Should social entrepreneurs adopt the language and practices of business?

The debate is here:

http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/the_debate_zone/should-social-entrepreneurs-adopt-the-language-and-practices-of-business

One thing I found interesting is how Bunker Roy mentioned the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. I didn’t know it was the result of grassroots activism. It has undoubtedly been beneficial to the rural people, but it is so much less effective than a more “market-based” solution, but has ironically spurred the creation of a VC funded company (A Little World) that has helped create bank accounts for rural villagers, which will arguably do more good in the long run than the act itself.

Apparently there is a condition to the act which does not allow workers to work with certain types of tools, so they are not able to work on anything infrastructure related.  There are tons of people who are being paid by the government, but the jobs they are being asked to do don’t always fill a need – like cutting bushes in one case.

However, this nationwide scheme triggered an entrepreneurial idea called A Little World.  To get the employment funds to the workers, the government paired with “banking correspondents” which are non-profit organizations that deliver the funds to the rural villages. In an effort to keep this process corruption-free, the government requires a technology-based system.  A company called A Little World (which I wrote a case on) created the rural bank-in-a-box, which is essentially a cell phone, fingerprint reader and printer that creates real bank accounts for the villagers and allows them to receive funds.  Because A Little World used the language of business in their talks with external VC investors and banks, they are able to fund this project.  Thanks to the government program, they are able to reach a lot of people with their technology. Now the technology solution can be used to transfer money from the village out in a corruption-free way, which is helping lay the foundation of financial literacy in rural India.

I think that’s proof – passion, commitment and business savvy are ALL important.

Musical Thoughts have been remixed into Hot Spot Music

I am honored to be a contributing writer for the Hot Spot Music blog.  Though you’ll never know if it’s me or not, that shouldn’t make a difference because this site is a fantastic way to hear new music on Spotify. I like to click on the Listen Now! button at the bottom and choose DefCon1, which collates hand-picked, very exciting new albums.

An Evaluation of the Global 100 Sustainability Index

This is a reproduction of a project Thom and I did for our Strategy and Sustainability class.  We got an “A”, so I thought it was worth sharing our thoughts on the Sustainability Index to highlight the difficulty in quantifying sustainability across industries.

Part I: An evaluation of the Global 100 Sustainability Index

1.    The Global 100 claims to be the definitive global sustainability benchmark

1. This is not a universally accepted index, unlike the stock market itself and is therefore not subjected to the same rigorous processes
2. The index is static and does not reward year on year improvements (ideally include both)
3. Index covers only public companies, though private companies lacking shareholders to answer to may have more freedom to pursue innovative sustainability strategies
4. The methodology was changed in 2010, making previous years’ indices less useful.  A metric needs to stay consistent otherwise it has no value since conclusions on progress cannot be drawn.  A good example of this is that GE was not even ranked in the top 100 in 2009 and was placed 1st in 2010 – an unlikely reward for instant performance?

2.    Global Sustainability Research Alliance (GSRA) compiles research

1. GSRA covers 95% of equities in N. America, Europe and Korea and 30% of equities in emerging markets, and is thus biased toward developed countries.
2. There is a possible conflict of interest with bank-based research as the alliance likely picked from its clients and would miss any external companies; also banks stand to benefit from their clients making the list

3.   GSRA isolates from this research the top 300 performers out of 3,000

1. The methodology used to distill these 3,000 is not fully disclosed, but we are told that credit and solvency are considered as are security market valuation.  We believe that financial strength should not be “married” this early with sustainability leadership because it confounds the true sustainability metrics from the beginning and precludes innovative sustainability practices at smaller firms from gaining attention.

4.   CKRG assesses these 300 against 10 ESG KPIs

1. Not all of these factors deserve equal weight, and therefore the winners are “average winners”, and successes in one area will drift to the bottom. Many measures reduce the effectiveness of any one measure.
2. More detailed metrics should consider net “greenness” for the world and reward specific efforts (Should oil companies be allowed in?)
3. It is not explained how sector weightings from the MSCI ACWI were used, but MSCI covers financial information and not sustainability factors, so this does not address the previous concern (2).
4. KPIs were identified after numerous reviews by finance specialists, and not scientific or sustainability-related experts.  Only a survey of investors and interviews of asset managers were sited in an ESG context, as well as the experts sited on the Global 100 site, but their relative importance is not clear. (4)
5. Data was not available in all cases and neutral scores could cover up for extremely negative scores that companies simply did not report.

