I know myself just how draining that is. And lifestyle change seemed so daunting. I mean the very phrase insinuates huge change.
But then one little change fixed everything.Instead of trying to fix my diet, or change my habits overnight, I decided to fix my mindset.
But I didn’t, and still don’t use any willpower to maintain this at all.
And to be honest… it wasn’t really that hard at all.
I’m not trying to sell you shit.
So what did I do?
1) I told myself it would take time.
2) I let myself be human, and cheat or fail every now n then. Well, regularly, to be honest.
3) I took a step back and changed how I looked at food.
4) I challenged the thought processes that made me keep wanting to eat, while I was eating. I challenged these regularly. I rewarded myself regularly with congratulations and self-applause when I made the right choice. If I couldn’t help it, I’d make an excuse, knowing that I was forming neural networks that would solidify in the long run.
5) I SLOWLY – we’re talking 1 pizza slice less per month – reduced my portion sizes.
6) I ATE WHATEVER I WANTED – and let myself be human, knowing, that by reducing my portion sizes slowly over time, my stomach would get smaller and my brain would form neural pathways would make NEW thought processes that would become my habit.
The most important part of this process is STEP NUMBER 3! Repeating step 3 for JUST THREE WEEKS HAS MEANT…
7) I didn’t have to do anything else. I don’t have to do anything else. Ever. Neuoroplasticity has ensured that I never
have to try to diet or lose weight, EVER.
That’s it.
But keep reading to understand WHY step 3 is important, and how you can and should be doing this.
Check out my 40 page book which summarises all of this and cites everything
I hope it can help. And email me if you ever wanna talk. Keep reading on and I hope this helps.
Everyone talks about how they can’t stay on a diet and how they can’t find the time to do exercise… They talk about how hard it is to make changes in their life and how they just don’t have the willpower or ability to be healthier people.
But even while on 50mg of prednisone, a corticosteroid (which increases your appetite, screw around with your hormones and energy metabolism, and eat away at muscles) and even while I was still getting some chemotherapy which makes me anaemic for a one or two weeks every month, I didn’t find it hard at all.
All I did to become a healthier person was change my MINDSET.
I made healthy habits and eating less – a habit. The path of least resistance.
Automatic. And you can too.
Doctors all tell us that weight loss requires a lifestyle change, rather than drastic, quick-fix 12-day-detox/Biggest Loser boot camp solutions. And they’re right. You should look to lose weight AND keep it off. It’ll help you with heart problems, lower your chances of diabetes, reduces your risk of cancer and also – a healthy diet can make you feel better, more energetic than ever before.
But the words “lifestyle change” imply that it’s hard, that it requires constant effort and struggle to do, and that’s a big reason why people aren’t willing to make that change.
Eating the right foods, and getting some exercise on a continuous basis IS vital to weight loss. But what’s even more important is if you can maintain that way of living.
In hthis picture, I was sitting at around 106-107kg. I was trying everything to get fit and lose weight. I started juicing, cutting carbs out of my diet and went out, trying to run, get back into my old sprint training and back into the weights. And that was working – as it would for anyone – for a few weeks at a time.
Before: 107kg
But with my low immunity putting me into hospital with infections every few months, with my treatments lowering my bloodcounts, I kept getting sent back to where I began from over and over again… and it was frustrating as hell.
I yoyo dieted. Like crazy. I calorie counted. Stopped carbs. Intermittent fasted. Got into calorie deficits.
But dieting is hard. Forcing yourself to not eat is unnatural and really hard to do consistently.
I wanted to lose weight and become as fit as I was before cancer… I wanted to see results… but they just weren’t coming.
But after a while of this, I took a step back and saw that I was going through a cycle over and over again. It’s the same cycle a lot of yoyo/fad dieters go through.
I wanted results and I wanted them NOW. But they weren’t coming.
You don’t need huge “willpower” to do it. All it takes are a few small changes in how you view things.
But I’d lost nearly 20kg. It looks like a lot, but really, it was 1kg/week.
The only time I gained weight again after that first burst of weight loss was 5 years ago, when I got a third cancer in my ribs, was in hospital, and when I thought I’d need chemo again. I got back to my normal weight 6 months after that. Without trying.
So how exactly did I get there?
And how can you do this too?
1) I told myself it would take time.
2) I took a step back and changed how I looked at food.
3) I challenged the thought processes that made me keep wanting to eat, while I was eating. I challenged these regularly. I rewarded myself regularly with congratulations and self-applause when I made the right choice. If I couldn’t help it, I’d make an excuse, knowing that I was forming neural networks that would solidify in the long run.
4) I SLOWLY – we’re talking 1 pizza slice less per month – reduced my portion sizes.
5) I ATE WHATEVER THE DUCK I WANTED – and let myself be human, knowing, that by reducing my portion sizes slowly over time, my stomach would get smaller and my brain would form neural pathways would make NEW thought processes that would become my habit.
6) I didn’t have to do anything else. I don’t have to do anything else. Ever. Neuoroplasticity has ensured that I never
have to try to diet again.
In more detail and for the science, keep reading. If you’d like to read the whole science kinda thing, and check out the papers behind this – check out my 40 page book which summarises all of this (all free, lol, I should monetize this to grow it, but I’ve got no time and really would only monetize it to reach more people).
But yeah. I hope this helps. Email me if it does or if you wanna talk anytime.
# 1 – I Told Myself that it Would Take Time
–> This is one of the most important realisations you’ve gotta make. No matter how much we want it to, results don’t come in a few days. But they do come.
The trick is to not only remind yourself of this – but to keep looking at the big picture, on your entire journey – as this will make maintaining changes easier to accomplish. Instead of falling down in a heap if you can’t resist that desert at a party, you’ll remind yourself that the amount of times you had been good, and that in the long run, you were on the right path.
The science only helped me further believe, hell, it made me KNOW I could do it. But I mean it only made sense… I was only beginning my journey to get healthy – I was starting from scratch. It would take time to get to where I wanted to go. It wouldn’t happen overnight.
But that wasn’t a bad thing. I mean, it’s simple statistics. If I did things generally right, over a long period of time, I’d get to where I wanted to be. And by looking at it this way, I wasn’t forcing myself into doing something I didn’t want to – I was ALLOWING MYSELF TO BE HUMAN. knew I wouldn’t give up, or worry, or hate myself if I had a few slip-ups on the way either.
That’s exactly how you should look at weight loss, or any goal for that matter. It’ll give you the best chance of getting there (and of staying happy on the way too).
#2 – I Took A Step Back, and Made SMALL Changes To How I LOOKED At Food
–> Instead of making huge, drastic changes to my diet, or instead of starving myself, I
- Took a step back, and
- Questioned my current habits, until I saw
- An alternative perspective, or way of looking at things, that would leave me healthiest
A self-distanced perspective is described as that of someone looking at themselves as if they’re a fly on the wall. In the short term, this stops you from reacting emotionally, it reduces blood flow to limbic centres – it makes you more logical – and in the long term, it stops you from ruminating, or lingering over, things you can’t control.
When you do take that step back, your medial pre-frontal cortex, which, when firing, is associated with feelings of negativity, fires less. It’s shown to increase the ability for depressed people to think more broadly, and fixate less. It’s shown to make you more objective – you’re more likely to understand, and be realistic about things like understanding your chances of winning the lottery by doing it. Older adults, demonstrate lower blood flow to emotional centres of the brain and because of this, are what we call wiser – more logical, less likely to react emotionally, and they’re also more likely to be happier too.
You’ll get the person most likely to motivate you on your side –
YOU.
Motivation works best when it’ comes FROM YOU!
3) I learned about how neuroplasticity worked, and made it MY HABIT to look at food in the most healthy way.
This is the most important step.
Key to this whole process’s success, is reinforcing this. Walking through that thought process over and over.
Neuroplasticity, can basically be broken down to this principle. “Neurons that fire together, wire together.”
Your brain sends signals in coordinated patterns. A thought is merely the combined, coordinated firing of a chain of connected neurons. The connection points are called synapses, junctions, into which pour ‘neurotransmitters’. Neurotransmitters attach to receptors and basically enable electrical signals to pass between two neurons.
The more these synapses fire, or the more these junctions have neurotransmitters ooze into them, a process called “long term potentiation” occurs. Neurons become more and more likely to fire together, because an increased exposure to neurotransmitters leads to less neurotransmitter being required to mount the same response next time (‘refiring’ lowers the threshold to allow a connection to fire), and also creates a larger impact when a signal is given.
