The next emerging market: A billion women

February 2, 2012

You would never dream of not investing in India. You would never dream of not investing in China. So why wouldn’t you invest in women? That question was posed by Beth Brooke of Ernst & Young at the launch on Wednesday of a campaign called The Third Billion that aims to empower women as a means to drive economic growth. The campaign is based on the notion that there are a billion women not participating in the global economy who should be.

“Every country, every company in the world is looking for growth wherever they can find it,” Brooke said at a panel discussion (which I moderated) at Thomson Reuters headquarters in New York. “Where is the growth coming from? It’s coming from the emerging markets … We historically think of those emerging markets as India and China and many others. But it is clear that women are an emerging market.”

DeAnne Aguirre, senior vice-president at Booz & Company, said the concept of the “Third Billion” comes from the notion that if China and India each represent 1 billion emerging participants in the global marketplace, then a third billion is made up of women around the world whose economic lives have been “stunted, underleveraged or suppressed.”

The figure is based on a Booz & Company analysis of International Labor Organization data on women in the global workforce that showed some 860 million women were excluded for one reason or another, a number forecast to rise to 1 billion in the next decade. (Many of those women are in India and China, of course, so there is overlap with the first and second billions.)

La Pietra Coalition, the global alliance behind the campaign, has identified five factors that contribute to keeping women from playing a more productive role: access to finance; legal and social status; barriers to entrepreneurship; lack of education and training; and labor policy and practice.

The group wants to bring together corporations, governments, NGOs and institutions such as the World Bank to address each of those issues.

Among those that have already partnered with La Pietra are Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs and Standard Chartered Bank. Brooke, who is global vice-chair for public policy at Ernst & Young, said a key goal of the campaign is to enlist more big companies.

“It is good for their business,” she told Reuters. “They have women as consumers.  They have women as employees. Their supply chains could be filled with women entrepreneurs.”

“The point of “The Third Billion” is that they will have so much more of all of that in the next decade — if they invest wisely,” she said. “The investment will add to their bottom line.”

For an audit and consulting firm like Ernst & Young, there’s a real possibility of payback. As Brooke says: “The entrepreneurs of today are our biggest and best clients of tomorrow.”

3 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

The whole world has the same problem, for once. It is the unintelligent, the illiterate, the uneducated, the unskilled, the unproductive, i.e. those without a job and no prospect of one that are reproducing like rabbits to form a bubble of people for whom society has no place.

In this mosaic, it may be that for a number of women of education and determination it may be possible to overcome the “five factors [of]…access to finance; legal and social status; barriers to entrepreneurship; lack of education and training”. But in the mostly male-dominated economic “basket-case” economies there is no shortage of “willing hands” but of jobs they can productively do.

In each of these, the need to get males economically productive is directly associated with civil unrest if they don’t. Each such job “taken” by a woman is one lost to a man. If the woman is smarter or better educated, and thus more inefficient in a given position, that fact only begets envy and further repression. Only in the desperation that is Africa does suspend somewhat.

In America we say what women could do during WW II. We also saw them “sent packing” back to the home and hearth when the men came home. How many years has it taken in the most progressive nation in the world for women to achieve a “place” in the American workplace?

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

Whole wrong section wrong in what was posted. Should read:

If the woman is smarter or better educated, and thus more efficient in a given position, that fact only begets envy and further repression. Only in the desperation that is Africa is this “reaction” somewhat suspended.

In America we saw what women could do during WW II.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

Yes.

Posted by WouldChuk | Report as abusive