Content uploaded by Emmanuel Raufflet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emmanuel Raufflet on Nov 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Innovation in business-community
partnerships: evaluating the impact of local
enterprise and global investment models
on poverty, bio-diversity and development
Emmanuel Raufflet, Alain Berranger and Jean-Franc¸ois Gouin
Abstract
Purpose – Over the last decade, several innovative business-community partnerships have emerged to
address simultaneously two pressing development issues: poverty reduction and biodiversity
conservation. The purpose of this paper is to identify relevant models and to propose a first
evaluation of these models in relation to development.
Design/methodology/approach – The models were identified following a literature review and were
evaluated using Amartya Sen’s definition of poverty.
Findings – The paper identifies two models: the local enterprise model and the global investment
model. While the local model relies mainly on local resources, the global investment model includes local
and global organizations and institutions. The paper has analyzed the respective impacts of these new
business-community partnerships, including their governance schemes, on communities and
ecosystems through the lens of Amartya Sen’s definition of poverty and development. The key finding
is double. First, both these models are still in their very early stages. Second, the paper has identified the
strengths and weaknesses of each of these models: while the global investment model provides access
to solid and important financial resources and markets, the local enterprise model emphasizes local
empowerment.
Originality/value – This paper reports innovative initiatives and models of governance that could
inspire future private sector based approaches to biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction and
help build the theoretical bases for such approaches.
Keywords Poverty, Conservation, Tourism, Private sector organizations
Paper type General review
Introduction
Over the last decade, management researchers and business managers and leaders have
displayed an unprecedented interest in poverty-related issues from several perspectives
(Zadek, 2004; Hopkins, 1999; Wheeler et al., 2005). These include marketing and market
creations such as Base of Pyramid initiatives (Prahalad, 2004), social entrepreneurship[1,2]
(Bornstein, 2004), as well as the connections between nature conservation and poverty
alleviation (PriceWaterHouseCoopers, 2007). These approaches share similar concerns:
they aim to reconcile market and business approaches with pressing poverty reduction and
development challenges, more particularly in the developing world. Doing so, they echo the
need to better understand collaborative global and local governance issues (Zadek, 2005;
Moon, 2002) and partnered governance.
In this paper, we will focus on the potential contributions of new business-related models for
biodiversity conservation initiatives, especially in developing countries (Ten Kate and Laird,
2000). To do so, we will use the widely recognized definition and framework of poverty and
development as proposed by Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom (Sen, 1999). This
PAGE 546
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008, pp. 546-556, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 DOI 10.1108/14720700810899266
Emmanuel Raufflet is an
Assistant Professor at HEC
(Ecole des Hautes Etudes
Commerciales) Montre
´al,
Canada. Alain Berranger is
Executive in Residence at
the Schulich School of
Business, York University,
Toronto, Canada.
Jean-Franc¸ois Gouin is a
Private Consultant at Saint
Geniez d’Olt, France.
article is organized in four sections. First, we provide some brief background elements on
the nexus of poverty and biodiversity. Then second, we present the rationale for the
emergence of recently proposed business models to address this nexus. Finally, in the third
section, we highlight the two business models we identified: the local enterprise model
(LEM), and the global investment model (GIM). We evaluate the potential impacts of these
two models on communities, using Sen’s framework. We conclude this paper by identifying a
dilemma between access to global markets and local ownership and citizenship.
The biodiversity-poverty nexus
There is an increasing awareness that healthy and resilient ecosystems are essential to local
communities, societies, and to businesses (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; World
Resource Institute, 2005). In all, biodiversity is a key component of ecosystems resilience
(Holling, 2000). The biodiversity-livelihood nexus has always been part of rural survival and
development, including traditional livelihoods depending, inter alia, on medicinal plants,
subsistence agriculture and wild foods, livestock herding, bush meat, fish, water and
biomass fuel like wood and charcoal. Since the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
was signed in 1992, this nexus has taken on new meanings and forms, and one of the key
issues today concerns the legal and sustainable use of natural and biodiversity resources.
For instance, it has been noted that the world’s biodiversity is distributed largely in inverse
proportion to scientific and technological capacity (Macilwain, 1998; Ten Kate and Laird,
2000). Loss of biodiversity results from deforestation and land degradation, habitat loss, low
agricultural productivity, water scarcity, civil conflicts, and wars (Westley and Miller, 2003).
