This document discusses the relationship between civil society organizations (CSOs) and businesses in the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector. It finds that while CSOs and businesses may have some differing objectives, with CSOs focused on community and businesses focused on profit, their roles can also be complementary. Evidence from literature and field work in Indonesia shows that CSOs work with businesses in various ways, such as providing training, acting as intermediaries between donors and social enterprises, and helping ensure solutions are sustainable in the long-term. Both incompatible perspectives and opportunities for collaboration are found to exist between CSOs and businesses in improving access to WASH.

1. THINK
CHANGE
DO
Incompatible Philosophies or
Complementary Roles?
Civil Society and Business Engagement in the
Water, Sanitationand John McKibbin
Tim Brennan And Hygiene Sector
Anna Gero, Janina Murta, Lee Leong, Juliet Willetts
Development Futures Conference, November 21st – 22nd 2013

2. Emerging trends and pathways to
address poverty
• Increasing recognition of need to use aid to
leverage local investment
• Recognition of lack of sustainability of
many aid programs and support
• Emergence of new organisational types
including „socially‟ minded business

3. “Enterprise in WASH”: Why this research?
Private & social
enterprise
+
CSOs
=
?
Mixed levels of
skills within
CSOs to work
with private
sector
Growing role
of small-scale
business
Growing need to move
beyond voluntary or
subsidised approaches

4. Incompatible philosophies?

5. Complementary roles?
CSOs providing training,
acting as intermediaries
Enterprise offering services

6. systematic review +
evidence from field work in Indonesia
Private and
social
enterprise
engagement
with CSOs –
what does it
look like?
What are the
outcomes for
the poor
resulting from
enterprise
engagement?
How aligned, or
not, are the
objectives and
incentives of
CSOs and
enterprise?

7. Literature Findings: Business Models
• Formal private operators working under licence
• Franchises and network models
• Informal private sector providers
• Importers, Retailers, and Wholesalers
• “One stop shop” / “Rural Sanitation
Marts” / “Sani-centres”
• Prefabricated concrete producers
• Micro entrepreneurs
• NGOs and CBOs
• User associations
• Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
• Large companies and international /
multi-national corporations

8. Literature Findings: Business Models
• Formal private operators working under licence
• Franchises and network models
Businesses are
Importers, Retailers, and Wholesalers
diverse, dynamic,
“One stop shop” / “Rural Sanitation
Marts” / “Sani-centres”
respond to demand,
Prefabricated concrete producers
context specific
Micro entrepreneurs
• Informal private sector providers
•
•
•
•
• NGOs and CBOs
• User associations
• Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
• Large companies and international /
multi-national corporations

9. Literature Findings: Private & social
enterprise engagement with CSOs
CSOs: bottom-up
role, capacity
building, enterprise
establishment; some
policy-level support
in water
CSOs as agents in
supply chain
CSOs: role in “formalisation” of CBOs
CSOs lack
business skills
& often
inexperienced
in engaging
working in the
private sector
CSOs: role
across, and as a
link
between, busine
sses
CSOs: engage in various aspects of the WASH private
sectors BUT little attention paid to sustainability of their role
CSOs: Sanitation Marketing: emerging trend for CSO
engagement with businesses & government

10. Literature Findings
Incompatible philosophies
• Outcomes for the poor: Business focus on profit, not
prioritising poor as customers
• Sanitation Marketing: capture least poor customers 1st, to
create aspirational model for poorer to access safer
sanitation
Complementary roles
• Pro-poor innovation – matching match design and
delivery of WASH products to specific needs of the poor
• Flexible pricing to enable poor households‟ entry into
market

11. Findings: Evidence from the field
Incompatible philosophies
Diversity of perspectives
• CSOs who didn‟t see a big difference – cases of
entrepreneurs with strong social motives
“there are
differences but not
serious…it‟s in line”
“I didn’t make any terms- 1 week, 1
month, 1 year-1.5 years- we’re not only
about business, it is a social purpose”.
• Market based solutions running contrary to concepts of
community self-sufficiency and sharing
“The least you’re dependent on the market, the more you’re
independent…when they have knowledge they have to share
it, not keeping it for yourself…[it’s the] spirit of sharing.”

12. Findings: Evidence from the field
Complementary Roles
• Ensuring long-term sustainability
“…when people have been triggered
[to want a toilet], and supply is needed,
our role is to pass on information
[about potential suppliers].”
“NGOs are funded on a
project basis. But if [it] can
transfer a project into a
business opportunity then it
can continue.”
• Intermediaries to allow support to be provided to PSE
from donors or from government
“Donors can’t directly provide
private sector because of
regulations”

13. Findings: Evidence from the field
Challenges
• Kind of support to provide to
PSEs
• Avoid promoting specific
enterprises
• Donor reporting requirements
focused on short-term targets
• Lack of knowledge and interest in
building PSE capacity amongst
government
“…real entrepreneurs should
sacrifice their own money to
start a business”.

14. Emerging trends and pathways to
address poverty
• Supporting „sustainable‟ small-scale business is
challenging, but possible
• Can‟t assume the poor will be targeted- needs
strategies to address this
• Social entrepreneurs, social-minded business
blurs the boundary between private sector and
civil society, and represents an important area of
focus in addressing poverty

15. Thank you
Contacts: Anna.Gero@uts.edu.au; Juliet.Willetts@uts.edu.au;
Janina.Murta@uts.edu.au