The past few decades have seen an increasing role for the private sector in poverty alleviation. The variety of names used to describe these initiatives-corporate social responsibility, social enterprise, base of the pyramid, impact investing, not-for-loss business, and corporate philanthropy-obscures the similarity among them: they all sacrifice economic profits in return for social impact. This article uses economic theory to develop a cost-based taxonomy of private sector initiatives in poverty alleviation by taking into consideration which costs are being subsidized. This highlights the incentive effects, allowing the donor to increase the efficiency and impact of the initiative.

Medical research consensus is that a poor diet is a much greater determinant of obesity than lack of exercise. However, the authors' primary research shows that only about half of lay people believe that diet is the primary cause of obesity. People who mistakenly underestimate the importance of a poor diet are in fact more overweight than people who correctly believe that it is the primary cause of obesity. The marketing, public relations, and corporate social responsibility campaigns of food and beverage companies consistently overemphasize the lack of exercise as the cause of obesity-the authors call this "leanwashing."

Can corporate social responsibility plans avert the tragedy of the commons? Or is selfishness an inherent part of business? Coca-Cola has long been criticized for its extraction of water from water poor communities. Faced with protests at the University of Michigan, Coca-Cola has agreed to an independent assessment. This case tells the story of what happened after the report gets back and asks students to decide if Coca-Cola has lived up to its stated principles. Or is Coca-Cola just green-washing?

Market-based solutions to alleviate poverty have become increasingly popular in recent years. Unfortunately, there are very few examples of profitable businesses that market socially useful goods in low-income markets and operate at a large scale. This article examines three case studies of multinational firms that tried to market unquestionably useful products-clean water, eyeglasses, and nutritious yogurt-to the poor but did not succeed commercially. The article also discusses two positive examples of profitable BOP ventures: mobile phones and detergents. Developing strategies for marketing socially useful goods to the poor, far from triggering a revolution in business thinking, requires firms to get back to the basic principles and rules of economics and business.

This case is about a major unmet social need: vision correction. Even though technologically this is a simple problem to solve - eyeglasses - it is not being solved. Over 500 million people with refractive error continue to do without vision correction and lead less productive lives than they could if they had eyeglasses.It would seem that private companies could profitably supply eyeglasses to the poor. Essilor, a French multinational company that is one of the world's leading manufacturers of plastic eyeglass lenses, has developed an innovative approach to selling eyeglasses to the poor in rural India. The case describes Essilor's strategy and provides enough data to do a simple economic analysis of the project. The case next describes VisionSpring, a NGO that supplies reading glasses to the poor in developing countries. The case question centers on whether the two approaches are working and challenges students to consider creative solutions.

The popular "bottom of the pyramid" (BOP) proposition argues that large companies can make a fortune by selling to poor people and simultaneously help eradicate poverty. While a few market opportunities do exist, the market at the BOP is generally too small monetarily to be very profitable for most multinationals. At the same time, the private sector can play a key role in poverty alleviation by viewing the poor as producers, and emphasize buying from them, rather than selling to them.