5.   Inflection Point Capital Management provides a final round of vetting

1. The proprietary model is a black box and appears to be open to subjectivity

6.    Resource indicators are forward-looking

1. The majority of resource data is unaudited
2. We don’t believe sustainability rankings should reflect the future.

7. This analysis relies heavily upon the research stating that successful programs must support the dual objective of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gasses and maintaining economic growth

1. Perhaps economic growth should be replaced with competitiveness

Interpretation of the 10 KPIs

Energy/Carbon/Water/Waste Productivity: Since the measure uses revenue per unit of energy/carbon/water consumed it is natural that larger, resource-intensive companies will benefit from economies of scale. This does not seem to consider whether these companies are using innovative solutions to deal with the output of these resources (i.e. carbon capture/trading, selling the waste) or if their companies are naturally greener in these areas.

Leadership Diversity: Reverse anti-discrimination measure should not be used to reward companies.  Promoting women in business is great but it should be on merit and not part of any sustainability measure with equal weighting to environmental destruction factors

CEO-Worker Pay Ratio: Different industries will have different structures (some autocratic, some democratic and some meritocratic) and this should not be used as a consistent metric. It is not clear if the data includes bonuses and it is only 30% complete.

Tax Paid: This is a legal requirement and not a sustainability matter and will unfairly bias companies in different regions where laws differ and c0rruption may play a role (See Ex. 1 for a comparison of tax factors by region)

Sustainability Leadership/Remuneration: There is no numerical distinction between companies and how they measure/reward sustainability incentives.

Innovation Capacity: This KPI does not include a) any measure of effectiveness or productivity of investment made and b) a stipulation of investment in sustainable products.  For example, a company could be highly ranked even if they spend a lot of money on R&D to create more and unnecessary products that create additional waste (New disposable cleaning products made with hazardous chemicals, for example)

Transparency: Whilst it is important to have transparency, this should implicitly be a necessary condition for the reporting not a measure used to weight its outcome.
Conclusion: The methodology is biased toward large publicly traded companies from developed countries and, despite it’s claims of transparency and simplicity, introduces arbitrary gateways in the process undermining the measure itself.  The majority of review is done according to financial results and there are no significant areas in the process requiring scientific rigor and third-party verification.  It attempts to do too much (to become the ‘definitive’ measure) and because of this loses the ability to be particularly insightful in any one place; indeed, the equal weighting rewards mediocrity and brings the overall measure into disrepute (see Exhibit 2 for an example of how Nokia outperforms GE at nearly all criteria despite being ranked 4 places lower).  It is our belief that it would greatly benefit by narrowing the focus of its analysis by considering only the first four consumption criteria and leaving the less tangible social factors to a different index.  The problem with ‘sustainability’ as a buzzword is that it is too encompassing and lacks a concrete and implementable factor – something that this index exacerbates.

Part II: Strategic Opportunities for Inditex, a Global 100 Company

To look at the links between financial and sustainability performance, we first compared the other listed retail companies: H&M and Kingfisher.  From the graph, Ex. 3, it can be seen that though many of the data are missing on H&M, it ranks higher than the other two with only one solid gain in carbon productivity over the others. Energy, water and waste productivity were not listed.  From preliminary evidence, it appears that a lack of data, rather than financial performance could be the biggest factor in positioning on the list.

As for Inditex, the links between sustainability and financial performance are notably related to the unique strategy of the company. Shipping intensive and with lots of retail outlets, Inditex is understandably low in energy and carbon ratings, but these elements of their fast-fashion model are tied directly to strategy.  Inditex scored high in water and waste productivity likewise because of its well-tuned logistics, high-tech machinery and production strategy.  Clothes are often cut and styled on a last-minute basis, which removes the uncertainty of sales, and decreases waste and makes efficient use of machinery.

Inditex’s poor performance in carbon consumption (according to our calculations, Inditex emits as much CO2 as a small African country – see Exhibit 5) comes, by large part, from their shipping costs and fast product cycles.  A core part of their business model, this will prove difficult to change.  This represents another fundamental flaw in the Global 100 rankings.  The areas in which the strategy align – water and waste specifically – along with some of the less environmentally rigorous KPIs allow companies like Inditex to seem sustainable despite their highly destructive levels of carbon and energy.

