Dairy

What We're Reading June 2014: Let's See Action

A few interesting articles and a podcast from around the internet.

Economic Times "What is holding back the social entrepreneur?" (15 May 2014)

Exhibit A for the “too much money is chasing too few entrepreneurs” case:

“An April 2014 study by Intellecap, a strategy advisory firm, highlights the gravity of the situation. Of the $1.6 billion invested in social enterprises since 2000, around 70% was in the financial inclusion space (both microfinance and non-microfinance). Of the investments that went into other sectors—including agriculture, energy, education, healthcare and livelihoods—about 67% was in just 15 enterprises.”

The article also does a great job of breaking down fund economics to explain why more patient investments in ecosystem are virtually impossible. Overall, it is a great look at the challenges faced by early stage entrepreneurs in India.

 

New York Times “Upscale Dairies Grow in India, Promising Safer Milk” (3 June 2014) 

This article is a nice look at how small investments in quality control and chain of custody management allow dairy companies and farmers to profit more from their efforts.

The connection between pro-poor business models and higher-end goods is growing. Here in Seattle, we have Theo Chocolate, a company that is working hard to create maximum social benefit in their supply chain. To absorb the higher costs Theo has had to create a $4 chocolate bar but rather than cutting costs, the company’s founder Joe Whinney has set out to create the best darn luxury bar he can. And Theo is not alone – the work Arthur Karuletwa is doing with Starbucks is very much in the same spirit

 

Outlook Business "Social Entrepreneurs Are Reinventing The Wheel" (24 May 2014) 

This is a fascinating interview with Intellecap’s Aparajita Agarwal as she talks about social enterprise in India, the differences from working in Africa, and the constant battle entrepreneurs face when they’re trying to differentiate themselves.

Most interesting for me was the point about entrepreneurs trying to make their idea feel truly unique. I suspect much of this need is driven by interactions with impact investors and the benefit narrative those investors are trying to build around their work. Unlike traditional investors who can look simply at the financials and management team in their due diligence, self-defined impact investors often need to have their imagination captured by the social benefits of the business. As such, entrepreneurs often try to tell a story about how their product or service is “revolutionary” or “innovative,” when the reality is that their business might be most socially beneficial and profitable if they could focus their efforts on the fundamentals.

There is a saying that has been floating around Upaya for a long time that seems relevant here – sometimes a business is not innovative for what it is doing, but for where it is doing it. This interview shows we might not be alone in that thinking.

Social Performance Metrics report 24% increase in the per capita income of MILK ROUTE dairy farmers

MYA-MILKROUTE.png

Committed to rural transformation, MokshaYug Access (MYA), the company behind the brand MILK ROUTE, in association with Upaya Social Ventures, released its first Social Performance Metrics report for 2012-2013. MYA undertook this evaluation to measure the social impact of its dairy business and assess the benefits MILK ROUTE has had on the lives of dairy farmers. The survey was conducted over a course of four months in 2012 and covered a total of 1,486 households across 269 villages in the districts of Tumkur, Mandya and Kolar.

According to key findings of the survey:

  • MILK ROUTE households reported a 24% higher average per capita income when compared to their counterparts (Control Group households).
  • By virtue of access to high quality cattle feed and veterinary services, MILK ROUTE households produced milk that consistently beat the industry’s average yield parameters, as measured by percentage fat and non-fat solids. These higher yields provided an additional 10% in earnings per litre for the households.
  • MILK ROUTE households were also able to provide, on average, 5.5 more litres of milk per month to their children compared to households that were not suppliers of the MILK ROUTE dairy. The choice to consume more at home versus selling the milk demonstrated greater income security in general.
  • As a result of increased, regular and transparent compensation combined with a support system that included access to training, high quality feed, and veterinary services— nearly 41% of all MILK ROUTE households reported dairy as their primary livelihood versus 25% of households before MILK ROUTE was introduced.

Harsha Moily, Founder and CEO, MokshaYug Access said, “One of MYA’s key objectives is to create income certainty for the farmers through our First-mile focus. It is encouraging to know that our efforts of transforming rural households are paying off. The social performance metrics survey helped us analyze our progress in our farmer centric approach and also helped us understand the gaps and what we need to do next to take this to the next level.”

Sachi Shenoy, Executive Director, Upaya Social Ventures added, “We believe in partnering with businesses that transform lives by creating dignified job opportunities. It is encouraging to see that MYA has had an impact on the lives of so many dairy farmers in Karnataka. This is just the beginning and we look forward to growing our association with MYA.”

METHODOLOGY: The data collection for MILK ROUTE involved both quantitative and qualitative approaches and relied on the usage of standard survey tools to directly collect and assimilate data from farmers. The SPM evaluation was carried out in three districts of Karnataka, namely Kolar, Mandya, and Tumkur. A total of 1,486 households were surveyed from 269 villages and fall into one of two groups: those who are suppliers of the MILK ROUTE dairy and those who are not (Control Group).

The process of narrowing down which MILK ROUTE households to survey included three tiers of selection criteria. In the first tier, milk procurement estimates were taken for each district to help in the selection of MILK ROUTE villages. Based on the percentage of milk procured from each district, a proportional number of sample villages were selected. Thus, 49% of the MILK ROUTE households were selected from Tumkur, 40% from Kolar, and 11% from Mandya, which roughly aligns with the fact that 48% of the total milk collected by MILK ROUTE comes from Tumkur, 44% from Kolar, and 8% from Mandya. In the second tier, the selection of individual villages was further qualified through purposive sampling. The only villages eligible for selection were ones that provided over 80 litres of milk per day to MYA. The third tier involved a random selection of households based on the short list of villages prepared through purposive sampling.

Control Group villages were selected in order to establish a proxy baseline to aid and assist in comparison. The selection of Control Group villages was completed through a matching process. This exercise involved each MILK ROUTE village being matched to a Control Group village based on key parameters such as economic activity, demographic profile, access to infrastructure, and distance to the nearest city. The selection of Control Group households was also purposive, i.e. those who did not own cattle were screened out.

To download a copy of the report,

click here

.