthepoorviaaccesstomoregoodsandservices(Prahalad,2004).AtthecoreoftheBoPpropositionistheideathatsociallyresponsibleTNCscansimulta-neouslyimprovetheirpro?tabilitywhilebene?,aswillbeargued,thevalidityofthisclaimdependsonthespeci?cBoPbusinessventure,theethicalframeworkthatisutilizedtoanalyze?Correspondingauthor.E-mailaddresses:denisarnold@(),in@(in).0148-2963/$–seefrontmatter?:///10.1016/s.2013.02.012theventure,lackofuniformityintheliteratureregardingthesizeandthepurchasingpoweroftheBoP,thisarticlebeginsbyclarifyingthescopeoftheBoPandthepoorestsegmentsofconsumerswithintheBoP:thoselivinginmoderateandextremepovertyasde?,researchindevelopmenteconomicsandconsumerbehaviorisutilizedtocharacterizethevulnerabilityofthemoderatelyandextremelypoor(MEP).Karnani(2007)hasclaimedthatthepoormaybewronglyexploitedbyTNCstargetingtheBoP,butthetheoreticalbasisforclaimingthatsomeproductsorservicesareexploitative,whileothersarenot,ticleprovidesanaccountofexploitationthatexplainswhymarketingsomeproduoitativeapproachiscontrailitiesanalysisisutilizedtodevelopempoweryofservingtheMEPgroundedintheempowermentofthepoorisdefendedandamulti-stageopportunityassessmey,anempowermenttheoryofBOPventurestargetingtheMEPdevelopedinthisarticleisutilizedtodemonstratetheinadequacyoftheinstrumental,oreconomic,conceptionofcorporatesocialresponsibility(CSR)andtodefendanethicalconceptionofCSR.

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–yandvulnerabilityatthebaseofthepyramidTheextremelypoorliveonlessthan$1.25perday,themoderatelypoorsurviveonlessthan$2.00perday,andtogethertheyconstituteamarketof2.6billionpeople(TheWorldBank,2011).ThelimitedpurchasingpoweroftheextremelypoorhasledsomeresearcherstoconcludethatBoPstrategiesareunlikelytobehelpfultothem(Santos&Laczniak,2009).Morecommonly,researchersimplicitlyorexplicitlypresumethatthemoderatelyandextremelypoor,aswellasthoseearningslightlymorethan$2.00perday,willbene?r,theconceptof“bene?t”isill-de?nedintheliteratureandtheassumptionthatproductsorservicespurchasedbythepoorarebene?cialtothemiswidespread(Ireland,2008;Prahalad,2004).TheimplicationseemstobethattheMEParemuchlikeWesternmiddle-classconsumers,erableresearchhasbeenundertakenonthesocialandeconomicexperiencesofpeoplesurviv-ingonincomesbelow$1.25or$2.00perday(Banerjee&Du?o,2007,2011;Collins,Morduch,Rutherford,&Ruthven,2009;Narayan,Chambers,Shah,&Petesch,2000).Thisresearchprovidesvaluableinsightsintothespendinghabits,mindsets,andvulnerabilitiesoftheMEPandprovidesmuchneededconteeandnatureoftheBoPmarketThereisalackofconsenckofclaritycanleadchersoftenintroducetheirworkwithdifferentstatisticsonthepopulation,spendingpower,mple,PrahaladandHart(2002)de?netheBoPas4bil-lionpeoplelivingonlessthan$1500peryearandthis?gureisusedbyAndersonandMarkides(2007),LondonandHart(2004),andSeelosandMair(2007).Prahalad(2004)de?nestheBoPas4billionpeoplelivingonlessthan$2.00perdayandthis?gureisusedbyAltman,Rego,andRoss(2009),Stefanovic,Domeisen,andHulm(2007),andWebb,Kistruck,Ireland,andKetchen(2010).Hammond,Kramer,Katz,Tran,andWalker(2007)de?netheBoPas4billionpeoplelivingonlessthan$3000peryearandthis?gureisusedbyFitchandSorensen(2007).Someofthevariationintheliteraturecanbeattributedtothebaseyearforpurchasingpowerparity(PPP),butthisdoesnotexplainthelargedeviationfromWorldBankldBankhaspub-lishedtheso-called“dollarperday”and“twodollarperday”tesfrom2002showed2.8billionpeoplelivingonlessthan$2.00perday,notfourbillion(TheWorldBank,2011).ThecurrentWorldBankpopulationestimateforthoselivingbelow$2.00perdayis2.6billion(TheWorldBank,2011).Clarityregardin,clarityprovidesareliablebasisforassessingthesizeofthemarketoad(2004)estimatesBoPspendingpowertobe$lysisofWorldBankdatashowedthatthoselivingbelow$,weconcludethatthesizeofthemarketopportunityforTNCsisoverstatedusingPrahalad\'sestimateofaBoPpopulationof4billionlivingbelow$detal.(2007)estimateBoPspendingpowertobe$5trillionbasedonapopulationof4billionpeoplelivingbelow$9.05perdayandKarnani(2007)de?nestheBoPin2005as2.6billionpeo-plelivingbelow$2.00perdayalongwiththeWorldBankandestimatestheirspendingpowertobe$1.42trillioninPPPterms(TheWorldBank,2011).BecauseKarnani(2007)estimatesarederivedusingthesamePPPbaseyearasHammondetal.(2007),thoselivingbetween$2.00perdayand$9.05perdaywouldrepresent$oPistakentoincludethissegmentaswell,r,theissueisnotmerelyde?ningthescopeoftheBoPbutdifferentiatingbetweenmarketsegmentsinordertobetterunderstandtheneedsofindividualslivingatdifferentlevelsofpoverty(Kotler,Roberto,&Leisner,2006).Thedifferencesintheneedsandpurchasingpowerof,forexample,individualslivingat$6.00perdayversusthoselivingat$1.25perdayaresigni?cdreasonforclarifyingthesizeandpurchasingpoweroftheBoPistofacilitatetheassessmentoftheethicsofTNCsexploitingmarketopanyvulnerableconsumergroup,suchaschildren,theelderly,orthehandicapped,BoPpopulationsareparticularlysusceptibletoharmtotheirwell-ulnerabilitymaybeexacerbatediftheyarealsoveryyoung,old,xtendedtheoreticalanalysisoftheconcept,Brenkertde?nesthevulnerableinmarketexchangesasthosewith“qualitativelydifferentexperiences,conditions,and/orincapabilities,whichimpedetheirabilitiestoparticipateinnormaladultmarketactivities”(Brenkert,1998:13).Thevulnerablearelessabletoprotecttheirowninterestsandaresusceptibletobeing“swayed,movedorenticedindirectionswhichmightbene?tothersbutwhichmightharmtheirinterests”(p.14)nitivevulnerabililadeshthatrateis52%,forIndia39%,andforNigeria32%forthose15andolder(CIA,2011).Povertymakesitdif?culttoattaineducation,evenwhenitisprovidedatnocostbygovernments,becauseoftheneedofchildrentoleaveschooltohelpsupportfamilies(wherethemediansizeisbetweensevenandeight),becauseofpoorqualityeducation,andbecauseoftheinabilityofilliterateorpartiallyliterateparentstosupporttheirchildren\'seducation(Banerjee&Du?o,2007).Educationalopportunitiesarealsolostwhenyoungchildrenarebartered,sold,ororphaned,nvarti(2006),drawingfromSen(1999),argues“thepsycholog-icalrealityoftheBoPisrevealedinsub-normativechoices,self-defeatingpreferencestructures,andconfusedcontradictionsandpreferencereversalsthatblockpathstoself-improvement”(p.367).InastudyofBrazilianslivingonlessthanUS$8perday,BarkiandParente(2010)foundthatthepoorhave“astrongerneedtocompen-sateforadignityde?citandlowself-esteem”and“ahighlevelofaspirationtofeelsociallyincludedinsociety”(p.21).Thesepsycho-logicaltraitsmakethemvulnerabletomarkettransactionsthatcanunpositionoftheBoPandtheMEPTobetterassessethicalissuesthatariseinservingBoPconsumers,rtoresolvetheinconsistenciesdiscussedabove,andtoprovideclaritywithrespecttotheanalysisundertakeninthisarticle,theBoPisde?tentwithHammondetal.,theentireBoPisde?nedasthepopulationof4billionpeopleearninglessthan$9.05perday($3260peryearat2005PPP)whoprimarilytransactintheinformalmarketeconomy.