However, Inditex seems to be interested in strategically improving their sustainability ranking with actionable and aligned projects.  Their Carbon Footprint Project includes many initiatives like greener transportation and energy efficiency in stores (6).  The eco-efficiency measures aim to reduce electricity use in their stores by more than 30%, which is estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 36 tonnes of CO2 per year (5).   The company also plans to use biodiesel for transportation, and will train drivers in efficient driving techniques. Inditex is also developing an analytical tool to help identify the carbon footprint of factories and products for comparison across locations. (6)

To the extent that Inditex implements these projects, there is potential to lighten their carbon emissions and energy efficiency.  Improvements in transportation efficiency and store energy usage are feasible and attractive.  Analyzed with the criteria of improved financial return, improved energy and carbon efficiencies, acceptable implementation cost, manageable risk and strategic alignment, these projects appear to fit.  The highest cost of implementation will come from the development of the monitoring system, but once in place promises to lower costs in other areas by helping managers identify problem areas.  Happily for Inditex, the problem areas are in their stores and their transportation, which while necessary for their strategy are areas they can improve on with minimal cost to the benefit of their reputation and with potentially very high financial benefit.

Sources:

1. Global 100, Criteria and Weights:  The Definitive Global Sustainability Benchmark.
2. The MSCI All Country World Index, http://www.mscibarra.com/products/indices/international_equity_indices/definitions.html#ACWIASIAXJP
3. http://www.inflectionpointcm.com/
4. Thomson Reuters Extel and UKSIF 2009 Socially Responsible Investing Y Sustainability Survey Results, 28 July, 2009.

http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/tf/tf_gen_business/2009_07_28_extel_uksif

1. Massimo Dutti receives the first “A” Energy Rating awarded in Spain to a retail store http://www.inditex.es/en/press/other_news/extend/00000754
2. Strategic Environmental Plan 2007-2010
3. 2010 Global 100 List spreadsheet download



Exhibit 4: Inditex Scores
Global 100 Rank	12
Energy Productivity (US$)	$4,839
Industry Group Percentile	64%
Carbon Productivity (US$)	$39,934
Industry Group Percentile	31%
Water Productivity (US$)	$44,170
Industry Group Percentile	100%
Waste Productivity (US$)	$1,224,073
Industry Group Percentile	88.8%
Leadership Diversity	22.22%
CEO-to-average worker pay	33:1
% Tax Paid	100.00%
Sustainability Leadership	0.00%
Sustainability Remuneration	No
Innovation Capacity	No disclosure
Transparency	76.19%

Exhibit 5: CO2 Emissions calculations
Net Sales*	$10,400,000,000
Carbon Productivity (US$)	$39,934
=> Carbon Emissions (tons)	260,430
Carbon Output of Guinea-Bissau	279,000
* Taken from 2008 Annual Report on www.inditex.com
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

WiHood Bracelets Make Computer Education Portable

This post originally appeared on Ashoka Tech.

Across the globe, the computers used in underfunded schools share similar characteristics.  Outdated hardware grumbles to a start each morning to serve classrooms crowded with children.  Slow processors and limited storage space confine the possibilities for learning computer skills and using the Internet.  The students in these classrooms have never dreamt of owning their own PCs and cannot fathom the world on the other side of an Internet connection – they have enough on their minds at home.

Yet in many of these places, the speed of the Internet connection is ample for mainstream computing purposes and children are eager and excited to learn.  WiHood, a name originating in the phrase, The World is Your Neighbor, offers a virtual personal PC that overcomes the physical barriers to digital learning by making clever use of cloud computing and modified USB drives.

The WiHood USB bracelet holds open source versions of Microsoft-compatible software packages, an email client, RSS reader, games and a child-safe web blocker.  The bracelets plug into any computer and allow users to see their very own familiar desktop and access their files stored in the cloud at WiHood’s servers.  The portable, personal device bypasses computing and storage bottlenecks, ensures the safety of personal documents and gives students familiarity and ownership in their digital learning. As is sometimes the case in social enterprises, the value of the product is hard to pin down – between the software, the pride in owning something, the power of information, the safety of hosting documents online and the fashion statement, it covers a lot of ground.

Founded in Norway in 2007 and the United States in early 2008, WiHood aims to, “provide the possibility for a future of opportunities.”  The WiHood bracelet and service are available all over the world and usable at any internet-enabled PC and have thus far been sold in the United States, Europe and Africa.  The service was designed to work on 10-year-old PCs to maximize the educational return on scarce and outdated computer resources.  By storing all files online, the service works as fast as the internet connection will allow, making use of the lastest available technology while bypassing the computing bottleneck of slow processors that plague inner-city and rural schools.