Over time, a group of neurons firing together which underlie a movement, a habit, or a thought process, solidify into a cortical map. This video outlines this in easy to understand principles. If you’re keen – go watch it (remember, the reason why I outline all these things is so that YOU understand, and thence, can SEE how this process will work in you, making YOU more likely to succeed).
When you practice something, be it learning to shoot a basketball, a ditty on the piano, or to create a new habit, it’s hard to even coordinate an action at the beginning. But the more and more you do it, the easier it becomes. At a cellular level, this is because those synapses that create the desired effect – of you getting a shot in, playing the right notes, or remembering to put your keys in that one spot – as you’re trying to do them, become stronger than that of you missing, stuffing up or forgetting.
That’s how your learn.
That’s what neuroplasticity is.
Thinking takes effort. It was suggested that chess grandmasters burn up to 6000 calories per day while playing. Though a gross oversimplification with broad assumptions, it’s very much true.
Neuroplasticity is basically your brain making it easier for you to access a thought you use often. When thinking “Why am I eating this?” for a few weeks (and it only takes 3 – 6 weeks to develop firm neural links that are Harder to break than bad habits), it’ll become so easy it becomes automatic. You’ll find yourself asking yourself “Am I really enjoying that last bite?” and “Am I really valuing the extra $0.005 of rice I’ll throw away here, more than the hundreds of thousands I’ll spend facing coronary events in my 50s or 60s?” ALL THE TIME.
It becomes easier to fork out one less spoon, pick the healthier option, or just enjoy a few chips rather than scoffing down a packet, than it is to do the opposite. Doing the opposite won’t even make sense.
They key to making it through the 2 weeks?
Rewarding yourself, over and over, and allowing yourself to be human too!
Neuroplasticity is the foundation of learning, memory and habit formation.
And it works best when you give yourself a GOAL to accomplish, and get there by reaffirming BEHAVIOURS which eventually solidify into THOUGHT PROCESSES that become your habit.
That’s where reinforcement of the above ‘process’ of
1) Taking a step back and then
2) Breaking down your major obstacles into chunks that you can counter and follow
Is one that you need to practice.
Let’s use muscle memory as an example. Sure, it’s easy enough to visualise a goal of increasing your first serve percentage in tennis. But you have to serve over and over to create connections between your cerebellum and cerebrum (major parts of your brain that are responsible for coordinating movements), and solidify them as an automatic process.
Self rewarding is key to focusing the effects of neuroplasticity. When you pat yourself on the back, you release dopamine which solidifies neocortical maps as they form.
And as stated earlier, not only does self affirming, rewarding yourself when you get closer to your goal with a little “YES,” lead to dopamine firing which focuses neuroplastic map formation, the closer you get to a goal, the more dopamine you fire as you get there. Meaning it actually becomes easier and EASIER to maintain a habit the longer you do it.
It’s why, when you have focused and gotten a few good serves in, the next few become easier. The more and more you practice your serve, the higher and higher your serve percentage goes up.
When you combine this with you not being too hard on yourself… it creates an amazing feedback loop of you continuing to pump yourself up, pick yourself up when you need to, and you relishing as you grow and grow and grow.
So don’t feel too bad if you do eat a little bit more one meal. Because in the LONG run, as long as you make positive decisions, you have no way to go but become healthier and happier.
Neuroplasticity, self-rewarding, and goal setting is key to weight loss.
But what actual “hacks” can you use to get your mind on your side? That’s what the next section is about.
4) How to actually Hack your Stomach, and Your Brain on Food?
i) Reduce your Portion sizes. SLOWLY:
When trying to reduce how much I ate – I realised that, especially with foods I liked, I was just gulping down food down by the spoonful. But in truth… I wasn’t really taking the time to savour them. The first 5, 10, maybe 15 spoonfuls or bites were most enjoyable. The last few… even with my favourite foods, well, to be honest, I was really only trying to finish off what was left.
To change that I made small gradual reductions to my portion sizes. I started savouring my meals and once I realised I was full, I’d just leave it, put it in the fridge or throw it out, and next time take out less.
Over time… the portions got smaller and smaller. When going out… if I didn’t really feel like finishing off my plate, I’d just leave it and ask if anyone else wanted a few bites. I was brought up on the whole “Finish your plate, there are children in Africa who’d KILL to have what you’ve gotten!” sort of mentality… and it’s true. We waste tremendous amounts of food, and do need to respect it more.
But why was I destroying my veins, my health, my vitality to assuage this preconception, when I could instead just take out a few less spoons, order a medium (and in time, a small) meal instead of a large one, and pack away good meals for breakfast or lunch the next day, and feel better for it?
Your stomach usually has a capacity of 200mL, but can stretch to hold up to 1L in most humans, by relaxing smooth muscle cells which comprise most of its wall. Over time, however, if not stretched to larger limits, the stomach loses the number of smooth muscle cells, and pacemaker cells (those which cause coordinated digestive contractions), leading to lowered capacity to relax. Furthermore, levels of neurons which release nitrous oxide, which promotes relaxation of smooth muscles, also reduces in patients who have lost weight recently.
So over a period of a few weeks, slow, sustainable reduction in meal sizes will cause you to lose the ability to eat larger meals over time!
It’s interesting to note that even after a while of this kind of fasting, even after overconsuming, average stomach stretchability did not return back to normal levels, meaning you’ll have the ability to have the occasional splurge without starting back at square 1 again.
But key to all of this working is the neuroplasticity of your mind. It’s widely conceived that you need huge willpower to resist the temptation to continue eating. But the simple changes in the way you think about food described above is what ensures you’ll get to that stage where your stomach adapts.
Neuroplasticity is the brain’s ability to form new cortical maps – linkages between series of neurons – in response to various scenarios. ‘Neurons that fire together, wire together,” is the basic principle on which this idea is built – so reminding yourself that
- You like food, but hate that fatty, full feeling afterwards
- You like food, but often shovel in the last few bites just for the sake of it. And that
- You enjoy meals even more when you really take your time to savour the meal
for just a few days in a row, will start forming these cortical maps. In weeks, these cortical maps become so solidified and prolific – they become your automatic response. You won’t have to think these things anymore, you’ll already, subconsciously believe them. And though weeks of resisting temptation seems hard to do, because it
- Is coming from YOU telling yourself these things;
- Because your cortical maps are forming and becoming more and more solid over time, and
- Because you’ve got a long term goal, which causes more dopamine to be released each step you take towards it –
it’s actually quite easy to do. They’re subtle, small changes to how you view food, but combined, they make a HUGE difference. It’s the difference between going into a diet, hating life and having to force exert significant willpower to control yourself, and eating what you want, but slowly, and surely, changing your mindset, and letting your brain lose the weight for you.
Remember, thinking is HARD. We’re lazy, and we don’t wanna work, because your brain consumes oxygen. But if you understand HOW the brain works and learns (pretty much everything we do and get better at relies on this neuroplasticity), and you make changes that make your NORMAL thought process a HEALTHY one that DOESN’T REQUIRE willpower to do… Well being healthy BECOMES the lazy, easy thing to do.
And you know what? It worked. In January this year, I could eat a whole pizza, and I’d go up for second servings when lamb curry was made at home. Now… I can still do a half pizza… maybe more, but only when I feel like it. And I barely finish 3/4 of a plateful of rice and curry (I used to eat 1 – 1.5 lol). That small change in mindset resulted in a huge reduction in my calorie intake per day. And it’s the main reason why I’ve lost so much weight AND KEPT IT OFF without trying.
ii) Making Healthier Choices:
Me – I’m a foodie. I like trying different things, new cuisines. And I like variety in my day to day life. I also like my meat, hate salads on their own (chemo’s changed my taste a lot – I used to love the taste of lettuce… now it tastes like dirt at times) and I like eating carbs like bread or rice with meals. Who doesn’t really?
With these simple changes, I was able to eat all these things and still lose weight.
But I knew I could stand to benefit from eating generally healthy foods… so again, I took a step back, questioned my current habits, and made small changes to my mindset on food, which helped me eat more healthily too, without depriving myself of the pleasures of life.
Carbs… I did like them, but what I liked more was what I was eating with them.
So I changed the portions around, added more fillings or curries, whatever I was eating at the time and reduced the proportion of that to however many slices of bread or spoonfuls of rice I’d eat with them. Again, this happened over weeks, not instantly.
With salads, whose taste I couldn’t stand post chemo, I started drizzling, sometimes dumping tasty dressings based in oils (luckily regular olive oil is good for you), and added things like cottage cheese or olives to make them tastier.