For example, some studies suggest that tropical countries with widespread poverty and
corruption are less effective at protecting their forests from fire (Nightingale, 2007). This
poverty-environment nexus is a major development challenge based on the time
inconsistency between short-term survival strategies of local populations and longer-term
environmental conservation of community natural resources (Leyeka Lufumpa, 2005). ‘‘Too
often, local people are forced to destroy the most precious capital they have – the
biodiversity and ecosystems in their own backyard. Breaking this vicious cycle of poverty
and biodiversity loss requires local ingenuity and the entrepreneurship to create new forms
of income from the preservation rather than the over-harvesting of nature’’[3].
Over the twentieth century, several approaches have been advocated to address the
poverty-biodiversity conservation challenge. The first approach has promoted the action of
governmental agencies in several forms, such as the creation and monitoring of protected
areas. However, these conservation efforts, despite being absolutely necessary, are not
sufficient. They are currently facing shortcomings. First, protected areas are crucial for
conservation, but the limited number of strictly protected areas – usually limited to 1 to 10
percent of overall land area – is most likely to be insufficient to conserve biodiversity, as the
vast majority of biodiversity resources reside in or near populated landscapes, which may
make it problematic to prioritize conservation objectives over other human health and
livelihood needs (Jenkins et al., 2004). Second, public funding for conservation areas, either
from local governments or international aid agencies has been declining over the last few
decades, which has led to reduced monitoring of both protected and mixed uses areas
(Jenkins et al., 2004). Last, it has often been argued that several of these state-led schemes
deprived locals from motivations and rewards for conservation (Scott, 1996). The second –
and more recent – approach has dealt with the promotion of decentralized, local
community-based natural resources management schemes. Following this disillusionment
with large scale management schemes, authors became ‘‘enchanted’’ (Agrawal and
Gibson, 1999; Ostrom, 1990) with community as a potential locus of collective action for
sustainable natural resource management. The conventional view of community these
‘‘enchanted’’ authors have elaborated especially emphasized three inter-related dimensions
of community: community as a small spatial unit; community as homogeneous social
structure and; community as shared common interests and shared norms. These three
dimensions would create the conditions for improved collective decisions, thereby
promoting sustainability. However, Agrawal and Gibson (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999)
proposed a critique of these three frequently mentioned arguments for community-based
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
PAGE 547
resource management: local communities may actually not be motivated by conservation
per se and may not lead to improved conservation outcomes. Given the limitations of these
two – state-led, and community-driven – governance approaches for conservation, and
considering the relatively recent concerns about biodiversity on the agenda of corporations,
new business models for nature conservation have emerged.
The new context of biodiversity, poverty reduction and business
Over the last few years, several initiatives have emerged on various levels, including
multi-stakeholder partnerships, a European Union-led initiative, multilateral aid agencies,
international businesses, and conservation philanthropy. Some of these initiatives involve
partnerships between local businesses, NGOs, communities, government and other actors
from developing countries together with international corporations, aid agencies and
financial institutions. For instance, the European Union has launched the EU business and
biodiversity initiative (Dimas, 2007) whose purpose is: to introduce biodiversity
considerations into corporate governance through voluntary initiatives, with a view to
contributing towards reaching the goal of halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2010
(Stigson, 2007). As for businesses, one of the earliest and better known cases of these
partnerships is the Merck/INBio agreement in Costa Rica of September 1991 (Blum, 1993) in
which INBio collected and processed soil, plant and insect samples evaluated by Merck for
potential medicines. This partnership provided alternative income to rural communities in
Costa Rica, helped protect biodiversity while facilitating Merck’s research efforts. Other
initiatives include a mutually beneficial partnership between DaimlerChrysler and
POEMAtec (Mugica and London, 2004) in which the latter provided coconut fibers to be
used to make headrest cushions, which exceeded DaimlerChrysler quality standards and
provided substantial economic, environmental and social benefits to the supplier. More
recently, PriceWaterHouseCoopers (2007) built on these examples of inspiring and
successful ‘‘Protecting through sustainable use’’ initiatives, and have proposed that these
new market solutions to conserve biodiversity services can take several forms, such as land
acquisition, payment for access to species or habitat, including ecotourism, bio-prospecting
rights, and fishing/hunting rights, as well as; payment for biodiversity-conserving
management or sustainable businesses, including: sustainable forestry (natural forests
and plantation management), non timber forest products, organic farming and wild
harvesting, and, last but not least, tradable rights for carbon emissions, and biodiversity
credits.