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–1914However,ratherthanusetheproblematicsegmentationoftheBoPbyHammondetal.,ouranalysisisgroundedintheecotentwithstandardusageindevelopmenteconomics,mode-ratepovertyisde?nedasthoseearning$1.25to$2.00perdayandextremepovertyasthoseearninglessthan$1.25perday(Fig.1).Thisallowsfortheclearidenti?cationofthemostvulnerablemembersoftheBoP:resentationoftheBoPdiffersfromTheNext4Billion(Hammondetal.,2007)annualincomesegmentstodescribetheBoP:$500,$1000,$1500,$2000,$2500,and$e?ndthattheseincomesegmentsarebene?cial,manycountriesforwhichpopulationandexpendituredataarenotprovidedresearcherscanonlydeducethepopulation?guresfortheentireBoP($3000andbelow)withoutknowingwhlternativeapproachweutilizeWorldBankdatatoestablishtiers4and5,proachuseshouseholdsurveydatafrom115countriesandtherebyrepresentsamorerobustpictureoftheMEPthanthe36countriesusedinHammondetal.(2007).abilitiesofthemoderatelyandextremelypoorResearchbypovertyanddevelopmentscholarsshowsthattheMEPliveinacycleofpandchildrenlivinginmoderateandextremepovertyaresubjectedtoastateofmentaldistress,depression,andafeelingofhopelessness,whichultimatelyaffectswell-beingandalterstheirabilitytoaspiretoabetterlife(Narayanetal.,2000).Forthemostpart,theMEPareexcludedfromtheformalmarketeconomy;instead,operatinginawebofinformalnetworks.“Theyhavehousesbutnottitles;cropsbutnotdeeds;businessesbutnotstatutesofincorporation”(deSoto,2000:7).Oftentimes,theMEParesociallyexcludedandtakenadvingtoSachs(2005:20),“echronicallyhungry;unabletoaccesshealthcare,lacktheamenitiesofsafedrinkingwaterandsanitation,cannotaffordeduca-tionforsomeorallofthechildren,andperhapslackrudimentaryshelter.”Theharmtowell-being,towhichtheMEParesusceptiblebecauseoftheirvulnerability,maytakemanyformssuchasadeclineincaloricintake,malnutrition,ill-healthaccompaniedbylossofincome,mple,individualslivinginmoderateandextremepovertymaybeswayedorenticedtoforegothepurchaseofbasicgoodsfortheirfamilies,harmingthegeneralphetechnologicaladvancesinagricultureandrisingincomes,MEPhouseholdsareconsuminglessfoodandsurviveon1400caloriesonaverageperperson,roughlyhalfofthatneededforahealthydiet(Banerjee&Du?o,2011).Adultmalnourishmentadverselyaffectscurrentdailyactivities,longtermwelfare,andwages,whilecreatinghigherdemandformedicalcare(DeRose,Messer,&Millman,1998).Childmalnourishmentseverelyaffectsdevelopment,growth,cognitiveability,andoccupationalperformanceinadulthood(Chavez,Martinez,&Soberanes,1995).StudiesshowthattheMEParenotmaximizingtheircaloricintake,oftenactingasiftheyarenoingtoBanerjeeandDu?o(2007),unhealthypatternsoffood,alcohol,co,forexample,ashighas8.1%ofthehousehold\'rishedurbanMEPconsumersinChinaspendasmuchas46%ofincomeontobacco(Liu,Rao,Hu,Sun,&Mao,2006).Anestimated41.8millionChinesefallintopovertybecauseofexcessivecigarettespendingeachyear(Liuetal.,2006).BanerjeeandDu?o(2011)pointoutthatcountriessuchasMexicoandIndiahaveseenanemergenceinfast-movingconsumergoods,ehav-iorsareattributabletowhatMacarov(2003)describesas“norms,whicharemarkedbyveryshorttermobjectivesandaliveforthemo-menttendency”(p.46).Thesestudiesunderscorethecriticaltrade-offsthatMEPhouseholdsmakeagainstprovidingnecessitiessuchasnourishment,education,nerabilityoftheMEPisexacerbatedbytheirinabilitytomanagesocialandeconomicrisksasaresultofhavinglimitedaccesstoassets(Alwang,Siegel,&Jorgensen,2001).WhentheMEParesickorinjured,orwhencropsfail,thereislittlerecourseotherthanfamily,heranindividual\'splacementamongtheeconomictiers,thebetteranindividual\'ceptibilityoftheMEPtoharmasaresultofthei,theirlackofassetsissigni?cantlygreaterthanthoseathighertiersleadingtoagreaterinabilitytomanageriskthanthoseintiers1–,thepotentialharmfuloutcomesofthoseintier4aregreaterthanthoseintiers1–ivinginmoderatepovertyareatdirectriskofslippingintoextreivinginextremepovertyattier5havelittlemarginforreducedconsumptionand,asaresult, 1

? > $60.36 per day? 0.3 billion people

? $9.05 per day - $60.36 per day? 1.4 billion people

Tier 2

Tier 3

BOP

4 billionpeople below$9.05 per dayTier 4

? 1.4 billion people? $2.00 per day - $9.05 per day? Moderate Poverty? 1.2 billion people? $1.25 per day - $2.00 per day

? Extreme Poverty

? 1.4 billion people

? < $1.25 per day

MEP

2.6 billionpeople below$2.00 per dayTier 5

nomicpyramid.