Juicing, though it gets good vitamins and veggies/fruits into you, was too much of a hassle to do regularly, especially cleaning the damn things. So I started looking around for good fruit/vegetable juice mixes with no added sugar or preservatives and came across this brand, which uses pressure instead of preservatives, and doesn’t add sugar to the mix and saves me time too. There’s bound to be something similar in your location!
I liked variety in my diet, and that was good. So I picked cuisines to eat regularly that were easy to prepare, and tasted good and were still healthy for me – things like tacos or stir fries (which have good amounts of veggies, are easy to cook, low in carbs and have good, but not excessive amounts of meat) and I mastered them. They’re like a staple to me now. And I don’t hate eating unlike most people who diet – so I maintain this healthy lifestyle still, to this day.
I couldn’t believe this came from CostCo either when I first tried it. But I highly recommend it – their Kale/Sweet Potato/Quinoa cous cous salad.
iii) Taking out the Junk Food
To be honest, I haven’t taken out all junk food. I probably eat junkfood once a week now, still. But I lost all that weight while eating junkfood every few days.
Still. Junk food is junk… food. How did I reduce the amount of crap I ate?
Well I mean I looked at them, from that step back, and asked why I used to have that crap so often… I mean they do taste good, and they are cheap and easy to prepare… But I hated that “fat”, “oily” feeling I had after eating a packet of chips, some chocolate or a burger or box of chicken from KFC.
I didn’t cut them out entirely, which many people do, instead I only got a few small bits and pieces from fast food places or fish n chip shops, every now and then, and had them alongside other, healthier stuff. KFC – I made sure I had that with these pre-made salads I found in CostCo which complimented it perfectly. With the chocolates, and chips, instead of gulping down a handful or packs of tim-tams at a time and then feeling bad afterwards, I shared them around with other people, or scabbed a few chips or bites from friends instead of buying a full pack and feeling like I had to devour it. Those small changes made me eat healthier (and also saved me money too – sorry guys). I still got to enjoy the taste. But I sidestepped feeling crap!
They are easier to cook, I guess, and many people just don’t have enough time to cook – but those meal suggestions I made above really help with that. Another thing that makes cooking easier for me is marinating meats and eating them with salad or veggies or a good slice of cheese (which acts as a side dish for me – I love block cheese and it’s high in proteins too so it makes you fuller quicker). I marinate a huge amount of meat in tandoori paste, or honey soy dressing – whatever I feel like – leave it over a few days (the longer it marinates, the better it tastes) and cook it in meals with this simple frier/grill which only requires me to flip once and makes meat really tender too and it’s done quickly. It’s quicker than a drive out to the closest McDonalds, and takes only a few flips in total to make it.
These small changes to how I viewed eating, small changes to my mentality, was all it took to improve my diet drastically. I haven’t cut anything out, I’m not hating myself and making myself less likely to succeed by following strict diets and better meals is a MAJOR reason why I’ve lost so much weight and why I’m so healthy right now too!
Improving My Fitness/Exercise Habits:
When I started trying to get fit after my second transplant, a year ago, I told myself I was going to take it slow and build up from there. After my first transplant, I pushed straight into weights and basketball, I didn’t even focus on getting any endurance back before doing so and in the end, it didn’t help me get healthier… It just made me frustrated (because I wasn’t improving much) and probably made me sicker overall too.
This time around though, I didn’t have a relapse, and lower blood counts stopping me from improving. What I did have was excuses and laziness and self-consciousness about my abysmal fitness, which made me not train consistently, which made me frustrated that I wasn’t getting fitter, which made me lose the will to get fit – initiating a huge cycle where I’d get motivated and exercise for a week or two and then stop, only to repeat it, again and again.
iv) Taking that First Step.
Well, changing how I looked at things helped me get more consistent in my training. Motivating yourself to get off your bum and start is the hardest thing to do when exercising. But by changing your perspective on exercise, from a thing that is painful and excruciating to do, to something that you can build up on – something that gives you more energy throughout the day – gets you over that initial burden of getting up and doing that first set. Looking at your long term goals becomes really important here. Remembering to focus on the fact that you will get there – in time – as long as you’re doing the right things OVERALL, as opposed to expecting to beat your PB every session, ensures you won’t give up when you face failure – instead, as you’re prepared for these, you’ll be picking yourself up.
It’s when you have a bad, or disappointing workout that this patient thinking really helps. Instead of getting down and sad about it – you’ll be ready to go the next day, because you’ll know for that 1 bad workout, you’ll have 5 other good ones, and you’re still be heading in the right direction.
Another great tip – do something FUN! You’re much more likely to commit, and form good habits, if you make yourself accountable. So get a gym buddy, or join a team! 3/4 adults played sport growing up, but only 1/5 play as adults. Why is that?
Start Easy and Build Up From There
When building up from scratch, which I’ve had to do plenty of times, looking in the long term REALLY helps.
In my case, and that of many other patients who read my blogs, treatments and concurrent infections would bring me back to starting position, walking and body weight exercises were excellent in building me up. I started with push-ups, squats and sit-ups in front of the TV. Those things gave a good burn and made me feel like I did something and gave good, constant improvements when I did them consistently too. I didn’t just like walking for no reason, so I used my mind and my interests to my advantage and started walking down to the river with a rod in hand, looking at the tides, watching the small fish and how they moved, and getting good ideas and experience to improve my fishing. Basketball – my favourite sport – always keeps me motivated, and watching a good basketball video or movie would always get me up and ready to have a shoot around. You can use whatever passions you like. Cycling, rock climbing, diving, whatever you want to motivate you to keep you in the gym or in the pool or on the track.
Make exercise time valuable. I know many students find it hard to sit down and study – so download your lectures and put them onto your music player and go for a walk or run. Same thing goes for podcasts of your favourite radio shows, or just blasting your own music. Makes it easier and even fun to train – in fact, Jana Pittman, a classmate of mine does this to keep up with medicine and still train at an Olympic level.
The power of incidental exercise doesn’t just stop at boosting the calories you burn a day, but also extends to formulating strong, neuroplasticity-moulded, attitudes towards exercise. Each time you pick the stairs – you make yourself more likely to pick them next time!
Don’t Be Shy, Or Worry About What Others Think of You
Taking that first step was hard for me. After chemotherapies, where I’d have to start from scratch, I’d always feel embarrassed and self-conscious at how little I could do, and also about how weird I’d look. You may feel the same way when someone racks up more weight than you can squat on the bench press, or when someone laps you in the pool or when someone blocks you on the basketball or volleyball court. Whenever I wanted to work out, I would always feel the stares of others on me and that stopped me from wanting to go out and get healthy in the first place. When you take a step back and see it in another way though, you’ll see that you’re stopping yourself from being the healthiest and happiest version of yourself because of what other people may be THINKING about you. Read more about how I managed to get past my self consciousness and become the most confident, happiest version of myself here.
Overall – losing weight and getting fit and healthy is NOT something hard. The only thing standing in the way of you getting there is YOU and your mindset. Get your mind on your side and the rest will become easy.
Those fad diets and boot camps can help lose weight and they do work. But they’re not easy to maintain – they’re not for everyone. Using your mind to your advantage is the best thing you can do to help you get healthy.
I wrote this part in April 2016. I went from 97kg in November 2015 (after I gained bout from that third bout of cancer) to about 80kg now. And I’m in that luxurious position of needing to gain weight.
As of Sept 2021, I’m at 74kg. I haven’t ever tried to lose weight.
Feel free to leave any tips of your own down here. To help me and others along on their journey to get fit and healthy.
Though I won’t have 10 in here RIGHT away, I’ll keep adding to this until I do, so make sure to sign up to my email list to hear when the latest addition has been made to this – and check out my free books there too if you enjoy these!
Tip 1 – Keep Everything CLOSE and at Hand
It may seem redundant, but believe me when I say this, the TINIEST little things in hospital can save you the most pain and struggle. Tiny things like this.
I’ve been in and out of hospitals for 8 years but only picked up this trick on this admission… what you see here is your hospital bed remote and your nurse alarm/TV button. Keeping things close at hand in an organised fashion is of HUGE importance.
I did used to use a side rail which I’d keep up to hold my bed remotes n place, but only a few weeks ago did a nurse suggest MAKING THE BED REMOTE FACE ME and hang it up that way for the first time. I can’t believe I hadn’t thought of this before.
But ESPECIALLY in this admission where I’ve been restricted from lifting more than 1-2kg at a time to let my chest wound heal, this tiny change has been LIFESAVING.
