Monday, April 30, 2012

A Double Bottom Line Business Case for Serving Very Poor Households

Five weeks after having moved on from Grameen Foundation, I'm so pleased to announce that the fruit of a laborious two-year long study has finally materialized.  Today, the organization published "A Double Bottom Line Business Case for Serving Very Poor Households," a paper that I co-wrote with my colleagues Brian Slocum and Kate Griffin, which explores, as the title aptly states, whether there is a business case to be made for microfinance institutions (MFIs) to serve very poor populations:

"Does reaching the poorest households actually cost an institution more? Can organizations build sustainable business solutions while reaching poorer populations? Are clients who graduate from ultra-poor loan products into mainstream lending programs actually successful?

We are extremely pleased to announce the publication of "A Double Bottom Line Case for Serving Very Poor Households" written by Luckshmi Sivalingam, Brian Slocum, and Kate Druschel Griffin in which these questions are answered and more. This paper investigates the “double” (financial and social) bottom line implications for two microfinance institutions, Fonkoze in Haiti and The Small Enterprise Foundation (SEF) in South Africa, that have added product lines to serve very poor households. The analysis seeks to understand how two product lines that successfully targeted poor clients affected the ability of these MFIs to meet both their social and financial goals. In the process, we also articulated a methodology for creating a double bottom line business case for reaching very poor households.

The punch line? The targeted products contributed to social goals in significant ways, and poorer clients saw faster gains against social outcomes than less poor clients. Financially, for SEF - where the product was profitable - there was no significant difference in terms of portfolio quality, retention, or profitability between clients of different poverty levels. At Fonkoze, where the product cost $38 a person, clients stayed with the program longer and had higher repayment rates. This allowed Fonkoze to see the $38 as a reasonable client acquisition cost to attract and retain good clients while significantly contributing to their social goals."

To read the full study, please visit www.grameenfoundation.org/doublebottomline.

No comments:

Post a Comment