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–19141907Finally,thoselivingintherangeabove$2aday,butnearthat?gure,willoftenexperiencesimilarvulnerabilitytothoselivingnlivingon$1.95adayandapersonlivingon$2.25aday,forexample,ebetweentheMEPandtheremain-deroftheBoPshouldnotbeunderstoodashardand?-standingthevulnerabilitiesoftheMEPcanhelpscholarsandpraary,the2.6billionpeoplethatcomprisetheMEPliveinmulnerabilitycontributestothemmakingsub-optimalpurchasingdecisionsrelativetotheirwell-being,tandingthisvulnerabilitywillallowustoprovideanaccountoftheexploitationofthemoderateandextremelypoorandatheoryofmorallylegitimateTNCventurestargetingthesepotentialcustomers,producers,wermenttheoryofmorallylegitimateBoPventuresInthissectiofeatureofr,previousresearchonBoPactivitieshasnotprovidedanadequatetheoreticalbasisfordistinguisegitimacyhasbeende?nedas“apositivenor-mativeevaluationoftheorganizationanditsactivities(Suchman,1995:579).ThissectionexplainshowBoPbusinessveli-tatethistheoreticaldevelopment,anaccountofexploitationisprovided,aninterpretationofthemeaningof“bene?t”intheBoPpropositionisprovided,andanacctationAtthecoreofentrepreneurialactivityistheexploitationofoppor-tunities(Casson,1982;Shane&Venkataraman,2000).BoPtheoristsarguethatTNCmanagersneglectmanyopportunitiesbecauseof“or-thodoxies”inassumptionsandpractices(Prahalad&Hart,2002:4)“dominantlogic”intowhichtheyhavebeensocializedleadsTNCmanagerstoemphasizelargeunitpacks,highmarginsperunit,andhighvolumesales(Prahalad,2004:49).WhathasbeenmissinginmostTNCsaremanagerswhocanimaginealternativestrategiesthatwillallowthemtoexploitBor,asnotedabove,BoPstrategieshavealsobeencriticizedpreciselybecausetheyareexploitative(Karnani,2007;Santos&Laczniak,2009).Thisdisputeoverthemorallegitima-cyofexploitativeentrepreneurialactivityattheBoPpointstoaneednceunderstandingoftheethicsofBoPstrategiesitwillbnarylanguageusage,mple,onemightexploitahilltopvistatobuildahouseoronemightexploitamineraldepositora?ecases,exploitationstandsinfor‘use’epreneurship,thisuseofthetermiscommonlyemployedincharacterizingtheidenti?-cationandtargetingofunderutilized,previouslyunknown,ornewlycreated,aseofBoPbusinessventures,theintendedoutcomeisbine?tfortheTNCispro?ts,buttheprecisebene?ningofthenegativeuseoftheterm,exploitation,r,(1995)hasdefendedthepositionthattheexploitationofpeople(asopposedtonature)alwaysinvolvesonepartytakingadvantageoftheweaknessorvulnerabilityofanoth-erparty(Arnold,2003).However,takingadvantageofthevulnerableshouldbeunderstoodasanecessaryconditionratherthanasuf?eteconomies,entrepreneurial?rmsroutinelytakeadvantagesofthevulnerabilitiesofcompetitorstoexploitmarketopportunities,nisexploitationmorallywrong?Exploitationmaybeunderstoodaswrongwhenitfailstorespecthumanrights,ightsandinternationalbusinessHumanrightstheoryhasplayedanimportantroleininternationalbusinessethicsandcorporatesocialresponsibilitysinceDonaldson(1991)providedatheoryofTNChumanrightsduties(Arnold,2010,2013;Campbell,2006;Cragg,2002;Cragg,Arnold,&Muchlinski,2012;Kobrin,2009;Wettstein,2012).TheTNCdutytorespecthumanrightshasatwo-foldethicaljusti?,humanrightsaregroundedintheideathatagency,orthecapacityofautonomousaction,isworthyofrespectandthatindividualpersonsshouldberespectedbythosepersonsororganizationswithwhomtheyhaverelationships(Arnold,2010).InthecaseofTNCs,thisincludesrela,TNChumanrightsdutiesaredefendedoncontractualistgrounds(Cragg,2002;Donaldson,1991).Here,theargumentisthattheveryreasonthatcorporationsarepermittedtoexististomplishthisendcorporationsaregrantedsuchrightsasproperty,ownership,ueofbeinggrantedtheserights,corporationshavereciprocaldutiestorespecttherightsofothers,woargumentsarecompatibleandtogetherprovideanoverlappingjusti?-cationfortheviewthatcorporationsoperatingindifferentnationshaveadutytorespecthumanrightsindependentlyoftheabilitptionorendorsementofhumanrightsnormsforbusinessbytheUnitedNations(UN)andotherglobalcivilsocietyorganizationsandtheattendantadaptationandendorsementofhumanrightsdutiesforTNCsbymanycomp2011,theUnitedNationsHumanRightsCoun-cilendorsedanewsetofglobalguidingprinciplesforbusiness:theUN“Protect,RespectandRemedy”rameworkcallsuponbusinessenterprisestorespecttherightsofallpersonsandtoprovideremedywhenthoserightsareviolated(Ruggie,2008).TheUNFrameworkisitselfanextensionandarticulationofelementsoftheUNGlobalCompact,astrategicpolicyinitiativeforbusinessesthatfacilitatestheincorpoainmorallegitimacywhentheyactinamannerconsistentwithjusti?sinesseshighlightedinBoPcasestudies,suchasCEMEX,Coca-Cola,ITC,andUnileverarci?chumanrightsthattheUNFrameworkcallsuponbusinessestorespect,andthosetowhichsignatoriesoftheGlobalCompacthavepledgedtoaccept,arethoseincludedintheInternationalBillofHumanRights(whichincludestheUniversalDeclaration).AmongtheserightsisArticle25(1)oftheUniversalDeclaration,whichstatesinpartthat“Everyonehastherighttoastandardoflivingadequateforthehealthand

