TOWARDS POVERTY ALLEVIATION FOR THE BASE OF PYRAMID: SOCIAL BUSINESS MODEL IN URBAN LOW-COST HOUSINGS

Purpose – this study investigates alternative a small-scale social business model that potentially generate sustainable income for households at the base of the pyramid. A comparison of two low-cost housings that have a different geographical condition and local characteristics is examined. Research methodology – this research adopted two-stage approach to address the research objective. A pairwise comparison was employed to evaluate alternatives based on selected criteria for decision-making. In the second stage, the proposed business model was assessed by taking into account investment, processing cost, and revenue. Findings – the findings of this research suggest suitable business model that combine profit orientation and facilitates social mission in urban settings. The business model offers attractive financial feasibility from the investor viewpoint and simultaneously engages low-income households to improve their prosperity level leaving the base of the pyramid (BOP) status. Research limitations – this paper is not involving division of responsibility between stakeholders in low-cost housing and BOP sector. This study also not discussed how social entrepreneurs play a role in the social business model. There is a need to further investigate how the impact of social entrepreneurs on this model and engage collaboration with interest parties to engage community development. Practical implications – the findings recommend strategies that can be used by policy-makers and other related stakeholders to scale-up the business model, empower more low-income households, and create new job opportunities for urban poor. The findings of this research also indicate social business model that enables households at the BOP to earn sustainable income and release their current poverty status. Originality/Value – the research is one of the few studies that explored alternatives to social business models available for urban poor by taking into account project feasibility. No previous research has been attempted to consider both pairwise comparison and life cycle cost approach in the development of social business models. This research can be found useful for those with similar issues not only in emerging economies but also in developed countries.

[1]  Sarah L. Jack,et al.  Scaling the right answers – Creating and maintaining hope through social entrepreneurship in light of humanitarian crises , 2023, Journal of Business Venturing Insights.

[2]  T. Hartmann,et al.  A multi-criteria decision-making framework for residential building renovation using pairwise comparison and TOPSIS methods , 2022, Journal of Building Engineering.

[3]  Wasay Majid Housing allowance and the perverse theory of housing outcomes , 2022, Urban Research & Practice.

[4]  G. Biglaiser,et al.  The effects of IMF loan conditions on poverty in the developing world , 2022, Journal of International Relations and Development.

[5]  Justin J. P. Jansen,et al.  Let’s Profitably Fight Poverty, Shall We? How Managers Use Emotional Framing to Develop Base of the Pyramid Ventures Inside a Large Fast-moving Consumer Goods Company , 2022, Organization & Environment.

[6]  S. Kraus,et al.  Diving into the uncertainties of open innovation: A systematic review of risks to uncover pertinent typologies and unexplored horizons , 2022, Technovation.

[7]  Jason Corburn,et al.  Property rights, public health, and planning for informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya , 2022, Journal of Urban Affairs.

[8]  Li Ma,et al.  The Poverty of Farmers in a Main Grain-Producing Area in Northeast China , 2022, Land.

[9]  D. Headey,et al.  Poverty and food insecurity during COVID-19: Phone-survey evidence from rural and urban Myanmar in 2020 , 2022, Global Food Security.

[10]  Veronika Agustini Srimulyani,et al.  Impact of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Motivation on Micro and Small Business Success for Food and Beverage Sector in East Java, Indonesia , 2021, Economies.

[11]  A. Milewska,et al.  Energy Sector Risk and Cost of Capital Assessment—Companies and Investors Perspective , 2021 .

[12]  P. Miraj,et al.  Economic feasibility of green office building: combining life cycle cost analysis and cost–benefit evaluation , 2021 .

[13]  G. McCarthy,et al.  The Rise of the Social Business in Emerging Economies: A New Paradigm of Development , 2020, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship.

[14]  Danielle A. Chmielewski,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Bottom/Base of the Pyramid Literature: Cumulative Evidence and Future Directions , 2020, Journal of Business Ethics.

[15]  Wei Zhao,et al.  The development and realisation of a multi-faceted system for green building planning: A case in Ningbo using the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process , 2020, Energy and Buildings.

[16]  H. Dahles,et al.  Social entrepreneurship and tourism in Cambodia: advancing community engagement , 2020 .

[17]  Elder Semprebon,et al.  Explaining Poverty and Business with Network Concepts Analysis , 2020 .

[18]  A. Sarkar The role of new ‘smart technology’ to provide water to the urban poor: a case study of water ATMs in Delhi, India , 2019, Energy, Ecology and Environment.

[19]  Patrick Spieth,et al.  Value drivers of social businesses: A business model perspective , 2019, Long Range Planning.

[20]  A. Amran,et al.  Internal oriented resources and social enterprises’ performance: How can social enterprises help themselves before helping others? , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[21]  B. Husted,et al.  Built to Scale? How Sustainable Business Models Can Better Serve the Base of the Pyramid , 2017 .

[22]  Jason Corburn,et al.  Slum Upgrading and Health Equity , 2017, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[23]  N. Foss,et al.  Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation , 2017 .

[24]  Jaideep Prabhu,et al.  Scaling up social businesses in developing markets , 2016 .

[25]  Kamal Ahmed,et al.  Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management , 2014 .

[26]  C. Koziol A simple correction of the WACC discount rate for default risk and bankruptcy costs , 2014 .

[27]  Ans Kolk,et al.  Reviewing a Decade of Research on the “Base/Bottom of the Pyramid” (BOP) Concept , 2012 .

[28]  Laura Michelini,et al.  New business models for creating shared value , 2012 .

[29]  R. Amit,et al.  The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research , 2011 .

[30]  D. Teece Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation , 2010 .

[31]  Bertrand Moingeon,et al.  Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience , 2010 .

[32]  C. Seelos,et al.  Profitable Business Models and Market Creation in the Context of Deep Poverty: A Strategic View , 2007 .

[33]  Ignacio Vélez-Pareja,et al.  Applicability of the Classic WACC Concept in Practice , 2005 .

[34]  C. Seelos,et al.  Social Entrepreneurship: Creating New Business Models to Serve the Poor , 2005 .

[35]  O. Jaiyebo Women and household sustenance: changing livelihoods and survival strategies in the peri-urban areas of Ibadan , 2003 .

[36]  Jonas Hedman,et al.  The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations , 2003, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[37]  Miguel Sidrauski Inflation and Economic Growth , 1967, Journal of Political Economy.

[38]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.