Having your nurse call button on hand and in a spot where you don’t have to twist and turn is also good for obvious reasons. Wrapping it around the bed rail helps keep it in easy reach for me. But watch out – because bed rails do cause accidents too, especially with confused patients. Check out how my own device converts any bed into a hospital bed here (all profits go towards medical research with this – so I hope it’s not TOO spammy!)
These may seem like nothing but they do add up. The other day, I was hooked to a non mobile (non wheely) IV pole and the nurse call remote was on the floor (plus, as I have for the last 3 weeks, I’ve been hooked up to a Vac seal dressing too on my left leg). And I REALLY needed to go to the bathroom.
Mum and dad just happened To be out. My phone wasn’t in reach either.
Instead of panicking and trying to twist and contort my body, which could risk my cannula falling out or even worse, result in me falling, I screamed out for a nurse for the better part of 10 minutes until 1 arrived.
A less patient, younger me wouldn’t have though.
Share this with anyone you think this could help.
If you have your own tips you wanna share or wanna see more – itll be here and on my Facebook page or on Nikhilautar.com/hospitalhacks . Tell someone you love, if they’re in hospital, to always have their necessary devices handy, and ready to go, where possible.
The same lessons apply for your bed side tray table. Keeping your laptop, devices, chargers or books there and in easy reach is a no brainer! But things like alcohol hand sanitizer, tissues, and water bottles should not be overlooked too!
Staying SANE in Hospital – Utilising all their services;
DOGTOR consults
When i visited a friend in a children’s hosiptal for the first time, I was jealous.
THEY BROUGHT HER A PAIR OF DOGS TO CUDDLE WHEN SHE WAS IN HOSPITAL!!! Children’s hospitals have and get everything it seems.
But you know what? Virtually all adults WILL have a therapy animal service available to patients.
Understandably, in some wards and for some patients, this isn’t ideal or suitable.
But I mean if you CAN – why NOT get a visit from a fluffball? They’re actually not too dirty. The germs and illnesses they have are not transmittable to humans and these dogs are tested regularly. And pet visits are shown to improve health outcomes for many.
But other amazing services I will be updating you on further and expanding on soon are:
- Dietitians – they can hook you up with extra food, or whatever food you like, in fact!)
- Occupational Therapists – who will help make tiny little adjustments that DO make your life safer and easier – and, depending on your insurance or where you’re from, perhaps even get you free stuff.
- Physios – they are people you may HATE at the beginning. But consistent work with them during Rehab can change your life – especially early after your body goes through hell like chemo or surgery.
- Psychologists – they’re always there in hospitals and always willing to listen. At the very least, they give you someone to chat to. In a time when you’d otherwise be bored, and surly… why not continue healing in the place that arguably makes most sense to work on – your mind?
]]>
The usual process that seems to occur after every mass shooting occurred again. And the usual shitty arguments came up again too.
As a future doctor, I feel so much for these unnecessary deaths. As a realist, I despair but wonder what the purpose of getting angry would be when the above keeps happening. But as a scientist, I was outraged when Neil DeGrasse Tyson, one of the most prominent science educators in the world, put out this tweet:
Here was my response to this.
The Reddit Post and how or why it’s wrong
The Reddit post that Neil and millions of conservatives used is linked here – and it goes like this;
There are roughly 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0092575708669133% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides……Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.
The response:
Well, ignoring suicides as if guns don’t cause them is ludicrous. Numerous studies show higher rates of suicide, not just in America compared to other Western, developed countries (where the US is the highest) but also in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Suicides, in 2016, due to guns resulted in 23,854 suicides. There were 44995 suicides in total. That’s over half of all suicides.
This isn’t just conjecture. Numerous studies from numerous bodies all show the same thing – none shows the opposite. Guns in homes, gun ownership and higher proportions of gun ownerships is correlated to, and cause more death.
States in the US which have more guns have higher suicide rates. In homes with firearms, 86 percent of people who used a had a firearm in their home used the gun to commit suicide. In homes without firearms, only 6 percent of suicides used a firearm. It’s pretty obvious… if you have a gun, you’re more likely to kill yourself with a gun. Gun purchasers had a 4.3x higher chance of suicide, and gun suicide (7.2x higher). For every 10% likelihood to have a gun in the household, rates of suicide went up 26.9%
The suicide rate in Australia in 2016 was 5.7/100000 people. The suicide rate in America in 2016 was 13.9/100000.
They have similar rates of mental illness. 1/5 Australians experience a mental illness in any given year. Similarly, 1/5 americans in any given year.
States with more gun control – like Massachusetts – which, like Australia, requires licences before purchasing (Australia has PLENTY of gun ownership – as someone who’s hunted, I actually wanted to get a gun, and only had to do 1 day of training to get a licence to do so, similar to the Massachusetts process), suicide rates are some of the lowest in America. The only 2 states that top it also have comparitively restricitve gun laws, which don’t stop people from getting guns!
In terms of homicide… Gun violence PER CAPITA (per person) is highest in 3 states with some of the loosest gun laws – 21 – compared to 3.6 in Massachusetts. Yes – we absolutely should be doing more to curb gun violence in urban centres stated above too. But you’re more likely to be shot in Alaska than you are Chicago (18.02/100,000 in Chicago vs 19.8 in Alaska. Lousiana, and other states with no permit to buy a gun are higher too) DESPITE Chicago being declared a ‘warzone’ by many. Of the top 20 states in terms of gun violence per capita – 19 had ABSOLUTELY NO permits to own a gun (the only one that did, only required them for handguns!).
Just a bit of common sense to reduce rates of suicide which ARE INCREASED BY GUN OWNERSHIP. Ignoring them is completely wrong.
14995 people died to gun homicides. Add that to 23854 suicides, and you have closer to 40,000 than 30,000 deaths due to guns that this redditor claims is true. That’s equal or more than all the other examples cited WHICH ALREADY HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PUMPED INTO THEM TO COMBAT but medical error. Reducing rates of medical error is VERY TOUGH. We’re taught about systems thinking in medicine. I’m the founder of a startup creating lifesaving alert systems for elderly people. Things are already being done in this space. I know this.
What my company is doing to combat this.
Investment into gun violence and gun control is NOT proportional to the amount we spend on these other big issues. Gun violence RESEARCH is severely hampered. We could find out if things like video games or universal background checks or licences (which, as I’ve demonstrated above – DON’T RESTRICT YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN) if we had more information on them. The reason why the CDC doesn’t conduct more research in this space is due to the Dickey Ammendment which hamstrings government funding to it. Why does the NRA stop research into guns? If they were not causing increased death and violence, and weren’t related to suicides and increased death as many people would have you believe, why NOT just spend $2.6million (which is 0.05% of the amount the American Heart Association has invested into heart research, despite gun violence causing 5% of its total number of deaths, according to this Reddit post’s own figures) – the amount which used to be spent on gun research to get to the bottom of it? Wouldn’t that shut the gun control people up?
Or is it more likely that 12000 business owners who make $11billion a year off guns, want business to continue on as usual? Guns cost us $17.4billion in indirect costs (wages lost, productivity), and $2.8 in direct healthcare expenditure to treat. Many people are injured, and suffer permanent life damage because of a gun too. Isn’t that a much more likely conspiracy? I explain how Australia does it below. We have pretty high gun ownership. If you want a gun, and you aren’t a suspected terrorist, mentally ill, or an ex convict, you’ll get it. We haven’t had anyone try and stop people from getting guns with a licence. Absolutely noone wants to take our guns. Why can’t common sense prevail? If you’re a responsible gun owner, it will not restrict you in any way.
Back to Neil’s Tweet
As for Neil’s tweet. Not only was it extremely tasteless, it was plain wrong too. First off, according to the CDC, 14995 people were killed by guns in homicides in the US in 2016. That’s not 40, but rather 79, or 80, per 48 hours. It appears that Neil made a math error to begin with, or deliberately chose only handguns (for some odd reason) instead. PS – I just destroyed the reddit thread where Neil got his numbers and argument from.
And he IGNORES the problem of suicide, which, as I showed above, can be reduced by reducing easy access to guns. As I mentioned in the video – higher prevalence of guns is related to more suicides too. 90% of people who got past acute episodes of distress of panic who didn’t have easy access to a gun wouldn’t go on to commit suicide.
Guns aren’t even that big an industry in the US. 12,000 businesses only generate $11billion in revenue per year, which seems like a lot, but the startup I’m working on is in the mattress industry, which generates over $14billion in sales. On the other hand, gun violence directly costs the US over $2.8billion in healthcare expenditure. That’s just the cost to treat people who turn up to hospital with injury. $17.4 billion is the actual pricetag if you include indirect losses in income and productivity as well.
