The Solar Lamp Effects

When benefits of solar lamps for rural communities are highlighted, the focus is usually on income, education, health and environment. Like recent data that links to child academic improvement, it shows solar lamps can improve student grade because they allow increased study time at night. There are other appeals like better illumination and zero toxic fume release. But the question is: Is the data meeting the expected assessment rigor to prove significant educational outcomes as claimed?

Current findings on benefits of solar lamps usually display 3 characteristics: 1) Benefit claims vaguely linked to poverty alleviation or life quality 2) Favorable secondary data to infer positive impact 3) Generalized results with research based on selective communities. I find it equally misleading to use marketing slogan like 'Now the poor no longer have to live in darkness' as if to imply there's absolutely no meaningful educational or economic activities when the night comes, downplaying the fact that villagers have been relying on less energy efficient kerosene lamps all the while. I also don't know what methodology is behind the research on educational benefits, it'll be grossly simplistic attribution without any comparison to students who don't even use solar lamps and study solely in daytime or study at night as well with kerosene lamps.

Resource constraints of social enterprise startups to perform rigorous assessment are well publicized, it's also unrealistic to expect causal link that solar lamp usage can effectively tackle broader goals in poverty alleviation at this stage. But the concern is making this limitation acceptable and barely making any significant effort to improve data quality in the future. Well-funded social enterprises that sell solar lamps have been around longer than 2 years, is it not possible to show more rigorous social impact data than what we currently have? I have no intention of judging hastily that they aren't committed enough, but if investors and social enterprises are truly committed to measuring impact of any product or service sold to the poor, it's just not enough to highlight impressive financial growth and market size year after year without showing more maturity in assessment and solid social impact data.

To Give or To Sell?

The idea that social enterprises can scale faster and become more sustainable with profit is usually popular in news stories that highlight social entrepreneurship. No doubt, anecdotes that highlight the potential of selling low-cost and high-quality products to alleviate poverty captivate attention, but the reality is not always as rosy as journalistic interpretation when it comes to potential return and social impact.
 

Recent J-PAL finding shows that even low costs can discourage the poor from using life-improving products through a series of randomized control trials in different settings. It concluded that charging small fees doesn't always encourage users to take up the products or use them more effectively as claimed before. 

While we can try to discredit its methodology and results, but I think we will miss the point. The study is not meant to discredit market-based approach where most might take longer time to yield impact, but it's demanding evidence to back up passionate claims of market potential and subject market experiment trials to rigorous examination. Even though J-PAL didn't go deeper to explain key reasons why market experiments didn't work in those settings but I think the most important message is that we need deeper understanding over the fundamental question of whether products should be given free or sold.

Amid fervent enthusiasm in advancing market-based approach, it's even more important to remind ourselves over and over again that profit orientation won't suddenly be the panacea in poverty alleviation effort. No matter how favorable it may appear to social enterprises, we need more evidence to back up claims that the poor can truly benefit from it.

Has Marketing Gone Wrong in The Social Sector?

When it comes to marketing effort by NPOs and social enterprises, the common goals are attracting funding support, promoting their programs and potential in general. Telling anecdotal stories to appeal to funders and project potentially systemic impact has also become a key feature. But the truth is, the core purpose of marketing is never about communicating solid evidence of social impact first and foremost.

Common reasons are well told, like programs are not ready to be assessed, lacking resources and expertise to begin with, funders don't demand or support such initiative, etc. Despite the fact that current social sector repeatedly emphasizes a new level of accountability and transparency, there's still lacking rigorous examination in how marketing should be conducted. If the intention is genuine, it's time to hold the sector accountable to self-scrutiny without the need of external pressure.

There's really no secret formula but the key is really about initiative even with little support and funding, there's no excuse not to begin with an impact assessment & communication plan compatible with the level of resources available. I don't think we need alleged CAI scandal as a wake-up call, it's simply the basic obligation of social sector to get rid of the tag that says 'a lot of marketing effort (and funding to do so), but with little outcome to show for'.