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–1914well-beingofhimselfandofhisfamily,includingfood,clothing,housingandmedicalcareandnecessarysocialservices”(TheUnitedNations,1948).MEPpopulationsliveindeprivationofthehumanrightstosubsis-tenceandwell-being,andthisdeprivationunderminestheirabilitytoexerciseotherrights(Sen,2009;Shue,1996).CapabilitiesareneededtoattainsubsistenceandssvlexploitationofMEPpopulationsoccurswhenTNCstakeadvantageofthecognitiveandsocialvulncounthastheadvantageofexplainingmorallyillegitimateventurestargetingthr,furtheranalysisisneededtoprovideamorefyProductsandservicesmarketedtotheBoPmayeitherimprovemple,affordableclrebringingcleanenergythroughthesaleofsolar-poweredLEDlanternsintoBoPmarketsinruralIndia(Shukla&Bairiganjan,2011).Howev-er,tobaccoproductswilltypicallycausetedintheintroduction,anessentialfeatureofBoPventuresistheprom-iseofbene?reatleasttwowaysofchar-acterizingthebene?tstoBoPpopulationsingeneral,andtheMEPinparticular,thatbusinessventuresmaybring:increasedutilitythoughthesatisfactionofdesires,orincreasedachievementofhumanrightsviathecapacitytofunctionwell(Sen,1999).Clarifyingthesetwowaysinwhichthebene?tstoconsumersmaybeassessedwillprovideuswithadditionalconceptualtoolsforbuildingatheoryoferutilityenhancement?rst,-gardtofoodorconsumergoods,forexample,moron-sumer,inthisview,ismadebetteroffbybeingpresentedwithmoreopportunitiestochoosefrominthemarketplace(Ireland,2008;Prahalad,2004).Shopsstockedwithcandyorsweets,tobaccoproducts,sugarycarbonatedbeverages,alcohol,skinwhiteningcreamsuchasUnilever\'scontroversialFairandLovelyproduct,andlotxtentthatthesatisfactionofdesiresistheend,thenthebene?ssventuresthattailoralcoholortobaccoproductstotheMEP,forexample,andarerewardedwithincreasedrevenues,bene?ightbeexpand-ed,forexample,byincreasingthealcoholcontentofbeerusinglocalingredientswhilereducingthevolumeperunittoreducecosts,orbyaddingtothenicotinecontentofthelowestgradetobaccotoincreaserepeatsalstratetheinadequacyoftheutilityview,considerthecaseofTheCoca-ColaCompany(TCCC)sdevelopedanet-workofmicro-distributioncenters(MDC\'s)inAfricanBoPmarketsthatgenerateannualrevenuesinexcessof$550million(BusinessCalltoAction,2008).scon?rmthattheMEPspendsignif-icantportionsoftheirincomeonsugaryproducts(Banerjee&Du?o,2007;Gordon,2007).However,there,thereisalackofrelevantdisposableincometoconsumetheproductinthe?rstplace.17.6millionUgandan\'sareMEPconsumers,yieldingbe-tween$1.50and$3.50offreemonthlycash?owafteraccountingforexpendituresonnecessitiessuchasfood,housing,water,anded-ucation(Hammondetal.,2007).Ugandansinthiscategorywouldrade-offsarepronouncedwhenweconsiderthatthedatashowsthatthesamegroupspendsbetween$3.00and$4.50onhous-ingandbetween$1.75and$ingonlocalprice,thepurchaseofasingleCoca-Colabeveragecanrepresent10–30%ofanUgandan\'apabilitiesperspective,Coca-ColaisnotinthebestinterestofMEPconsumersinUgandaeventhoughtheyareabletobuytheproduct(Hammondetal.,2007).Second,Heller,Burt,andEklund(2001)foundsigni?cantassocia-tionsbetweensodaconsumptionanddentalcariesamongindividualsover25intheUnitedStates,theworld\'cariesamongindividualsunder25,however,arenotsigni?horsattributethedifferencetothewidespreaduseof?arkets,thepooraremorelikelytosufferfromhighlevelsofdentalcariesbecauseofthelimiteduseof?Africanstudyfoundthatparents“visitadentistonlywhenthechildissymptomatic”(Gordon,2007:183).Usinghea,97%ofUgandansspendjust$1.25to$7.25permonthonhealthservices(Hammondetal.,2007),suggestingthatduetolimitedincomesoverall,ary,whileMEPconsumerswillpurchaseCoca-Colaproducts,theconsumptionofthoseprodexampleillustrates,increasingtheconsumerchoicesofvulnerablepopulationsdoesnotnsumerchoices,accompaniedbymarketing,mayleadindividualsincircumstancesofdirepovertytopurchasealcoholproductsratherthanmillet,oracceptusuriousloantermsyre?ectsaperson\'scurrentmentalstate,andcuaseofMEPconsumers,mentalstatesareshapedbymalnourishment,thehardshipoflivingwithoutbasicgoodssuchasrunningwater,electricity,orsanitation,feelingsofsocialestrangement,andtheemotionalconsequencesoflosingfamilymemberstodisease,starvation,nitiveandsocialvulnerabilitiesofindividualslivingintheMEPprovidethemwithreasonsformakingcontheforegoinganalysisweconcludethatenhancedutilitydoesnotalwaysbene?litiesAsecondwayofcharacterizingthebene?tsofventurestargetingtheMEPisintermsoftheirabilitytoprovideopportunitiabilitiesapproachis“aspeciesofahumanrightsapproach”andhasbeenemployedbytheUnitedNationsDevelopmentPrograminitsannualdevelopmentreportssincethe1990sinordertoevaluatetheattainmentofhumanrights(Nussbaum,2007:21;seealsoSen,2005).Thecapabilitiesapproachisaphilosophicalframeworkthatemphasizestheimportanceofhumanfunctioningstowell-beingandstressestheimportanceofthecapabilitytofunctionwellinallowinghumanstomaximizetheirwell-being(Sen,1993,1999,2005,2009).Tofunctionwellistoengageinaesofactivities

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–19141909includewalking,reading,thinking,artisticexpression,incomegener-ation,esofstatesincludebeingwell-nourished,notbeingashamedofone\'spoverty,beingpleasedforone\'schildren,ilitiesapproachdiffersfromothermeasuresofwell-being,suchasutility,bytakingaccountoftherangeofconditioingacapabilitiesframework,bene?,venturesthatprovideopportunitiesfortheMEPtoimprovepportunitiesmaytaketheformofemployment,purchasingMEPproducts,echaracterizedbytheopportunitytheypresentforindividualsintheMEPtoutilizetheirlabortoimprovetheircapabilitytofunctionwellbyearningincome,growingfood,securingtheirlegalrights,mple,anagribusinesscompanythatprovidedseedandfertilizeronaninstallmentplananddeliveredittothepurchaserwouldenhancethecapabilityoffarmersandtheirfamiliestofunctionwellrly,acompanythatprovidedthefarmerwiththemeanstosecurelegaltitletohisland,ortoinsurehimagainstcropfailure,,anMEPconsumermaybebene?ttedbyventuresthatofferdirectopportunitiesforthemtofunctionwellbypurchasingproductsorservices,theuseofwhichdirectlyimple,forestsnearpopulationcenterstssionsareahenythatsoldaffordable,reliable,anddurablesolarconcentrationcookerswouldprovideanopportunityforMEPhouthtypesofempowerment,itmaybeneces-saryforTNCstoengageineducationofMEPpopulationsregardingtheadntheforegoinganalysis,businessventuresbene?ttheMEPwtationversusempowermentBusinessventuresthattakeadvantageofthecognitiveandsocialvulnerabilitiesoftheMEPinwaysthatfailtorespecttheirhumanrightsaremorallyobjectionableeventhoughtheymaybepro?lierexaminationofthecapabilitiesapproachtopovertyshedslightonwhenproductsorservicescansupporthumanrightssuchassubsistencssventuresthatnegativelyimpactcapabil-itiesandfunctioningunderminehumanrights,whereasventurestethicalperspective,TNCswrongfullyexploittheMEPiftheirbusinessvveseen,humanrightsnormsareincreanalysis,?rmsthattargettheBoPdosoinamstruggleforsuingthetheoreticalframeworkdevelopedinthisarticle,theethicaldimensionsofMEPbusinessventuresfallintooneoftwocategories:exploitationstrategiesorem-powermentstrategies(seeFig.2below).ExploitationstrategiestakeadvantageofthevulnerabilityofMEPpopulationstoadvancetheinterestsofthe?rmwithoutprovsfulexploitationstrategiesareaffordableinthesensethatMEPconsumerscanpurchasethegoodorserviceatapricethatre-sultsinpro?tsfortheTNC,eveniftheymustsacri?cebasicnecessitiessuchasfoodfnturesmaybecharacterizedaswin–losescenarioswheretheTNCwinsintheformofpro?tsandtheMEPlosesintermsofcapabilitiesorfunctioning(seeFig.2:1).Aswehavedetailed,thecaseofTCCCisanexampleofawin–sgeneratedsubstantialpro?tswhilenegativelyimpactingcapabilitiesandfunctionings.(AdetailedaccountofthepotentialexcussionoftheexploitationofworkersseeArnold,2003,2009).Empowermentstrategiestaketheformofcapabilitiesempower-mentorfunctioningsempowermentandfacrmentstrategiesarenotnecessarilyaffordablefortheMEPconsumerorpro?eventurecontributestocapabilitiesempowermentorfunctioningsempowerment,butitsproductsorservicescannotbemadeaffordable(seeFig.2:3),tanLever,Limited(HLL),asubsidiaryoftheconsumerproductsgiant,Unilever,CC,theirnaSaltisatechnologicalinnovationbroughttomarketbyHLLthathasclearbene?tsfortheMEPinBoPmarkets(Rajendrah&Shah,2003).Thisspeciallyformulatedsaltretainsiodineatasigni?-cantlyhigherratethanotherbrandedandunbrandedsaltsandcanpositivelyimpactIodineDe?ciencyDisorder(IDD),apabilitiesperspective,reducingmentaldefectsamongchildrenandadultsthroughsaltconsumptionhasther,despiteconvincingresearchinsupportoftheproductandthemarketingprowessofUnilever,Ireland(2008)showsthatAnnapurnaSaltneverachievedmorethan10%marketshare;andthedistributionchannelmadeupofwomeninruralIndianvillages,knownasProjectShakti,reachedaheadcountofjust12,000despiteHLL\'sprojectionofover500,i(2007)showsthatAnnapurnaSaltwassimplytooexpen-siveatapricepremiumof275%nybene?cialpharmaceuticalandconsumerproductsthatrequirelargeinvestmentsinR&Dtobringtomarket,AnnapurnaSaltcouldnotbepro?tablebysellingonlytoMEPconsumersExploitationAffordable