Through our research, we have found that these initiatives can be classified along a
spectrum with, the local enterprise model at one end, and the global investment model at the
other. In sum, whereas, the local enterprise model corresponds to a ‘‘bottom-up’’
management approach, the global investment model can be described as ‘‘top-down’’.
Historical precedents demonstrate that both approaches are valid and effective to prevent
the collapse of ecosystems and societies (Diamond, 2004), in particular when faced with
environmental problems such as deforestation and soil erosion. We will begin by presenting
the principles of these two models. Second, we will introduce the analytical framework
based on Sen’s definition of development and analyze the potential of these models for local
community development in light of this framework.
The local enterprise model
In the local enterprise model (LEM), an existing or newly created enterprise works with a
NGO and/or a company and/or a development agency to strengthen both its managerial
and environmental capabilities[4]. A logical flowchart of a local enterprise model is
presented on Figure 1. A community takes ownership of its surrounding ecosystem by formal
community business incorporation, usually of the simplest available legal form in the country.
It will organize its various livelihoods on the basis of the protection, restoration and
conservation of the natural resources using the business unit as the ultimate economic,
financial and environmental governance. The business unit also creates socio-economic
governance by mobilizing local capital and investing in improved social welfare (a computer
for a school, local employment preference, equipment for a local health clinic for instance).
PAGE 548
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
The local enterprise model differs from more traditional community enterprises in several
ways. First, while more traditional community models commonly simply link producers to
markets, a LEM aims to include the use of in-situ biodiversity through the involvement of
several local stakeholders and making monitoring participatory (Senyk, 2005). Two
examples illustrate this model. The first one is the Chamoli Tasar Pvt. Ltd (CTPL), a
community owned and professionally managed, limited company started in the Garhwal
Himalayas of India in 1996. CTPL harvests oak leaves to feed silkworms for the production of
cocoons spun into yarn sold on the silk market or woven into fabric. Start-up funding came
from a producer expansion fund granted by the Ford Foundation. The participating village
institutions, the Mahila Mangal Ddals and Van Panchayats, are the shareholders of CTPL.
The project is assisted by Appropriate Technology India, an NGO, with a view of building the
capacities of these village organizations. The number of rearers has grown from 25 in 1996to
59 in 1999 and cocoon production from 66,000 to 936,000 over the same period.
The second example is the Community Tours Sian Ka’an (CTSK)[5] in Tulum, State of
Quintana Roo, Mexico, which is a local not-for-profit ecotourism operator owned by
cooperatives of fishermen and farmers located adjacent to the Sian Ka’an Biosphere
Reserve, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. CTSK runs high quality tours for direct clients and
hotels clients from the Riviera Maya, south of Cancu
`n, into the Reserve. Its management and
staff are local Mayans who speak Spanish and English and are trained in modern
sustainable ecotourism practices. This model builds on the locals’ deep knowledge of
wildlife, including endangered species, their traditional culture that respects nature, and
economic motivations to balance livelihoods derived from natural resources. CTSK’s
success was achieved by a combination of local and external efforts, first with start-up
technical assistance from RARE, a conservation NGO[6], as well as, later on by the funding
Figure 1 Biodiversity and business – logical flowchart of local enterprise model
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
PAGE 549
and technical assistance from the United Nations Foundation and Employee Volunteer
Programs by Expedia.com, which continues to this day, all of which helped build the
capacity of CTSK. The support and marketing relationship with other local based World
Heritage Alliance members is also a factor. CTSK, is not yet profitable but is growing fast
(over 100 percent growth in clients in one year since the technical assistance from
Expedia.com in 2006/2007).
The global investment model
In the global investment model (GIM), financial investors collaborate with a large global NGO
in order to finance profitable initiatives that also contribute to poverty reduction and
biodiversity conservation. An investment model is flowcharted in Figure 2, adapted from the
PriceWaterhouseCoopers study for WWF (PriceWaterHouseCoopers, 2007). In this model,
the initiative for development resides with global conservation leaders or social investors. An
investment holding company is created to oversee a number of enterprises, organized by
region or by sector, that operate according to principles of sustainability. Local communities
are mobilized on the basis of local operating joint-ventures and trained in respecting
sustainable practices. The originality of this model resides in the business case at the
international or global levels for biodiversity conservation. In the GIM, not-for-profit
international conservation NGOs and philanthropists control an investment holding
company, which itself oversees operating companies. This structure ensures that
sustainability principles and natural land use practices are well respected, and provides
an opportunity for green philanthropy to blend with green capital markets, offering
sustainability guarantees to both types of investors. While the participation to
environmentally and socially sustainable projects represents an added value to
companies and investors, in particular with regard to reputation, public image and
employee turnover, the prime motivation to engage in these ventures is financial return. The
GIM is the continuation of the idea of the first European ‘‘Sustainable Investments Fund’ ’
(Scheiwiller, 2007) and stems from the increasing greening of the financial markets.