The most abhorrent thing here though is that Neil’s tweets are going to be used, for decades, to justify gun violence, and oppose gun control. If ‘a prominent scientist’ said this, it means it must be true, to many. I understand his points. Hell, my startup, Australia’s Student Startup of the Year, is working to fix some preventable problems.
The Dickey Amendment, Again
Right now further detail and research into gun violence and attempts to mitigate its impacts aren’t being done. It’s pure politics. The Dickey Amendment , where gun lobbiest hamstrung the CDC, a body that’s supposed to be indepent’s, ability to conduct research which is the only reason why we don’t have more conclusive data on interventions that exist to reduce gun violence.
Do video games cause more violence? Do background checks, which are supported by 79% of republicans, and 91% of democrats, lead to lower rates of gun acquisition and violence? WE may never now.
I don’t hate guns.
I’m not against guns. I’ve had long chats about people very proud about their guns and their connection to it while traveling through Tennessee a few years ago. I’ve hunted before. As a fisherman, I know the impact good recreational policy and advocacy – led mainly by fishermen – has on fish stocks and resetoration of waterways. Fishermen and hunters alike are invested, personally in conservation. Hunting funds 55% of the US’s department of fisheries and wildlife directly. Policies guide and aid in conservation. Fines are imposed if these are exceeded. Even Australia, which is famously used as an example of the success of gun control policy (after a mass buyback of guns, following a mass shooting, Australia has had 0 mass shootings in almost 2 decades), has a thriving hunting industry which brings in $460-1300million in revenue to Australia. Comparable to numbers seen in the US. Massachusetts, which has similar policies to us – requiring a licence, which takes about a day, before you can get access to a gun (with similarly high approval rates of over 97%, and freedom to do what you will) had 3.6 gun homicides/100,000, compared to 21+ in Alaska. That’s the lowest in mainland America. Gun control WORKS.
Funding for the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife breakdown.
The only people unrestricted gun availability is benefiting is 12000 gun business owners, a few gun convention businesses, a bunch of politicians, while costing America billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. Neil’s tweet is only encouraging inaction. And that’s something I stand against.
]]>The usual process that seems to occur after every mass shooting occurred again.
As a future doctor, I feel so much for these unnecessary deaths. As a realist, I despair but wonder what the purpose of getting angry would be when the above keeps happening. But as a scientist, I was outraged when Neil DeGrasse Tyson, one of the most prominent science educators in the world, put out this tweet:
Here was my response to this.
Not only was it extremely tasteless, it was plain wrong too. First off, according to the CDC, 14995 people were killed by guns in homicides in the US in 2016. That’s not 40, but rather 79, or 80, per 48 hours. It appears that Neil made a math error to begin with, or deliberately chose only handguns (for some odd reason) instead. PS – I found the reddit thread where Neil got his numbers and argument from.
But even if this was the case, there’s still a huge population of gun deaths he doesn’t address. Suicides. In the same year, guns resulted in 23,854 suicides. That’s over half of all suicides.
This isn’t just conjecture. It’s a proven correlation.
States in the US which have more guns have higher suicide rates. In homes with firearms, 86 percent of people who used a had a firearm in their home used the gun to commit suicide. In homes without firearms, only 6 percent of suicides used a firearm. It’s pretty obvious… if you have a gun, you’re more likely to kill yourself with a gun. Gun purchasers had a 4.3x higher chance of suicide, and gun suicide (7.2x higher). For every 10% likelihood to have a gun in the household, rates of suicide went up 26.9%
The suicide rate in Australia in 2016 was 5.7/100000 people. The suicide rate in America in 2016 was 13.9/100000
1/5 Australians experience a mental illness in any given year. Similarly, 1/5 americans in any given year.
As I mentioned in the video – higher prevalence of guns is related to more suicides too. 90% of people who got past acute episodes of distress of panic who didn’t have easy access to a gun wouldn’t go on to commit suicide.
Guns aren’t even that big an industry in the US. 12,000 businesses only generate $11billion in revenue per year, which seems like a lot, but the startup I’m working on is in the mattress industry, which generates over $14billion in sales. On the other hand, gun violence directly costs the US over $2.8billion in healthcare expenditure. That’s just the cost to treat people who turn up to hospital with injury. $17.4 billion is the actual pricetag if you include indirect losses in income and productivity as well.
The most abhorrent thing here though is that Neil’s tweets are going to be used, for decades, to justify gun violence, and oppose gun control. If ‘a prominent scientist’ said this, it means it must be true, to many. I understand his points. Hell, my startup, Australia’s Student Startup of the Year, is working to fix some preventable problems.
Right now further detail and research into gun violence and attempts to mitigate its impacts aren’t being done. It’s pure politics. The Dickey Amendment , where gun lobbiest hamstrung the CDC, a body that’s supposed to be indepent’s, ability to conduct research which is the only reason why we don’t have more conclusive data on interventions that exist to reduce gun violence.
Do video games cause more violence? Do background checks, which are supported by 79% of republicans, and 91% of democrats, lead to lower rates of gun acquisition and violence? WE may never now.
I’m not against guns. I’ve had long chats about people very proud about their guns and their connection to it while traveling through Tennessee a few years ago. I’ve hunted before. As a fisherman, I know the impact good recreational policy and advocacy – led mainly by fishermen – has on fish stocks and resetoration of waterways. Fishermen and hunters alike are invested, personally in conservation. Hunting funds 55% of the US’s department of fisheries and wildlife directly. Policies guide and aid in conservation. Fines are imposed if these are exceeded. Even Australia, which is famously used as an example of the success of gun control policy (after a mass buyback of guns, following a mass shooting, Australia has had 0 mass shootings in almost 2 decades), has a thriving hunting industry which brings in $460-1300million in revenue to Australia. Comparable to numbers seen in the US. Massachusetts, which has similar policies to us – requiring a licence, which takes about a day, before you can get access to a gun (with similarly high approval rates of over 97%, and freedom to do what you will) had 3.6 gun homicides/100,000, compared to 21+ in Alaska. That’s the lowest in mainland America. Gun control WORKS.
Funding for the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife breakdown.
The only people unrestricted gun availability is benefiting is 12000 gun business owners, a few gun convention businesses, a bunch of politicians, while costing America billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. Neil’s tweet is only encouraging inaction. And that’s something I stand against.
]]>Then I asked him the one question every cancer patient dreads: “What are my chances?” He looked at me, sighed and said, “10-20 percent that you’ll live the next five years.”
Somehow, I got through that.
But it did get close. Quite a few times actually. And now that I’m a medical student and cancer researcher, I can appreciate just how close “close” actually was.
During my treatment, I suffered from many infections and falls, a few pressure sores, and a deep vein thrombosis (clot). Three of these four things could have killed me. One (those pressure sores) stayed with me for nearly two years, and even stopped me from swimming and washing my back.
The thing is, these things are common complications seen in hospitals:
Pneumonias (depending on the type and treatment) can affect 70 percent of cancer patients.
Falls will seriously injure nearly 1/10 people over 65 admitted to a hospital.
Deep vein thromboses affect up to 20 percent of those who are immobile, and will kill 15 percent of those who have them dislodged.
And pressure sores affect seven percent of those who enter hospitals (with nearly 1/4 in ICUs).
Each of these problems cost literally tens of billions to hospital settings, just in America alone! And most of these are unnecessary. Even one that often isn’t for cancer patients (pneumonias) can be reduced.
How? By simply sitting up. That simple act can reduce the severity and time spent in the hospital by 35 percent — more than two days in the hospital on average.
But although they’re recommended by physicians and have surgical guidelines around the world, and although I knew in the middle of chemo that any infection could kill me, I still couldn’t find it in me at my sickest and tiredest state to walk those few meters to my hospital bed.
And even though patients are told to exercise (or at least move their legs around to prevent dangerous clots where they happen most), and nurses are told to move patients around to prevent pressure sores, and patients are encouraged to wait for nurses’ assistance to get up when particularly weak, or at risk of falls… right now hundreds of thousands are falling through the cracks.
I knew I had to do something about it. I’d lost too many friends to these preventable issues myself. And I saw a perfect way to do so — by changing something that hasn’t really been changed in decades.
The hospital bed.
I’ve created a version of the hospital bed that will reduce, perhaps even eliminate, the incidence of all of these! How? Well, I explain in this video.
The features on our beds not only make lives more comfortable for patients, or those who are being cared for at nursing homes or homes, but they also save lives.