gyofMEPstrategies.

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–sreason,HLLhaspositionedAnnapurollaryoutcomeisonewherethepricefortheproductorserviceismadeaffordablebutwheretherevenuesareinsuf?cienttomaketheproductorservicepro?table(seeFig.2:2).Toillustratethecorollaryscenario,considerthecaseofProcter&Gamble(P&G).In2003,P&Gembarkedonanambitiousprojecttobringawaterpuri?cationproduct(PuR)toBoPmarkets(Hanson&Powell,2006).ArmedwiththeknowledgethatinadequatesanitationkillsmillionsofMEPconsumerseachyear,theyinvested$20millioninmarketingandresearchanddevelopmentfrom1995to2003,incsusedfordrinking,cooking,ntaminated,apabilitiesandhumanrightsperspective,safeaccesstinatedwaterpresentsadrainonhouseholdre-sources,asfamilymembersoftenhavetotravellongdistancestoobtainwaterandspendaninordinateamountocleanwaterwouldhelpMEPconsumersutilizetheirtimeformoreore,solvingthisproblemrepresentsauniqueopportunityforP&hetswereproventoreducediarrhealdiseaseby20–90%withanaveragereductionof50%.Despitethispromise,acheaper(thoughlesseffective)bleachalternativeexistedinthemarket.“AlthoughconsumerresearchsuggestedthatPuRwasaffordabletotheconsumer,atUS$0.01perliteritwasstillregardedasrelativelyexpensiveasahouseholdwatertreatmentstrategy”(Hanson&Powell,2006:9).EventhoughPuRwasaffordableforMEPcon-sumers,thepult,P&Gwasnotabletogeneratetherevenuenecessarytobepro?–winscenariosareunsustainableasbusinesspolicy,buttheymaybecandidatesforcharitableactivityorforparebeingunpro?table,P&GcontinuedthePuRprojectonacharitablebasisbecauseofthesigni?cantbene?y,venturesthatempowertheMEP,andarebothaffordableandpro?table,maybecharacterizedaswin–winscenarios(seeFig.2:4).Suchventuresshoultfar-reachingwin–winbusinessventurespresentinBoPmarketsinvolvewirelessinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT).rgenceofthousandsof“phoneladies”andshop-keepersisanentrepreneurialbene?tomobilephonecommunicationsprovidesruralvillagerswiththeabilitytolearnaboutmarketpricesforcommod-ities,contacthealthcareprofessionalsandgovernmentauthoritiesmorequickly,ptabilityofthetechnologyismakingiteasierforMEPconsumerstobank,communicate,trade,ieslikeVoxivaareusingthescalabilityof?nanckeITCLimited(ITC)areusingthepowerofICTdevicestointegratetheirsupplychainwithruralfarmersthroughprogramslikeITC\'hICT,affordabilityperspective,thelowcostageshopkeepershaveshown,theupfrontcostcanbeTNCsinvolved,pro?ibersindevelopingcountriesworldwidegrew?ve-foldbetween2000and2005to1.4billionusers(Hammondetal.,2007).TelenorAGmaintainsmarginsbetween40%and50%andhasover30millionsubscribers(Malaviya,Singhal,&Svenkerud,2004).Celtelholds28%ofthemarketinNigeriawith8millionsubscriberswith$888millioninrevenuesin2006atagrossmarginof36.3%(Anderson,Markides,&Kupp,2010).Theseexamplesillustratethatmobiletelephonyisanexampleofawin–-stageBoPopportunityassessmentprocessGiventheidenti?cationofthefourdistinctoutcomesthatBoPbusinessmodelscangenerate,wearenowinapositiontoidentifyamulti-stageopportunityassessmentprocessforTNCventuresthattargettheMEPtoaidtheminachievingmorallegitimacyastheyseektoformpro??rststageinourassessmentprocessinvolvestheead(2004)citesincreasingcompetitionandslowinggrowthindenandShepherd(2006)arguethatpriorknowledgeandgeneralmotivationcanmple,aTNCmayseeopportu-nitiesviaawarenessofproblemssuchasunsanitarywater,disease,malnutrition,andalackof?nancialservicesinBoPmarketsandask,“Whatcanbedoneaboutthis?”IftheTNCdeterminesthatanoppor-tunityexists,-selves,third-partyopportunitiesarenotenoughforaTNCtotakeactioninthemarketbecausespeci?cknowledgeandmotivationtoexploittheseopportunitiesmaynotexistwithinthe?-agersmustbelieveanopportunityexistsforthe?rmtherebycreatinga?ssmentofthe?rm\'sknowledge(fea-sibilityassessment)andmotivation(desirabilityassessment)relatedtothird-partyopportunitiesmusttakeplacebeforeabeliefinathird-partyopportunitycanbetransformedintoa?essmentprocessinvolvedinforminga?rst-partyopportu-nitybeginswiththeacquisitionofmoreknowledgebyutilizingacon-sultantorassigningataskforceof?rmemployeestoa?rmcandevelopstrategicintent(Hamel&Prahalad,1989),assem-bleresources,formstrategies,andpenetratemarkets,itmust?re-neurialopportunitiesinBoPmarketswithhighMEPpopulationsdifferfromothermarketopportunities,however,becausetheyareclose-lyrelatedtoproblemsassociatedwith?rst-partyopportunitiestobemorallylegitimate,theymustatleasthavetondstageintheassessmentprocessinvolvesunderstand-ingthecircumstancesoftheMEPpopulationbiontotheimportanceoflocalcontexthasreceivedincreasedattentionfrominternationalmanagementscholarsinrecentyears(Meyer,Mudambi,&Narula,2011).ThespecialcircumstancesofMEPpopulationswilldependuponthecmple,theMEPinBrazilprimarilyliveindenselypopulatedurbancenters,nphone\'spartnershipwithTelenorillustratestheimpor-tanceoflocalcontext(Malaviyaetal.,2004).InordertopenetrateruralmarketsinBangladesh,dually,thepoorinBangladeshcouldnotaffordmobilephones;butcollectively,eachpersoncouldaffordtopayfor