Last year, WiHood connected the 465 students at Chelelemunk All Girls Boarding School in Kenya with their own WiHood PC accounts and continues to work with aid organizations and NGOs with reach in needy areas.

Currently in alpha testing and coming soon to its user community, WiHood Mobile will be the iPad equivalent for digitally developing areas.  The service will allow users with WiHood accounts to access their own unique phone number through their desktop and send or receive SMSs and phone calls through their accounts.  Instead of needing a PC and a phone, users simply need WiHood, the more durable, portable and wearable iPad.

Founder and CEO Thomas Anglero is no stranger to the technology industry.  One of the first pioneers of Voice over IP, Mr. Anglero is familiar with the ability of the Internet and technology-equipped education to connect and educate people around the world.  Mr. Anglero’s background includes work as a Senior Advisor to the executive team at Telenor AS, (the first mobile operator to offer services in Bangladesh as Grameen Telecom in a partnership with the Grameen Bank) and as CEO of Truly Global Inc. and CEO of Free World Dialup.

In a personal interview about the development and future of WiHood, Mr. Anglero said, “There’s a human element to everything.  The bracelets are made of silicon and non-toxic ink, so they are relatively harmless to the environment.  The service itself maximizes the use out of assets without creating additional waste and as a company, we prefer to hire local people to conclude projects so they benefit from the extra income and we don’t spend the money and waste in traveling there.”

By creating an easy and portable solution for anyone without their own PC, WiHood aims to enable an easier computing experience, thus facilitating computer use and helping to bridge the digital divide by engaging students in learning.  WiHood bracelets are available on Amazon.com, its global distributor.

I made a house! A gingerbread house!

I don’t think anybody thought I was serious when I said I was going to take a break from final projects to make a gingerbread house.  I was! It was nice to build something in a medium other than Excel. Yes, those are teeth – candy teeth.  I think Dali would approve.  I decided to go with a Dali/Gaudi inspired look in honor of amazing Barcelona.
Unfortunately, the house is not actually real gingerbread because I couldn’t find ginger at the store and was far too time pressured to go to the market.  No complaints were sounded when we ate it last night.  I think they were silenced when I brought out the extra icing.

The Anti-Poverty App: Coming Soon from the iTunes Store

It’s a strange world we live in where people on one side of the planet can earn a living creating iphone applications while those on the other side are using hazardous kerosene lamps to work into the night. Luckily, the 1’s (and 0’s) of change are a-blowin’ – in the Western world, that is.  Social and environmental issues are given more and more attention by creators and providers of technology, businesses and business schools and others. These people are increasingly interested in using their technological, managerial and financial resources to empower the intelligent, hardworking local people who have been tiring over these issues for decades. Whether because we’re finally realizing that our planet and people need attention, the increasing access and immediacy of information is making it hard to ignore, or the collective Western workforce is looking for transcendental motivation, it seems we’re on the right track now. At a time when our industrialization is catching up with us, the fruits of technological innovation are feeding powerful change. In enacting this change, partnerships and co-creation with developing nations are necessary to ensure the technological innovations suit local needs best and that the value created is distributed equitably.

Here is some exciting evidence of technological innovation, which I’ve grouped into the four categories of a product portfolio, which I think can help identify the impact made by innovations, inventions and everything in between.  (Source: Prof. Martínez de Albéniz, IESE Business School).

Breakthroughs
Cost efficient and micro-sized products, to me, classify as product innovation breakthroughs. These include LED lanterns (Philips, D.Light), variable prescription glasses and other radically new products that solve pertinent problems and create new categories. Arguably encouraged by C.K. Prahalad and his proposition that business can be done profitably with the base of the pyramid, the creative recombination of technology from the North for the purpose of conducting business with the South can yield maximum-impact new product innovation. 

Platforms
The use cell phone networks to overcome the lack of physical infrastructure is incredible. Services range from crop information for farmers (Reuters Market Light) to banking capabilities (M-Pesa) to anti-corruption verification and money transfer (ZERO) and others. New applications of existing structures have the power to create massive social change -through  empowerment and livelihood generation.