The inclining ability of the legs will increase blood flow to vital organs in times of shock. The decline feature, when combined with the incline of the head, will make this a chair that encourages patients to sit up much more effectively than any distant hospital bed could. Hence, reducing the rates and severities of infections.
The massage prongs will stop blood from pooling around the legs, which will reduce rates of blood clots. The contouring features and weight sensors will reduce tissue pressures where they’re highest, thus reducing pressure sores. And many features, such as the slide out rails, embedded charging ports, intuitive IV pole placement and a bed pan chamber, will reduce the need to get up for those who shouldn’t.
But we’re not only creating this. We’ve also got provisional patents on an adjusting wedge pillow — something that’ll help millions with lung or back conditions, acid reflux, or those wanting to lounge in bed more comfortably.
I think the best thing about this is that instead of the profits going to my back pocket, I’ll be giving away all of the profits we can towards charity, research and ensuring manual, affordable versions of this get to nations who need hospital beds the most. Personally, I feel relieving pain and putting a smile on someone’s face is so much more fulfilling than money could ever be.
We’re already partnering with Engineers Without Borders to create a version of this bed that can be produced cheaply, and close to source!
Plus, this is something that’ll save hospital systems money and lives.
The thing is, for a project this big to become a reality, we’re gonna need lots of help, so feel free to donate or buy some products that’ll help you Get To Sleep Easy (we also have some pretty cool merchandise, too.) You can also follow our journey through our email list, on Facebook , Twitter or Instagram.
And watch out for a pretty hilarious campaign we’ll be releasing next week called #GiveMeAWedgie. We’ve got a bunch of people ready to help share that out, so join us!
I hope this can help as many people out there as possible. I decided to study medicine because I knew I could make an impact on peoples’ lives. I’m working on some interesting immunotherapy cancer research because I saw you could save potentially thousands of people at a time… if you discovered something awesome.
And something like this could save millions of lives, and do so continuously and sustainably, for years to come.
I hope what I’ve said convinces you to help make this vision a reality.
Nikhil Autar was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at 17 and given a 10-20 percent chance of surviving. Despite that, he made it into a medical degree at 18, and is currently doing medical research and running his social enterprise, Get To Sleep Easy. You can find him here or at his blog, Musings of a Med Student Patient.
Last post: My Story: Next One
Preparing for an Impending Food Crisis.
This was my entry into an international essay competition to pick delegates for the annual, amazingly inspiring Youth Agricultural Summit (find out more about it here). Results come out in March. Wish me Luck!!
Well… I actually won this! And got to go to the International Youth Ag Summit – and we delivered our decleration to the UN Food Security Council in Rome 2015! It was awesome, and an update on what we did together can be found here:
Essay question:
about 9 billion, yet for many different reasons, 1 billion people today still
do not have enough safe and nutritious food to eat. Demand is rising while resources
are dwindling. Solutions are strongly debated across rural, urban and
international communities. Using your own village, town, city or country as your point of reference, tell us
what you think are the underlying causes of food insecurity, and the effect it can have on a population, both at a local and global level.
sustainable local and global society.
population, are undernourished right now. Of those, 826 million live in the
developing world(FAO,2013)… It seems staggering that this exists
despite the fact that we currently produce nearly enough food for the world’s
7billion people(FAO,2012; Lappe,1998). But it does. And as the global
population climbs, and the environment changes further due to global warming,
it becomes imperative that we prepare for what may be the greatest global
famine in human history.
solutions, we need to understand the problem. Like many of the world’s
problems, the major driver of lack of food security is poverty.
can’t buy food. If you can’t even afford your own food, how can you, the small
scale farmer who produces 70% of the world’s food(FAO,2012), feed your
nation? Asia’s rapid decline in undernourishment rates by 41% from 2001-2012;
in line with the socio-economic progress of many countries in the region, as
opposed to Africa’s increase in hunger rates by over 25% (FAO 2001, FAO 2012,
Lappe 2013); where conflicts and instability spurred an increase in poverty
rates, in the same period, proves that poverty is proportional to reduced food
security. Not being able to purchase ample, quality food leads to chronic malnourishment
and stunting, condemning those affected to lower incomes, bad health and a life
of poverty(WFP,2014). Poverty is directly correlated to higher fertility
rates (Lappe et al,1998), which increases pressure on small, sustenance
and commercial farmers to produce for their families, putting income-pressure
on the family as well as adding pressure to rural systems and the nation as a
whole. Small-scale farmers under constant stress to survive are doomed to not
being able to save or otherwise secure capital to purchase more effective seed,
fertilizer and equipment for farming; leaving them stuck in this aggressive
cycle we know as the poverty trap. When combined with external stressors such
as poor market stability, war and displacement, and arguably the most
concerning of these; climate change and a rapidly increasing population, the
outlook for the world’s poor and hungry seems bleak.
food packages though. Food doesn’t appear out of thin air. What we need to do
is increase its production.
needs to produce 60% more food by 2050; with developing countries needing to
produce 77% more to keep up with caloric demand (APRC, 2013). From intuition alone, it seems that more
investment into smarter agriculture is key to getting on top of this problem.
The data backs it up; investment in agriculture is five times more effective in
reducing hunger than investment in any other sector (FA0,2012) and GDP
growth in agriculture is twice as effective as reducing poverty than growth in
other sectors (World Bank,2008) too.
invests sizeable amounts in both agricultural research and deliverance of
physical infrastructure that enables our major aid partners in Asia and the
South Pacific to increase crop yields. Yet though we’re making valuable
investments, that are providing undeniable results, we still only allocate 7%
of our aid budget to this sector (DFAT,2014). We need to invest more, as
well as improve some aspects of how we invest this aid.
focus of our agricultural foreign aid program. Agricultural research is
responsible for the production of food for 60million people/year domestically
and 400million people/year worldwide (D’Occhio,2011)
and the ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) heads
our aid commitment to research with a very solid, effective framework.
Collaboration with international research-agencies such as the CGIAR, inclusion
and involvement of scientists from the developing nations we’re collaborating
with, as well as a focus on designing solutions to mitigate the effects of
climate change are key parts of our five-pronged strategy that impress strategy
analysts (ACIAR,2011; Marslen,2014).
The $448million invested into international agricultural research gave a
$30.17billion return, a ratio of 67:1 with direct benefits totaling 15:1 (ACIAR,2013). These benefits are derived
not only from the more effective agricultural aid programs that Australia
initiates from it, but the sharing of knowledge and consultancy we provide to
NGOs as well as private partners. It’s
also key to note that Australia, which shares similar challenges to the nations
we’re helping, such as drought and water management, will receive spill off
benefits from this research (Marslen,2014)
marking it as an even more attractive investment. This staggering value for money, for us, and them, justifies this
investment and makes a strong case for further investment into agriculture.
if anything, has been dwindling, following an international trend of declining research
in the agricultural sector from 13% of all OECD investment in the Green
Revolution, to 4% in 2008 (Harding et al, 2009, Alston et al, 2000).
there are many ways we can improve its impact too.
organisations, whose investments into agricultural research have increased 4
fold in the last decade (ABS,2001, ABS,2012) and in particular,
partnering biotechnical firms with ACIAR, will allow them the opportunity to
capitalise on markets such as the five major crops of the developing world that
the “Big 7” seed companies currently neglect; sorghum, millet,
pigeon-pea, chickpea and groundnut (UN General Assembly Special
Rapporteur,2008). Encouraging investment into development of superior seed of
these crops, through focusing some public research into this sector, will help
garner our companies a niche which is bound to pay off, both to our own
nation’s economy, and those they’re helping, especially as the world population grows further,
and food security becomes a bigger issue. Furthermore, encouraging these firms
to then initiate programs similar to Monsanto’s Project Share, which gives free
seed and training to small-scale farmers in India (Monsanto,2014), will
result in the spreading of these superior seeds, access to new markets,
reduction in micro and macro-hunger, as well as empowerment of small farmers.