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–19141911(1)First-PartyOpportunityAssessment(5)OpportunityAction

Assessment(2)Cultural

Context

AssessmentBoPEnvironment(MEP Populations)(4)Empowerment

Assessment(3)Multi-Dimensional

Poverty

ementtheidea,Grameenphonedevelopedtheroleofthe“villagephonelady,”rly,micro?nanceinstitutions,suchasGrameenBank,hthesemodels,womenbecomeempowercticeoffocusingonwomtandingtheselocalcontextswillhelpTNCsassessthecommunity-levelcharacteristicsofthemarketswheretheyseepromising?rdpartotiontolocalcontext,uniquedidemicanddevelopmentcommunitieshavemadesigni?cantprogressinprovidingrobustdataondimensionssuchashealth,education,datahasemerged,theUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)releasedtheHumanPovertyIndex(HPI)in2007,whichlaidthegroundworkforamorerobustMultidimensionalPovertyIndex(MPI)dextakesintoaccounthealth,education,ther,thethreedimensionsthataresupportedbytenpovertyindicatorsprovideanoverviewoicatorsprovidedintheMPIarenotintendedtobeade?nitiveand?nallist,butinsteadre?,indexesliketheMPIandHPIgiveTNCstoolstoassesstheef?cacyof?intheabilitytomoreaccuratelydortunitiesthatarepotentiallyharmfultothewell-beingoftheMEPsh,TNCscancreatespeci?cpovertyalleviationgoalsthatwillassistthemindesiyalleviationgoalsarecloselylinkNCsengageincapabilitiesandfunctioningsempowermentinMEPpopulations,theyalsoengageinpovertyalleviation,andthus,andHPIprovideimportantmatricesforTNCstoembedsocialvaluecreati,multidimensionalindicatorscanbeusedtopredictioult,TNCswillbeinabetterpositiontoincreasetotalwealththroughthecombinationofeconomicvaluecreationandsocialvaluecreation(Zahra,Gedajlovic,Neubaum,&Shulman,2009)rthstageoftheassessmentprocessinvolvesanappraisalofwhetherornotthereisanopportun,TNCmanagersexplicitlyfocusonthewaysthatthepotentialproductorataimtogiveMEPpopulationsanopportunitytoimprovetheircapabilitiestofunctionwellwillgatherinformationonhowtheycanemploythepoor,providethemwithentrepreneurialoppor-tunities,mple,SCJohn-sonfoundawaytointegratepyrethrumfarmersinKenyaintotheirsupplychain(WorldBusinessCouncilforSustainableDevelopment,2004).BypartneringwiththePyrethrumBoardofKenya,theywereabletoestablishamarkettopurchasegoodsdirectlyfromthepoor

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–ataimtofacilitatefunction-ingsempowermentcangatherinformationonhowtheirpotentialprodmple,DanonebeganofferingyogurtsupplementsthatprovidedtheMEPwithforti?eddrinkstobene?tgrowthandde-velopmentinAfricanBoPmarketswheremalnourishmentiscommon(Hawarden&Barnard,2011).Throughoutthisstage,asTNCssketchoutpotentialproductproto-typesorservices,theycanmakearealisticappraisaloftheuniqueso-ndothisbyusingtheirknowledgeoflocalcontextstoproducelistsofthetypesrespect,eachcountry,re-gion,andculturewillpresentuniquechallengesandde?,“Whatcapabilitiesandfunctioningsisourproductorser-vicelikelytosupport?”Second,“Howmightthepotentialproductorservicecontributetothesecapabilitiesandfunctionings?”Third,“Howmightthepotentialproductorserviceunderminethesecapa-bilitiesandfunctionings?”Consideringwhetherornottheproductcanimproveallde?cienciesincapabilitiesandfunc-tionings,importantisthatTNCsgatherinformationonwhethertheirpotentiaveestablished,TNCscanachievemorallegitimacywhentheirproductsandservicesempowertheMEP,butmayreasonablyberegardedasact-instageofthedecisionprocedure,venturesthataredeter-minedtobeexploitativeratherthanempoweringcanbeidenti??heessentialcontributionsentrepreneurshiphasmadetobroaderbusinessandeconomictheoryisinthe“examinationofhow,bywhom,andwithwhateffectsopportunitiestocreatefuturegoodsandservicesarediscovered,evaluated,andexploited”(Shane&Venkataraman,2000:218).The?rstfourstagesoftheassessmentprocessfocusonageoftheentrepreneurialprocessisim?rmsask,“Howcanwebringforththispotentiallyempoweringproductorserviceatthiscost?”AsthisstageTNCmanagerswillmakecostpro-jectionsanddevelopcontextspeci?andHart(2004)describesuccessfulstrategiesthatcenteraroundclusion,themulti-stageassessmentprocessgivesTNCstheabilitytoassessmorallylegitimate?rst-partybusinessopportunitiesthatcanaccomplishedthroughtheextensivegather-ingofinformationrelatedtoculture,multidimensionalpoverty,capa-bilities,stage,TNCshavethechancetolookatwaystoempowertheMEPwhilesystemaassessBoPmarketsthroughanethicallens,theyensurethatthe“doinggood”componentofbusinessventurestargetingtheMEPisinvestigatedwithsimilarrigorandattentionasthe“doingwell”lysishasfocusedonthesocialdimensionsofpoverty,buttheen-vironmentalimpactof?rmactivitiesontheBoPwillalsoneedtobeassessedbeforeacompleteassessmentofa?rm\'simpactontheTNCcanbeassessed(Arnold&Williams,2012).mentalversusethicalcorporatesocialresponsibilityMorallylegitimatebusinessventuresthattargettheMEPshouldresultinpro?tabilityforthe?rmandempowermentformembersoftheMEP,clusionshavesigni?mental,oreconomic,corporatesocialresponsibilityholdsthatcorporationsshouldengageinpro-socialorethicalconductbeyondwhatisrequiredbylaw,onlywhendoingsowillimprovethereturnoninvestmentofthe?nanciersoftheorganization(Gond,Palazzo,&Basu,2009;McWilliams&Siegel,2001;McWilliams,Siegel,&Wright,2006).Theterm“instrumental”CSRismoreappropriatethantheterm“economic”CSRbecauseitbetterre?ectstheideathattheexclu-sivedutyorobligationofmanagersistopromoteshareholder,or?nan-cier,wealthwithinthelaw,sense,pro-socialbehaviorisofinstrumentalvaluetoshareholdersor?therhand,theterm“economic”referstoamuchbroaderdomainofconcernandmightinclude,forexample,con-siderationsregardingpublicwelfarebeyondthenarrowinterestsofshareholdersor?view,theroleofmanagersregardingCSRistoengageinongoingcost-bene?tanalysisthatbalancestheclaimsandexpectationsofvariousstakeholders(bothinternalandex-ternal)against?rmpro?gincreasedstakeholderexpingtotheinstrumentalCSRposition,insuchcasestheadditionalcostofCSRisjusti?r,CSRinitiativesthatdonotincreaserevenuesarenotjusti?ersoftheBoPpropositionhaveyettointroduceintothelit-eratureempiricaldatatosupporttheconclusionthataTNCsfailuretoservetheBoPwillresultinreputationallossesthatwill,inturn,leadtoreducedrevenuesorpro?r,fromtheperspectiveofinstrumentalCSR,ifsuchexternalpressureona?rmweredeter-minedtobeathreattopro?tability,anybusinessventuretargetingtheMEPthatrelievedtheexternalpressurewouldbejusti?lessofexternalpressure,fromtheperspectiveofinstrumen-talCSR,anyventuretargetingtheMEPthatcanbemadepro?tableshouldbeundertakenunlessthereisaclearexpectationthatundertak-ingtheinitiativewillresultinanoverallreductionin?rmpro?tabilityortheopportunitycostofoperatinginanenvironment,suchastheBoP,ac-countofCSR,bothempowermentstrategiesandexploitationstrategiesshouldbeundertakenwhenpro?trategyismorepro?tablethantheotherstrategy,view,theharmfulexploitationoftheworld\'spoorestpopulationsisanormativerequirementforsociallyresponsible?rmswheneveritispro?,?rmsshouldengageinharmfulexploitationwheneverdoingsoispro?lconsiderations,suchasrespectforbasichumanrights,arenotrelevanttoTNCstrategydevelopmentforitsownsake,oroutofconsiderationforrelatedethicalvaluessuchasrespectforpersonsorhumandignity,reatleasttwopossibleexplanationsastowhypr,advocatesofthisviewmaypresumethatarobustregulatoryenvironmentandsocialservicesfortheMEPaingwithsuchanassumption,itmaybepresumedtobetherr,itiswellunderstoodthatresourcescarcity,corruption,andinstitutionalfailuresinmanydevelopingnationshelpensurethdexplanationisthatproponentsoftheinstrumentalmodelofCSRbelievethatthe?duciarydutyofmanagerstoTNCshare-conceptionofCSR,theeconomicvalueofwealthcre-ationforshareholdersarforthispositiontobevi-able,proponentsoftheinstrumentalviewofCSRneedtoexplainwhytheagent-basedandsocialcontract-basedargumentssupporting