Figure 2 Sustainable investments for biodiversity conservation – financial /corporate structure
PAGE 550
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
By examining the LEM and the GIM we can see that these two business approaches do have
varying impacts on local communities as well as with regard to poverty reduction. We will use
the five dimensions of development of Sen’s framework in order to compare these two
models.
Sen’s approach of development
What are the potential contributions of these emerging business-community partnerships on
community development? In order to analyze this, we use Amartya Sen’s definition of
development. Sen’s definition goes beyond the more classical ‘‘low income’’ definition of
poverty, which tends to misrepresent the level of well-being of an individual or of a
community. Sen argues that the most important to human beings is not income or
consumption, but rather the capacity to realize their potential as individuals and groups and
to achieve what they truly value (Sen, 1999). Sen views the removal of un-freedoms, i.e.
obstacles that impede human beings from achieving what they value, as a central element of
poverty alleviation and development strategies. In this approach, Sen does not deny the
importance of income. Although income is most often a means to achieve other dimensions
of well-being, it is neither the only condition nor the end of the process of development.
The centrality of Sen’s conceptual contribution on poverty and development thinking has
been recognized in international development academic and practitioners’ circles and by
the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998. This broader conception of poverty and development
has influenced the creation of the Human Development Index by the United Nations
Development Program, which combines measures of per capita income with statistics for life
expectancy, schooling and literacy.
As such, this definition of development includes an institutional, more comprehensive view of
the word. This definition emphasizes five interdependent components of development:
political freedoms; economic facilities; social opportunities; transparency guarantees; and
protective security (Reboud, 2006).
Political freedom
The first dimension concerns political freedoms, defined as the right and opportunity to
participate in community life.
When faced with external threats to their local natural resources and related livelihoods,
communities often respond in many different manners, ranging from extremes of exile to
violent resistance. With improved capacities – including better business skills and a strong
local leadership – communities already organized around an entrepreneurial venture would
be better equipped to prevent crisis, respond to unforeseen events and devise more
appropriate response when faced with imminent threats.
Both models have a positive effect on political freedom but to varying degrees. In the Global
Investment model, the holding company, as a guarantor of sustainable practices will
presumably act to make sure to involve local communities in the decision-making process
and to build a vibrant, inclusive and democratic community. However, this call for community
involvement from an outside organization may be less empowering than if there is
community ownership through shareholding and control over operating policies. With its
emphasis on local leadership, the Local Enterprise Model also provides increased
independence to the community as a whole.
Economic facilities
The second dimension deals with improved economic facilities and access to markets.
If an enterprise strategy is part of the solution, it must slowly evolve through local leadership
and requires a favorable enabling environment and key external inputs such as marketing
and savings/credit. The business development value-chain analysis reveals that external
resources are critical to local enterprises in at least two areas: marketing strategy and credit
facilities.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
PAGE 551
Access to markets. The rapid growth of biodiversity-linked markets for certified organic
foods and beverages, certified wood products, ecotourism, fair trade products and channels
is encouraging. However, the value-added by local communities and well-intended
intermediaries is most often not reflected equitably in the profit sharing and wealth creation.
Typically, value-added increases downstream which results in some inequalities along the
value chain even in a ‘‘fair’’ trade relationship. These inequalities have sometimes been
justified by higher costs and financial risks. However, the value added by producers and
local intermediaries may not be fairly recognized and reflected in the profit distribution.
Interestingly, there is mounting evidence that native or local leaders, who master the
intricacies of the value-added marketing chain, generate larger returns to the local
enterprise if they renounce expatriation and stay involved in the local enterprise (CTSK is a
good example). In other words, global knowledge is retained locally.