By-products
1. Advances in clean energy can be used for development and also enable the use of other power-operated devices.
2. Repurposed gadgets like cell phones, and eventually ipods and ebook readers can be powerful development tools.  Arguably, the ebook is a transitory technology that will meet its demise with the advent of tablet PCs and more efficient devices. When this happens (or before, if the technology becomes cheap enough) the technology or the discarded devices can be sold cheaply as multi-level textbooks that can bring libraries of knowledge to the developing world. 
3.  As technology creates changes in company organization, the rise of virtual enterprise will provide opportunity to anyone, anywhere who can get the job done. (From Samasource to name-that-multinational)

Support
In the Support category, I would put variations on existing technology that do not require any technological change, such as the use of social networks for consumer research with the Base of the Pyramid (BoP source), or blogs to disseminate information on the activities of social entrepreneurs, thereby inspiring more people to get involved and connecting people in the South to the resources available in the North.  Also, increased access to cell phones can facilitate the reporting of crimes and election fraud, like the Ushahidi platform.

To explore the interconnection between technology, innovation and social change is to dive into a deep and refreshing sea.  These few examples provide some hope and excitement for what is to come. In bringing these innovations to market, we in the West who are slowly becoming aware of these opportunities must use our tools to empower those who understand their country, its people and their unique needs. Then, the vast potential for impact is incalculable.

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public are hosting Tech 4 Society, a conference exploring technology, invention and social change, in Hyderabad, India, in February 2009. Find out more about the conference here. This blog post is an entry in their competition to find the official blogger to travel to and cover the event.

When is Real Life Again?

I originally posted this article on IESETech.ning.com, IESE’s Technology and Media blog

I just read this article in The Economist

On the surface, it seems that the future is supposed to be a place in which our entire lives are enacted virtually. Businesses will run by employees who make up a swarm of temporary pinpoints surrounding the planet. All of our goods and services will be ordered in from screen store facades. Indeed it seems that book and music stores will be partially, if not entirely replaced in the not-so-distant future. It’s a sad and lonely future world I picture in which people sit at home all day ordering the things they need to go about their lives at homes and offices in which they fail to interact much with other humans.

But obviously this is never going to happen. People don’t just need “caves” as the article mentions, but want and need to interact with other humans. Likewise, it will be sometime, perhaps more than our lifespan, until all the people of the world are digitally connected in order to have this privilege, and until they are culturally accepting of virtual business.

What is important for managers today and tomorrow is the ability to tap into comparative advantages in local markets around the world and to run their businesses so as to benefit from disjointed organizational charts. In the process, they must somehow capture what surely are the unique benefits of this structure without losing the value of teamwork and relationships. These changes are of course already happening.

What is far more interesting, in my opinion, is what we can design to fill in the gaps where virtual enterprise fails. For example, people like bookstores. How can we create a substitute that saves trees and sells ebook readers while providing a similar browsing experience? People inherently like to collect things. How can we virtually store our enovels and music downloads in a way that looks and feels like a home collection? Along with these questions, we will also need to consider how the virtual future and the ease of consumption it promotes will be reconciled with the increasing need to protect the planet from electronic and other waste. Perhaps the virtual world can be part of the solution.

The future world of virtual worlds is already here. Let’s think about what to do when virtual gets old.

I’m reminded of another article.

Active Investing & the Shift to Profit

At last week’s EVPA (European Venture Philanthropy Association) Conference, Pieter Oostlander, Managing Director of Noaber, discussed how active investing can multiply investment impact.

Noaber is an internationally charitable group which operates as a venture philanthropist under the Noaber Foundation label and a (social) venturer under the Noaber Ventures name. For venturing, the group deploys two separate funds. Hochst Investments Ltd is a venture capital fund that aims for a financial return only, whilst George Avenue LLP is a social venture capital fund that focuses on a a blended return (combination of a social and financial return).

Pieter shared the story of an organization that came to Noaber with a grant request for building a software program to use in schools for special needs students. Traditional foundations would have given the grant for the software. However, Noaber noticed that the software could and should benefit many other schools beyond the reach of the grant-seeking organization. Instead of simply funding the request, they connected the organization to partners and developed and sold the software. Now, the revenue is enough to return money to investors and provide funds for maintenance, which would otherwise be funded through additional grants. Noaber have also identified new applications and markets for the software. By offering connections, assistance and advice, they multiplied the impact of their investment.

I couldn’t hep but get excited about the idea of NGOs-turned-social-enterprises and this new wave of philanthropic investment. When a few friends and I started what was to become Reach the World – Chicago in 2004, we were at university. We knew we wanted to create a web-based, but dynamic educational program for kids that would connect them to a more global education. We didn’t know a lot else – we were juniors in college. We met with professors at Kellogg and Northwestern and took in advice from many sources. For a brief period, we were adopted by the Kellogg Social Enterprise Incubator, but promptly booted out when they decided to reserve the honor only for masters students. During this time, we settled upon the nonprofit business model and incorporated as Tradewinds Educational Resources. Days after graduation, we drove to New York City and met with Heather Halstead, founder and Executive Director of Reach the World. A few weeks later, we were the Chicago branch of Reach the World.