This is but one example of how further public-private collaboration on research
projects can create growth for all parties.
need to increase and optimise research and programs that improve agricultural
yield and supply chains, but the latter example highlights a need to get the
benefits of this investment to those who need it most; small farmers. The most
successful aid interventions derived from our research, the use of germ-plasm
in Indonesian forestry, pig breeding in Vietnam, and integrated pest management
in the Philippines; accounting for 55% all conceived benefits of Australia’s research
programs (ACIAR,2013), have two things in common. They produce solutions
that are have wide applications, and ones that can be integrated by small
farmers. Focusing more research and aid programs that do that will result in
more benefits being accrued for millions of starving people.
solutions and knowledge to the people who need them most. Delivering products
that increase agricultural yield through a micro-franchise/social-enterprise,
for-profit model, vastly increases the number of people on the ground who can
benefit from research. EcoFuelAfrica is using such a model to deliver kilns
that convert farm waste into energy, fertilizer, and extra income directly to
small farmers, and is doing this for a profit, which is reinvested into growing
it further (EFA,2015). This ensures this innovation spreads, as the
model is scalable and the investment is seen as just that, an investment,
rather than an expenditure. Establishing, or else investing and expanding
similar programs through this model will further ensure our aid, and private
philanthropic ventures go furthest.
markets is another factor that can be improved with innovation. Australia’s
investment into developing market
infrastructure of Asian/Pacific developing nations (DFAT,2014) is wise,
but utilising the region’s near 70% access to mobile-phone technology by 2017 (eMarketer, 2011) to spread knowledge of market prices, weather patterns
and farming techniques, and access to financial services is something our aid
program can definitely facilitate. Indeed, partnering telecommunications and
technology providers with biotechnical firms and government aid programs to
deliver such messages can create further economic benefits and employment to
us, those on the ground we’re helping, as well as companies worldwide too,
furthering our impact and making it viable.
who need it most is not only one of the most effective ways to secure
international food security, but also world poverty and world-suck in general.
Australia, though small, is already responsible for much of the world’s food
security, but there are many innovative solutions and effective policies that
can improve our impact, as well as that of others who want to make this world a
better place. These are but some of those, and I’d be excited hear others and
add mine to what I’m sure will be a gathering of great innovative minds at the
2015 YouthAgSummit.
Organisation, 2013 retreivable from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2845e/i2845e00.pdf
World 2010″ United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2010. retrievable from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pdf
2012” United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2012. retrievable from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e00.htm
Role of Financing for Food, Agriculture, and Rural Development.” Food and Agriculture Organization, International
Fund for Agricultural Development, World Food Program. 2002 Retrievable from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/Y6265e/y6265e00.htm
Anderson, Robin Broad, Ellen Messer, Thomas Pogge and Timothy Wise, “How
We Count Hunger Matters,” Ethics & International Affairs, 2013
Rosset, with Luis Esparza, “World Hunger: 12 Myths. 2nd
Edition”, (fully revised
and updated), Grove/Atlantic and Food First Books, October 1998.
Robert van Otterdijk, Alexandre Meybeck, “Global food losses and
food waste”, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS, 2011
for development”, World Bank,
2008. Retrievable from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf
performance framework 2014-15, Department of Foreign Trade and Affairs, 2014 retrievable from: http://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/australias-new-development-policy-and-performance-framework-a-summary.aspx
Agricultural Research within Australia’s Aid Program”, Australian Centre for International Agrictultural
Research, 2011
Investing in Agricultural Research and Development, Strategic Analysis
Paper”, Future Directions International, 2014 retrievable from: http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/sap/FDI_Strategic_Analysis_Paper_-_Australian_Aid_in_Agricultural_Research_and_Development.pdf
agricultural research, Australian
Centre for International Agrictultural Research, 2013, Retrievable from: http://aciar.gov.au/files/ias_86.pdf
J.M., Chang-Kang C., Marra M.C., Pardey P.G. and Wyatt T.J. 2000. “A
meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R&D: ex pede
herculem?” Research Report 113. International Food Policy Research
Institute: Washington, DC.
of ACIAR’s returns on investment: appropriateness, efficiency and
effectiveness. “ACIAR Impact Assessment Series Report No. 63.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra.
Businesses, Australia, 2000-01, Australian Bureau
of Statistics, 2002 retrievable from:
Businesses, Australia, 2011-12, Australian Bureau
of Statistics, 2013 retrievable from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mf/8104.0
Rights, civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the
Right to Development, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Food” United Nations
General Assembly, January 2008
Launch Project Share – Sustainable Yield Initiative To Improve Farmer Lives,
Monsanto Press release, February 2009, Retrieved from: http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/project-share.aspx
15/01/2015 from: http://ecofuelafrica.co.ug/why-micro-franchising/
Last post: My Story: Next One
way we give to the poor. Peter Singer described it as “one that combines
both the heart and the head.” The heart empathising with and wanting help
the less well off; the head ensuring our efforts to do so went the furthest. That’s
where the concept of effectiveness comes in. A hundred dollars given to a Guide
Dogs foundation will pay for less than 2 days of training (Guide Dogs Foundation, Australia, 2014); that same hundred dollars
could provide a reliable source of clean water to 300 people in Sierra Leone (World Vision, 2014). That’s not to say guide
dogs aren’t a worthy cause; but individuals, charities, businesses and
governments have begun to realise that the world’s most deprived regions are
where we can cause the greatest change, and that by directing a majority of our
funds there, we’ll create the greatest change.
funds are directed, it’s the heart that we target to gain those funds in the
first place. And it’s the second concept of the movement, altruism, that describes most of our efforts to help thus far. At
its core, altruism encapsulates the very essence of humanity; our ability to
care for wellbeing of others and the act of putting their interests above our
own is an anomaly of survival of the fittest arguably unique to our species.
But the very words ‘charity’ and ‘aid‘ exude connotations of personal sacrifice,
and the fact that only 5 of 22 OECD countries give the agreed upon 0.7% of GNI
towards Official Developmental Assitance (OECD,
2012), and a 40% drop occurred in private flows to charities from 2007-2008
due to the GFC (World Bank 2009)
shows that that sacrifice, especially in the face of adversity, is often deemed
too much; the reward of a warm, fuzzy feeling too little to justify the
expense.
mind, which so often gives us excuses not to give, could be used to justify giving
more? What if we viewing charity beyond the strict confines of altruism; what
is we saw charity as a win-win?
seems counterintuitive at first, there are already many ways governments,
corporations and individuals benefit themselves fiscally, as well as morally,
by helping those less fortunate than themselves.
in the 1950s signalled a change in the ideals of businesses as they recognised
their success was intimately entwined with a satisfied, thriving population. Since then, the benefits of engaging in
charitable behaviour on increased productivity and moral capital have become
well documented. Businesses, large and small, that allowed employees days off to
volunteer for instance, saw dramatic increases in workforce morale and
productivity (Smith 1994; Points of Light
Foundation, 2005) and thus concepts such as “volunteering days” or “community leaves” were born. Similarly, larger corporations; particularly those in
disputatious industries, that engaged in strategic corporate philanthropy generated moral capital that mitigated the severity of sanctions and
unfavourable press against the firm when bad acts occurred (Fombrum 1996; Jackson 2007; Godfrey, 2005). This benefit of giving is great, but CSR has to grow beyond just a way of patching up the mistakes companies have made, and with the growing disgruntlement of the wider public to corporate irresponsibility leading to wide backlashes, indeed, they can’t afford not to engage in more generous acts.
of engaging in corporate philanthropy are wide-ranging and already evident. And they go beyond those of improved
productivity and public relations…
Brand image is of vital importance to a
company’s success, and acts of charity have excelled beyond that of maintain ethical practices and adherence to codes and guidelines; they’ve become a marketing tool. A wide-ranging survey found that 89% of consumers are likely to switch brands similar in price or
quality for such a cause (Cone
Communications 2014). And strategic charitable initiatives taken by
companies, those initiatives in line with their core values, benefit not only the recipients, but
also the companies who organise them. Monsanto partners with many governments
in the third world to reduce world hunger through programs such as Project
Share, which provides farmers in India with education, tools, and their
superior genetically modified seed (Monsanto,
2014). This allows farmers to make the vital jump from sustenance to
commercial farming, gaining them not only free publicity through press
coverage; restoring Monsanto’s widely denigrated image of a greedy, “GMO producing (and therefore evil)” corporation,
but also creating farmers who will go on to become future customers themselves. This is but one example
showing how acts of kindness by businesses often turn out to be wise investments.
that are born of it, have proven to increase the effectiveness and impact of
money given by corporations by reducing the reduce the costs of setting up while
also significantly improving brand image, as it associates the brand’s values
with the charity’s own (Porter and Kramer
2002). The Red Revolution, where companies
such as Nikon and Starbux donate 10-50% of profits of product-lines with red labels to the Global AIDS Fund, allow consumers to make an impact
in their day-to-day lives while helping the company sell more product. This movement
is extremely effective, as it reduces the cost required to set up individual programs,
and the benefit to a brand that participates in this program is two-fold. Not
only are they improving brand image, they’re also getting a more
distinguishable, preferred product on the shelf. Positive brand image not only
to increased sales in the short term, but also garners businesses highly desired brand
loyalty. Potential customers are more likely to buy products from companies
that care, not just once, but over and over again (van de Brink et al, 2006; Hsieh A, Li C, 2007). The concept of microfinance,
which achieves staggeringly low default rates of less than 1% consistently (Grameen Bank, 2013; Field and Pande, 2008); a lower risk than a mortgage in the developed world, is further proof that the
gratitude of charity pays off directly. Those who benefit directly from
the company’s aid programs, as well as those in wider society who appreciate
their values, are more likely to be loyal customers of that brand.
seen in the microfinance industry brings to the fore another, less widely
acknowledged idea. That the alleviation of the burdens of poverty results in
increased consumerism and the development and the growth of emerging markets in addition to better
quality of life. And transnational corporations, particularly those from services
and technology industries, are already benefiting from this growth. The surge
of the middle class in China and India is living proof of this concept. Sony
forecasted a tripling of phone sales in China alone over 1 year [11], and Cisco System’s is
already providing nearly 40million homes in India with our equivalent of cable [12]], and as of 2009, GM sold
more cars in China than it did in the US (Ernst
and Young 2014), highlighting the gains that can be made by pushing more of
the world’s poorest into the middle classes.