Access to credit. Biodiversity conservation finance is a challenge. Biodiversity-friendly
livelihoods and business activities need to multiply if biodiversity conservation is to stabilize
current losses and possibly reverse the trend. Innovative funding models and mechanisms
need to emerge to tap the philanthropy and capital markets. The French development tax on
flying and the recent growing practice of purchasing air travel offsets are two examples of
such innovations.
The global investment model includes a mechanism to fund biodiversity conservation and
poverty reduction initiatives. Grassroots SME on the other hand face different challenges
with regards to funding for biodiversity-linked products and markets (Rubino, 2000). These
entrepreneurs, close to the habitat and the community (they act locally), are globally
informed (they think globally). However access to credit can be difficult especially for
mid-size projects for which micro-finance is not sufficient but who do not qualify for large
development funds. The banking business services in the South are generally available in
local currency, and rarely in foreign currencies, for established businesses but unavailable
for new entrants. The funding gap between micro-credit loan amounts and large domestic or
investment banking loans for established businesses is quite an obstacle to entrepreneurial
activities in biodiversity-linked businesses. The situation is similar with venture capital,
especially in Africa where the sector is nascent while being sophisticated yet inadequate for
social venture capitalists in Northern financial places.
Comparing the models. Both the local enterprise and the global investment model will
provide increase economic opportunities to the individuals and communities. In terms of
market access, each model relies on different strategies that will result in improved market
access, but both create a dependence on the intermediary NGO. In the global investment
model income and social benefits will be higher as a result of formal-type employment.
Moreover, access to large investment could potentially increase the economic sustainability
and resilience of the enterprises. This is especially true in the creation phase when
enterprises are more vulnerable or for activities that requires long-term investment before
becoming profitable, such as plantation forestry. On the other hand, the enterprises depend
on far away investors over which communities and individuals have limited or no control. The
local enterprise model may lead to slower economic development but to higher economic
freedom.
Social opportunities
The third dimension concerns social opportunities – education, health-care and other social
arrangements.
Education. Besides entrepreneurship and knowledge, the successful establishment of an
enterprise also requires a set of multi-disciplinary skills not easily found in rural communities
where biodiversity is concentrated. When the sons and daughters of the community end up
acquiring basic business skills, they most often do not return to their original villages. Any
private-sector initiative, regardless of the model chosen for its development will necessitate
the training of local entrepreneurs in basic business skills, language, ICT skills, how to deal
with clients/tourists, etc. The local enterprise model specifically relies on local knowledge
that is empowering and may help ensure that this knowledge is not lost but instead
PAGE 552
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
expanded, recorded and better transmitted. However, there are reasons to believe that the
holding company in the Global Investment Model will also make the best of local knowledge
as in many instances it is the asset that the business model seeks to exploit. For instance,
RARE Enterprises[7], provides training in language, nature trail building and other essential
skills for ecotourism. In addition, the training of local guides puts great value on local
knowledge of plants, animals, fishing techniques and local history. In essence the
combination of this local knowledge and acquired skills allows communities and individuals
to exploit the untapped economic value of their ecosystems and culture. With regard to
education, both models offer substantial advantages. It can be argued that the local
enterprise model because it generates greater empowerment will also result in greater social
opportunities. Indeed learning is often optimized with increased ownership of the educative
process. On the other hand, access to higher financial resources and market access
through the global investment model could free some time from the day to day business
operations which could be profitably devoted to learning and education.
Health. As for health, we assume that, economic opportunities, increased social cohesion
and better education will have a positive impact on health. More importantly, biodiversity
conservation and the protection of the local environment against pollution and destruction
will have a very significant impact on health for various reasons. These include in particular
the provision of clean water, access to a varied food base and to the local plants used in
traditional medicine. Beyond this, the natural environment carries deep religious, spiritual
and cultural implications that are essential to the well-being of populations. With regard to
biodiversity conservation, both models can lead to very good results. However, previously
cited research suggests that the more empowered communities are also more aware of the
necessity to protect their environment and are better equipped to do so.
Transparency guarantees
The fourth dimension is transparency guarantees – protection against arbitrariness. These
partnerships do not have a direct effect on protecting communities against arbitrariness.
However, they strengthen communities politically, economically and in terms of knowledge
and information. Therefore they can help create a social network that can help put pressure
against social injustices and arbitrariness. This pressure can be further increased by
creating mutually beneficial links between communities and potentially powerful allies such
as NGOs, companies and influential individuals who can help bring the local political
struggle on the international scene.