After a successful 6 years, RTW-C is exploring ways to move toward a profitable approach. If we had been advised early on to structure it as a social business from the start, we could have created a better program, faster, with the ability to pay a full time director from the get-go. Significant impact has been achieved, but I believe the shift toward profitable enterprise will bring a range of new opportunities and increased impact.

The social landscape is changing and with the growth of active investing, its horizons are growing exponentially. It’s an exciting time to be in the social business world.

Fast Fashion: Fast Landfill

Business school professors have fallen in love with fast fashion. Characterized by small production quantities, fast moving inventory, assortment rotation and quick response, the likes of Inditex’s ZARA retail chain are making a killing with the aid of slick IT systems and supply chain logistics. It’s no wonder we are being preached the wonders of this new consumption vehicle in nearly every class – from the perspective of Marketing to IT, Strategy, Operations and even Business in China & India, the model is admirable.

Indeed, Inditex has changed the way people buy clothing. Just like how McDonald’s revolutionized the restaurant industry, ZARA and other stores have encouraged people to consume and dispose of fashion like never before. Whilst this is obviously good for the economic bottom line, what are the implications of fast fashion on the social and environmental “bottom lines”?

1. More CO2 emissions from increased shipment?
It seems that the fast fashion model would create more CO2 and more waste. However, it is possible that producing in large quantities from farther away locations (Asia to Europe twice a year) could create more CO2 than those produced by smaller, frequent and closer shipments (from Europe to Europe).
2. More waste from disposable clothing?
With this shift, seems to have come a shift toward lesser quality, or in the least, expendability – ZARA says their clothes are designed for 10 wears. As people buy higher fashion more frequently, they create more waste as their clothes fall apart. There is also waste created by unsold items from the “slow fashion” model, but these clothes can be sold and used by other markets, whereas used clothing waste is simply waste.

Perhaps the continuous factory jobs are good for development in some countries, but this too is not likely to create a big impact considering that the clothes in the Fast Fashion model are produced in more developed countries.

While the data is lacking, it is clear that fast fashion (also, in electronics) encourages consumption and disposal, which if not dealt with properly, could lead to significant increases in waste and pollution. What are companies doing to ensure their customer loyalty strategy doesn’t ruin the planet?

Crisis? What Crisis?

Friday we had a fantastic guest speaker at IESE – Nando Parrado. Many are familiar with the story: his rugby team was flying from their home in Uruguay to Chile for a game. The plane crashed in the Andes and 15 survived after 72 days in the mountains. Nando was one of two who hiked out and sent helicopters back to rescue the rest. . It was the most moving and personal, as well as inspirational and motivational speech I’ve ever heard. He didn’t talk about his own numerous business successes, just about his story and life. It’s rare to find a speaker with such amazing credibility when it comes to perseverance and teamwork, and so humble. He colored in, in black and white, the things that matter: Family, friends, staying alive.

At the end, nobody could talk. He had packed this center of 800 people from around the world (the executive and African programs were on campus in addition to us MBAs and all the aisles and walls were lined with more people) – and he calmly asked for questions at the end, but I don’t think anyone had anything to ask because any question seemed unnecessary. The whole place was dead silent after the applause, and we were all standing up from it, but sort of frozen not wanting to leave: awed, inspired.

His entire demeanor made me, and probably everyone, understand that he’s been to another level of thinking and existing that puts life into sharp perspective. The title given to the lecutre, “Crisis? What Crisis?” makes that point.

Nando talked about the team knowing one another quite well before the accident, and how quickly they organized themselves to face the challenge of living in the Andes. He talked about returning home after all this to find his belongings had been given away or sold: How easily the world continues without you. Yet he managed to get his life together. The teamwork and perseverance they exhibited are unbelievable. The element of chance, too was frightening. He said that since that experience, he’s never had trouble making a decision.

.

If you want to learn more, you should see the “Stranded! The Andes Plane Crash Survivors 1/11″ clips on You Tube. There are 11 segments uploaded to complete the video. It captures the incredible brotherhood far better than the Hollywood adaptation, Alive, does.