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–19141913basichumanrightsdutiesorresponsibilities(discussedabove)aofcorporateirresponsibilitymayalsobeutilizedineval-uatingtheimplicatongde?nescorporateirresponsi-bilityas“adecisiontoacceptanalternativethatisthoughtbythedecisionmakerstobeinferiortoanotheralternativewhentheeffectsuponallpartiesareconsidered”(Armstrong,1977:185).OnArmstrong\'saccountofcorporateirresponsibility,theeffectsofdeci-sionsregardingtheMEPmayimpactbothwealtingtotheanalysisprovidedabove,a?rmthatengagesinexploitationstrat-egieswhentargetingtheMEPwillcausethemtobewonstrumentalmodelofcorporatesocialresponsibility,thisharm-fuloutcomeisjusti?armtotheMEPcausedbytheexploitativestrategyistakentobesigni?cant,thismayberegardedonArmstrong\'xically,then,theinstrumentalviewofcorporateresponsparentinconsistencypointstotheneedforanaccountofCSRthataccingtoWindsor,anethicalaccountofcorporatesocialresponsibilitymaintainsthatTNCsshouldpractice“broadself-restraintandaltruism”inordertotakeintoaccountvaluesotherthanwealthenhancementforshareholders(Windsor,2006:98;seealsoMcWilliamsetal.,2006).However,Windsordoesnotdefendaparticularsetofnormsthatcanbeutilizedtoestablishaframeworkforcorporatepolicythatwillserveasabaegintopartially?llinanaccountofethicalCSRbynotingthattheexpectationsregardingtheabilityofTNCmanagerstoexerciseself-rhis,letus?rstnotethatTNCsoperateinmultipleregula-toryenvironmentjurisdictions,atadheretothein-strumentalmodelofCSRmustexerciseself-restraintinsuchcontextsinordertoadheretothelaw,evenwhenviolatingthelawwouldbemorepro?suchself-restraintwithrespecttothelawisexercised,nfrontedwithopportunitiestopursuepro?tableexploitationstrategiesoftheMEP,TNCsthatadheretoanethicalmodelofCSRwillenceptionsofCSRsharetheassumptionthatmanagersarecapableofguidingcorporatebehaviorbasedonconsiderationsotherthanmerepro?thicalreasonssupportrespectingbasichumanrightsgroundedinconceptionsofhumanagencyandinsocialcontractthe-ory,thousandsofcompanieshavecommittedtorespectinghumanrights,andinternationaltreatiesandconventionshaveendorsedogether,theseprovidegoodreasonsforbelievingthatoneelementofethicalCSRshouldberespectforbasichumanrightsandthatTNCsshoeofhumanrightsisuitofshareholderwealthisteratinginaglobalbusinessenvironmenthaveaparticularneedforuniversallybindingside-constraintsgiventhemultitudeofenvironmentsinwhichtheyoperate,andrespectforhumanrinottoclaimthatTNCshaveadutytosupersedegovernmentsortoacimdefendedhereisthatwhentheyengageinbusinessventures,TNCshaveadutytoreicoftheinstrumentalconceptionofCSRleadstotheconclu-sionthatdisrespectingimpoverishedindividualsbyexploitingtheirvulnerabilityandunderminingtheirbasichumanrightsisadutyofmanagerswheneverdoingdosoispro?economicvalueofshareholderwealthcreatialuesarerelevantaswell,sionsWhenTNCsengagetheMEPascustomers,theyshouldsuppor,theargumentsofthispaperdonotsupportthestrongerconclusionthattheTNCshaveadutytoundertakeventuresontheirownthatservetheMEP(ortheBOP)vedifferentcompetencies,experience,CsmaybeinabetterpositiontopartnerwithNGOsandgovernmentstobringappro-priatetechnology,suchasbasichealthcare,runningwater,electricity,orimprovedsanitation,enTNCsdotargettheMEPasamarketthatthedutytosupporthsense,thedutytopromoteMEPempowermentisnotmerelyaninstru-mentalresponsetoexternalpressurebycivilsocietybutabindingduty,theful?ytore-specthumanrightsisapplicableinthecontextofrelationshipsTNCshavewithconsumersorproducers,businessventuresthattargettheMEPshouldbeground-edinanawarenessoftheabilityofaproductorservicetoenhancecapabilitiesorfunctioesthatdonothaveaclearpotentialtoempowerthepoor,butinsteadunderminetheabilityofthepoortoachievebasichumanrights,maybelegitimatelycmiseofbusinessventuresdirectedattheMEPandotherBoPsegmentsisnotthatofincreasedconsumptionleadingtodignity,itisthatofspe-cializedproductsandservices,aswellaslaborandproductionoppor-tunities,empoweringindividualstolivemorefulleinstrumentalCSRcannotaccommodatethisconclusion,ncesAltman,D.G.,Rego,L.,&Ross,P.(2009).&Strategy,32(2),46–,J.,Siegel,P.,&Jorgensen,S.(2001).Assessingvulnerability:Aviewfromdifferentdisciplines,ankPublicationsWashington,on,J.L.,&Markides,C.(2007).anManagementReview,49(1),83–on,J.L.,Markides,C.,&Kupp,M.(2010).Thelastfrontier:Marketcreationincon?ictzones,deepruralareas,rniaManagementReview,52(4),6–ong,J.S.(1977).lofBusinessRe-search,5,185–,D.G.(2003).ssEthicsQuarterly,13(2),243–,D.G.(2009).Workingconditions:rt,&(Eds.),TheOxfordhandbookofbusinessethics(pp.628–656).:,D.G.(2010).ssEthicsQuarterly,20(3),371–,D.G.(2013).ssEthicsQuarterly,23(1),125–143.

