The Intel

Too little and too narrowly.

We still treat the private sector as a donor, not a development partner. That’s a mistake. In a world of systemic risks; climate shocks, pandemics, economic instability, businesses are not just sources of funding. They’re engines of delivery, innovation, and scale.

The numbers are stark: global capital markets holdover $100 trillion in assets. Development aid? Less than $200 billion. The issue isn’t money, it’s the mechanisms to move it. That’s where the private sector comes in. Not to replace aid, but to multiply its impact.

The private sector is a central actor to engage in leveraging scarce public resources to mobilise much larger flows of private capital and build economic resilience. Blended finance, impact investing and venture philanthropy are by no means silver bullets. But they offer practical ways for public and philanthropic capital to reduce risk, attract investment and build more durable systems.

Take the Landscape Resilience Fund, mobilising private capital for climate adaptation. Or the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund, financing vaccines for diseases the market traditionally ignores. These are strategic investments enabled by public capital, delivered through market mechanisms that achieve development outcomes.

At the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), we’ve seen how small businesses in fragile markets, often dismissed as too risky, can thrive when supported by catalytic finance and local leadership. These enterprises drive jobs, innovation, and resilience. But they need systems that unlock, not obstruct, private capital.

The real question isn’t whether we’re asking too much of business. It’s whether we’re asking the right things — and giving them the space to deliver.

Private finance is often expected to fill the gap being left by governments and philanthropy, but this rests on assumptions that sometimes overlook commercial realities.

For the private sector, impact is valuable if there is demand for it. This is different to the development sector, where outcomes are measured in terms of public benefit rather than private returns. While alignment can exist between development impact and commercial value, it requires careful curation, matchmaking and long-term partnerships to make it work.

When incentives align, the private sector can be a powerful contributor to development. This was the case with Unilever’s Shakti program in India which worked because it opened new markets, and ANZ’s support for IIX’s Women’s LivelihoodBond, as it met client demand for commercial-grade fixed income products.

Cross-sector partnerships, and the skills to facilitate and unleash the power of the different organisations within them, remain critical. The private sector needs to work collaboratively and go beyond the usual suspects, to learn from the deep knowledge and insights from the development sector, and invest time and effort in long-term partnerships that create mutual value

This is core to what we do at the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute (ASFI), enabling private capital to understand the risks and opportunities for investment in emerging markets across the Indo-Pacific region, as well as bring together the range of partners across government, the development sector and the finance sector, that are needed to realise these shared interests.

Business can drive positive change, but it was never meant to shoulder the world’s development challenges alone. We are not asking too much of the private sector—but perhaps we are expecting too much.

Companies are part of society, so their responsibility goes beyond profit-making. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reflect this. In developed economies, responsibility often aligns with robust regulations. In emerging economies, where institutions are weaker, it relies more on moral obligation and philanthropy—the idea that success brings a duty to give back. In Thailand, for example, expectations are reinforced by religious and moral traditions of “doing good deeds”.

Corporate responsibility arises from moral duty and strategic interest. The first reflects ethical obligation; the second acknowledges that good citizenship can enhance a business’ reputation and profits. Both matter, but both have limits. Corporations ultimately answer to shareholders, and their capacity to act on moral duty and/or strategic interests is shaped by resources and leadership priorities.

Thailand offers a telling illustration: Joon Wanavit, founder of Hatari Electrics, donated US$24 million to public healthcare and was recognised as Forbes Asia’s only Thai “Hero of Philanthropy” in 2022. Larger, wealthier conglomerates have never appeared on such lists, showing that corporate responsibility often depends on individual commitment rather than wealth or visibility.

At a minimum, corporations should act as responsible citizens. Yet the concept of a “good corporate citizen” should go beyond simply avoiding harm and encompass meaningful contributions to development. This involves aligning business capabilities with societal needs, complementing public policies, and leveraging resources and expertise to tackle social challenges. The future of development depends not on asking less of business, but on asking wisely, while ensuring that governments, citizens, and communities also shoulder their share of responsibility.