Protective security
The last dimension concerns protective security – social safety nets and protection from
adversity.
By providing communities and individuals with a stronger financial base, private sector
initiatives have the potential to allow communities to be better prepared to face adverse
circumstances: improved biodiversity conservation also contributes to a healthy, bio-diverse
ecosystem that is more resilient to environmental catastrophes, such as droughts, erosion
and landslides and will also reduce the impact of these events on the local community. The
two enterprise development models will be equivalent in that regard since they will both
result in the conservation of biodiversity.
Conclusion and further research
Business-community partnerships that provide sustainable livelihoods to local populations
while conserving biodiversity are innovative and promising approaches. We have identified
two broad models: the local enterprise and the global investment models. We have used
here an analytical framework based on Sen’s definition of poverty and development in order
to analyze the potential of these new partnerships on local communities. We have seen that
these two models have contrasted potentials for community development. In summary both
have merits and the strengths of one are the weaknesses of the other and vice versa. The
global investment model provides access to solid and important financial resources and
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
PAGE 553
markets while the local enterprise model emphasizes local empowerment. These
approaches are too nascent and the quantitative data too scarce to be able to draw any
definitive conclusion on their relative effectiveness in terms of poverty reduction and
biodiversity conservation; two areas for which results can only be measured in the long term.
These pioneering approaches have significant impacts on governance on several levels. At
the company level it requires a long-term vision which integrates communities and
biodiversity as valuable resources rather than obstacles to development. Governments from
the municipality to the national/federal level as well as global agencies must also help create
a business environment which is favorable to the emergence of community based
enterprises as well as an investment climate conducive to the kind of development
mentioned in this paper.
However, beyond these five dimensions proposed by Sen, we would like to highlight another
dimension. We argue that biodiversity, per se, as the freedom to access and enjoy clean air,
potable water and connection with nature was not identified by Sen as a separate dimension
of freedom. In all, environmental issues transpire throughout his analysis and, as we have
mentioned previously, they have significant impacts on many of the five dimensions of
development. There are many other services that ecosystems provide and which are directly
relevant to this analysis; the most obvious being of course the product (wood, plants, fruits,
etc.) or service (landscape for tourism, carbon sequestration, etc.) that the local community
seeks to exploit and market. Harold Levrel et al. (cited in Reboud, 2006, p. 163) propose an
example which illustrates the links between ecosystem services and capabilities, as defined
by Sen:Q A tree for instance can have the following characteristics: to provide wood, fuel for
heating, fruits, shade, a meeting place, to participate in purifying air and water, to help
stabilize the soil . . . To these characteristics, correspond the following potential capacities:
to be able to build a house, keep warm and eat, to offer protection from the sun and a space
for social interactions, to give access to potable water and clean air and to limit vulnerability
to natural catastrophe such as landslide during floods . . . (translation by the authors).This is
a reminder of the centrality of biodiversity for our livelihoods and lives in the biosphere.
These business community partnerships have the potential to contribute to achieving the
balance between human and nature.
Notes
1. Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship (www.schwabfound.org) (consulted on April 23,
2007).
2. Ashoka Foundation, (www.ashoka.org), (consulted on April 23, 2007).
3. See www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/equatorventures/EquatorVentures.htm (consulted on April 18,
2007).
4. Community Tours Sian Ka’an in Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico, working with RARE, Expedia.com and
the United Nations Foundation, is a good example.
5. www.siankaantours.org
6. www.rareconservation.org/programs/page.php?subsection ¼Rare%20Enterprises (consulted on
August 4, 2007).
7. www.rareconservation.org/programs/page.php?subsection ¼Rare%20Enterprises (consulted on
August 4, 2007).
References
Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (1999), ‘‘Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in
natural resource conservation’’, World Development, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 225-47.
Blum, E. (1993), ‘‘Making biodiversity conservation profitable: a case study of the Merck/INBio
agreement’’, Environment, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 16-45.
Bornstein, D. (2004), How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Diamond, J. (2004), Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Viking Adult, New York, NY.
PAGE 554
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
Dimas, S. (2007), ‘‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: the EU action plan and DG Environment’s
initiative on supporting business for biodiversity’’, Sustainable Investments for Conservation, The
Business Case for Biodiversity, Conference – Brussels, 22 February 2007, available at: www.pwc.com/
extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/4FE9CE9D78BFBE21852572890054ECC0/$File/commissioners_
speech.pdf (accessed 17 May 2007).