,in/JournalofBusinessResearch66(2013)1904–1914Arnold,D.G.,&Williams,L.H.D.(2012).Theparadoxatthebaseofthepyramid:ationalJournalofTechnologyManagement,60(1/2),44–ee,A.V.,&Du?o,E.(2007).lofEconomicPerspectives,21(1),141–ee,A.V.,&Du?o,E.(2011).Pooreconomics:Aradicalrethinkingofthewayto?k:,E.,&Parente,J.(2010).rManagementInternational,56,11–rt,G.G.(1998).ssEthicsQuarterly,TheRuf?nSeries,1,7–ssCalltoAction(2008).TheCoca-Colacompany:vedfrom/wp-content/?les_mf/pbell,T.(2006).AhumanrightsapproachssEthicsQuarterly,16(2),255–,M.(1982).sey:Barnes&lIntelligenceAgency(2011).Worldfactbook,“literacy”.Retrievedfrom/library/publications/the-world-factbook/?elds/akravarti,D.(2006).Voicesunheard:lofConsumerPsychology,16(4),363–,A.,Martinez,C.,&Soberanes,B.(1995).Theeffectofmalnutritiononhumandevelopment:A24-yearstudyofwhaw(Ed.),Community-basedlongitudinalnutritionandhealthstudies:ClassicexamplesfromGuatemala,Haiti,andMexico(pp.79–124).Boston:s,D.,Morduch,J.,Rutherford,S.,&Ruthven,O.(2009).Portfoliosofthepoor:Howtheworld\'spoorliveon$sey:,W.(2002).Humanrightsandbusinessethics:rnalofBusinessEthics,27,205–,W.,Arnold,D.G.,&Muchlinski,P.(2012).ssEthicsQuarterly,22(1),1–,H.(2000).Themysteryofcapital:k:,L.,Messer,E.,&Millman,S.(1998).Who\'shungry?Andhowdoweknow?Foodshortage,poverty,k:son,T.(1991).:,B.,&Sorensen,L.(2007).Thecaseforacceleratingpro?t-makingatthebaseofthepyramid:Whatcouldandshouldthedonorcommunitybeseekingtodo,andwhatresultsshoulditexpect?JournalofInternationalDevelopment,19(6),781–,J.,Palazzo,G.,&Basu,K.(2009).ReconsideringinstrumentalcorporatesocialresponsibilitythroughtheMa?ssEthicsQuarterly,19(1),57–,N.(2007).OraationalJournalofDentalHygiene,5(3),180–,G.,&Prahalad,C.K.(1989).dBusinessReview,67(3),63–d,A.L.,Kramer,W.J.,Katz,R.S.,Tran,J.T.,&Walker,C.(2007).Thenext4billion:gton,D.C.:,M.,&Powell,K.(2006).ProcterandGamblepurpuri?erofwater(tm)(a):k,NY:en,V.,&Barnard,E.(2011).DanimalinSouthAfrica:,ON,CA:,K.E.,Burt,B.A.,&Eklund,S.A.(2001).lofDentalResearch,80(10),1949–d,J.(2008).LessonsforsuccessfulBOPmarketingfromCaracas\'lofConsumerMarketing,25(7),430–i,A.(2007).Themirageofmarketingtothebottomofthepyramid:rniaManagementReview,49(4),90–,S.J.(2009).Privatepoliticalauthorityandpublicresponsibility:Transnationalpolitics,transnational?rms,ssEthicsQuarterly,19(3),349–,P.,Roberto,N.,&Leisner,T.(2006).Alleviatingpoverty:Amacro/lofMacromarketing,26(2),233–,Y.,Rao,K.,Hu,T.-W.,Sun,Q.,&Mao,Z.(2006).Science&Medicine,63,2784–,T.,&Hart,S.L.(2004).Reinventingstrategiesforemergingmarkets:lofInternationalBusinessStudies,35(5),350–v,D.(2003).Whatthemarketdoestopeople:Privatization,globalization,a:ya,P.,Singhal,A.,&Svenkerud,J.P.(2004).TelenorinBangladesh(C):inbleu,FR:en,J.S.,&Shepherd,D.A.(2006).EntrepreneyOfManagementReview,31(1),132–iams,A.,&Siegel,D.(2001).Corporatesocialresponsibility:Atheoryofthe?yofManagementReview,26(1),117–iams,A.,Siegel,D.,&Wright,P.M.(2006).Corporatesocialresponsibility:lofManagementStudies,43(1),1–,K.E.,Mudambi,R.,&Narula,R.(2011).Multinationalenterprisesandlocalcontexts:lofManagementStudies,48,235–n,D.,Chambers,R.,Shah,M.K.,&Petesch,P.(2000).Voicesofthepoor::um,M.(2007).dHumanRightsJournal,20,21–ad,C.K.(2004).Thefortuneatthebottomofthepyramid:Eradicatingpovertythroughpro?sey:ad,C.K.,&Hammond,A.(2002).Servingtheworld\'spoor,pro?dBusinessReview,80(9),48–ad,C.K.,&Hart,S.L.(2002).gy+Business,26(1/4),2–rah,A.,&Shah,T.(2003).Annapurnasalt:or,MI:,J.G.(2008).Protect,respectandremedy:/HRC/8/NationsWashington,,J.D.(2005).k:,N.J.C.,&Laczniak,G.R.(2009).Marketingtothepoor:lofPublicPolicyandMarketing,28(1),3–,C.,&Mair,J.(2007).Pro?tablebusinessmodelsandmarketcreationinthecontextofdeeppoverty:yofManagementPerspectives,21(4),49–,A.K.(1993).um,&(Eds.),Thequalityoflife(pp.30–53).Oxford:,A.K.(1999).:,A.K.(2005).lofHumanDevelopment,6(2),151–,A.K.(2009).husetts:,S.,&Venkataraman,S.(2000).Thepromiseofentrepreneurshipasa?yofManagementReview,25(1),217–,H.(1996).Basicrights:Subsistence,af?uence,sey:,S.,&Bairiganjan,S.(2011).Thebaseofthepyramiddistributionchallenge:Evaluatingalterni,India:CentreforDevelopmentFinance,ovic,M.,Domeisen,N.N.,&Hulm,P.P.(2007).Newbusiness-NGOpartnershipshelptheworld\'ationalTradeForum,2,6–n,M.C.(1995).Managinglegitimacy:yofManagementReview,20(3),571–tedNations(1948).ldBank(2011).gton,D.C.:,J.W.,Kistruck,G.M.,Ireland,R.,&Ketchen,J.J.(2010).Theentrepreneurshipprocessinbaseofthepyramidmarkets:Thecaseofmultinationalenterprise/reneurship:Theory&Practice,34(3),555–ein,F.(2012).CSRandthedebateonbusinessandhumanrights:ssEthicsQuarterly,22(4),739–r,D.(2006).Corporatesocialresponsibility:lofManagementStudies,43,93–,A.W.(1995).PhilosophyandPolicy,12,136–usinessCouncilforSustainableDevelopment(2004).SCJohnson:,CH:,S.A.,Gedajlovic,E.,Neubaum,D.O.,&Shulman,J.M.(2009).Atypologyofsocialentrepreneurs:lofBusinessVenturing,24,519–532.