Holling, C.S. (2000), ‘‘Theories for sustainable futures’’, Conservation Ecology, Vol. 4 No. 2, p. 7.
Hopkins, M. (1999), The Planetary Bargain: Corporate Social Responsibility Comes of Age, St Martin’s
Press, New York, NY.
Jenkins, M., Scherr, S.J. and Inbar, M. (2004), ‘‘Markets for biodiversity services: potential roles and
challenges’’, Environment, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 32-42.
Leyeka Lufumpa, C. (2005), ‘‘The poverty-environment nexus in Africa’ ’, African Development Review,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 366-81.
Macilwain, C. (1998), ‘‘When rhetoric hits reality in debate on bioprospecting’’, Nature, Vol. 392 No. 6676,
pp. 535-41.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis,
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, available at: www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/
document.354.aspx.pdf (accessed on November 11, 2007).
Moon, J. (2002), ‘‘The social responsibility of business and new governance’’, Government and
Opposition, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 385-408.
Mugica, Y. and London, T. (2004), ‘‘DaimerChrysler – POEMAtec Alliance, partnering for mutual
success’’, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, available at: wbcsd.org/
web/publications/case/daimlerchrysler_poematec_full_case_web.pdf (accessed 17 May 2007).
Nightingale, K. (2007), ‘‘Poverty and corruption fuel tropical forest fires’’, available at: www.scidev.net/
content/news/eng/poverty-and-corruption-fuel-tropical-forest-fires.cfm (accessed 2 May 2008).
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Prahalad, C.K. (2004), The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Wharton School Publishing,
Philadelphia, PA.
PriceWaterHouseCoopers (2007), ‘‘Sustainable investments for conservation: the business case for
biodiversity’’, available at: www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/4FE9CE9D78BFBE
21852572890054ECC0 (accessed 2 May 2008).
Reboud, V. (2006), ‘‘Amartya Sen: un e
´conomiste du de
´veloppement?’’, Agence Franc¸ aise de
De
´veloppement, available at: www.afd.fr/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/users/admirecherche/public/
ND30_Amartya_Sen.pdf (accessed 2 May 2008).
Rubino, M. (2000), ‘‘Biodiversity finance’’, International Affairs, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 223-40.
Scheiwiller, T. (2007), ‘‘Putting good ideas to work: successfully establishing and operating biodiversity
enterprise funds’’, available at: www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/4FE9CE9D
78BFBE21852572890054ECC0/$File/scheiwiller.pdf (accessed 17 May 2007).
Scott, J.C. (1996), Seeing Like a State, How Certain Modern Schemes to Improve Human Condition
Have Failed, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Senyk, J. (2005), ‘‘Lessons from the equator initiative: community-based management by Pred
Nai Community Forest Group in the mangroves of Southeastern Thailand’’, available at: http://
umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/pdf/Tech%20Report%20Thailand%20-%20Jason%20Senyk.
pdf (accessed 2 May 2008).
Stigson, B. (2007), ‘‘Why ecosystems matter to business’ ’, World Business Council on Sustainable
Development, available at: http://wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type ¼DocDet&
ObjectId ¼MjMxNTU (accessed 17 May 2007).
Ten Kate, K. and Laird, S.A. (2000), ‘‘Biodiversity and business: coming to terms with the ‘grand
bargain’’’, International Affairs, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 241-64.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
PAGE 555
Westley, F.R. and Miller, P.S. (2003), Experiments in Consilience: Integrating Social and Scientific
Responses to Save Endangered Species, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Wheeler, D., McKague, K., Thomson, J., Davies, R., Medalye, J. and Prada, M. (2005), ‘‘Creating
sustainable local enterprise networks’’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 33-40.
World Resource Institute (2005), ‘‘The wealth of the poor, managing ecosystems to fight poverty’’, World
Resources 2005, available at: www.wri.org/biodiv/pubs_description.cfm?pid ¼4073#pdf_files
(accessed 17 May 2007).
Zadek, S. (2004), ‘‘The path to social corporate responsibility’ ’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 82,
pp. 125-32.
Zadek, S. (2005), ‘‘The logic of collaborative governance’’, working paper no. 3, The Corporate Social
Responsibility Initiative, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Corresponding author
Emmanuel Raufflet can be contacted at: emmanuel.raufflet@hec.ca
PAGE 556
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2008
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