The benefits to the poor countries are clear and staggering to say the
least; every 10% increase in the number
of people earning between $10-100 a day corresponds to a 0.5% rise in growth (Bhalla 2007), and the number of people
in that bracket is set to double to 3billion by 2030 (Ernst and Young 2014). Imagine how much companies and the world’s
poorest stand to gain by accelerating this growth further, and by establishing themselves and their brands early in the developing world through charity. Though the benefits to both are clear, it can
be argued that the profits from human development take time and great
investment to be realised. But even now, the world’s poorest are holding
markets that corporations and businesses are targeting. Microsoft researchers published
a paper on how to increase the efficacy of mobile phone sales in Mumbai’s slums (Rangaswamy & Nair, 2010), showing even
the world’s least-well-off are beginning to access technology. Taking away their
biggest obstacles; basic sanitation, employment, housing and attainment of
education, is not only the cheapest, most effective way to help them; it’s also helping us too.
and financial power that charities and businesses lack, which is why they’re
responsible for 80-85% of developmental aid that breaks down these barriers (OECD, 2014). Developed nations’
governments and their people tend to own and dominate the technology, research
and services sectors which stand to gain the most from the development of the
world’s poorest. Thus, despite popular opinion otherwise, it is indeed in their
best interests to foster this development. The bypassing of pharmaceutical patents
by many developing countries which represents a loss of nearly 3 billion
potential customers is
a perfect example of the hazards of the festering global inequality. Yet the
aid budgets of many countries in the Development Assistance Committee have
decreased, as lower than expected economic growth during periods of austerity
calling for the reduction of “unnecessary spending” (OECD, 2012).
long term, non specific benefits of aid, and that governments who give too much
at their citizens’ expense are irresponsible. But official developmental
assistance (ODA) already shows palpable benefits to nations in the short term. Multilateral
aid in particular cuts down the likelihood of international conflicts and
provides a very effective, collaborative way of dealing with crisis situations.
But bilateral aid, which comprises the 70% of ODA (OECD 2014), often directly benefits the giving nation through the
concept of aid-in-kind. Tied-aid programs,
which attach assistance to the fulfilment of certain trade or policy
concessions, are often criticised for being less effective, predatory as
they’re designed to mainly generate income for the donating nation, or for addressing
human rights violations while ignoring the larger issue of global poverty (GAO 2009; Younas, 2008; Pfutze T, 2008;
Younas, 2008). But this trend is changing, with developed countries increasingly utilising the cheap labour and locally-sourced,
cheaper goods of developing nations while providing what them with what they don’t
have; technology and expertise. Australia’s contribution to the Small Hydro
power Scheme in Remote Fijian villages is a perfect example of this. Villagers were
allowed access to electricity for the first time, gaining them the ability to
store food and for children to study at night, while hydro-electric companies
and engineers from Australia gained contracts, stimulating economic activity in
Australia’s while also gaining the nation valuable expertise (Liu et al, 2013). And indeed, the very
engineers who participated in that program went on to help design the Snowy Mountain
Hydroelectric Scheme, which provides Australia’s largest state with 10% of its
electricity usage and invaluable irrigation to this day.
of it happening?
How do we make the benefits clearer, in order to get it happening more?
answer. Though there are numerous
studies linking Corporate Social Responsibility to improved financial performance
(Margolis and Waslh 2001; Griffin and
Mahon, 1997) , little evidence exists quantifying those benefits (Vaidyanthan, 2008). Some suggest the
lack of consistent theory behind the benefits of giving are to blame (Margolis and Walsh 2003; Smith 1994), others that the methodology and sample sizes aren’t
consistent or reliable enough (Griffin and
Mahon 1997; Porter and Kramer, 2006). But whatever the reason, it’s impossible
to justify charity as an investment to
shareholders and voters when you can’t put a dollar figure to it. Securing this
data will cause change, but it’s only part of the answer. The development and
emergence of markets due to human development, the concept of customer and
recipient loyalty leading to profits, the improvement of brand image and international
relationships can’t, or aren’t even being measured as benefits of giving to
this day. Thus, a paradigm shift, along with increased investment, into how we
view and study aid is required to get reliable data on the benefits of giving.
This data will make giving something businesses and governments can’t afford
NOT to do.
beneficial. The semantics of giving and the sacrifice it’s associated with are
in part to blame for this, but lack of awareness of both the efforts companies already go
to for others, and the society-wide benefits of giving are part of it too. The
Red Revolution discussed previously is backed by large corporations such as Coca-Cola,
Starbucks and Apple; yet most reading this wouldn’t have even know it existed. I
know I hadn’t before I wrote this. If companies were to actively advertise
their efforts to help others more, not only would they benefit themselves through
increased sales and business (and put the onus on others to match them, thus
causing a chain effect that will increase the private sector’s contribution to charitable
causes), they’d also achieve another goal. Making the public aware that giving
can be a win-win. Charities are beginning to realise this too and are opening the eyes of the public to the idea that charity
needn’t be something that comes at their expense through giving people more interactive, more fun
ways of giving. The UNICEF-Tap-App,
in partnership with Georgio Armani, is a perfect example of this. The app is helping thousands kick their smart-phone
addictions for the wonders of real life by giving them compelling motivation to
do so; the donation of a day’s worth of water for every 10 minutes users spent
off their phone. Smaller organisations, such as the Louis26 Foundation,
dedicated to helping cancer patients and their families through tough times,
organise parties, get-togethers and sporting events, with all proceeds going to charity, allowing people to enjoy
some respite from their daily lives without the guilt of self-indulgence (Louis Segregato 26 Foundation, 2014). MaterHomes runs lotteries with statistically
higher chances of winning per dollar spent; satisfying both the innate fascination
and desire of a decadent, luxurious life and the more accomplishable,
gratifying goal of helping others simultaneously. And microfinance
organisations, such as Kiva, are increasingly allowing users the option to
withdraw money if they wish to attracting not only altruistic donors, but also
those looking for a reliable way to save.
(Click on any of the above to do these – I’ve personally participated in all of them – and they get the satisfaction of helping others without ever having to go out of my way or hurt myself financially for doing so.)
while helping others corrupts the very
ideals of giving. That it would create a business minded approach to charity
that would compromise that which we already gave to the more needy. But that allegation
assumes that people currently give only to gratify themselves, or because society
deems that they should. The heart is the core of altruism. And our compassion,
and willingness to help others will not diminish as long as inequality exists
in this world. The power of humanity will not be smothered by perceiving
charity as a win-win; it will be unleashed, as it unfetters the concept from the
chains of sacrifice that binds it. If people were to realise that charity is a win-win,
then people and the governments and businesses which exist to serve them would
be more able and willing to help others. Something that all humans are programmed to do,
deep inside. If businesses and governments, who control and regulate the entire world’s resources finally came to the realisation that the developing world has the most people, and stands to be the largest markets in the future; if they finally saw that they’d secure their prosperity by investing in, rather than holding back their potential, then charity wouldn’t just be a great investment, but one they can’t afford NOT to do.If we could expand the scope of global development from the spare change in ones’ pocket to the entire bank’s own interests, if we could bring the $100trillion world economy to realise that growth need not come from the subjugation of others but rather the advancement of us all… we will finally cure poverty.
This was a longer version of an essay competition entry I wrote for Bill Gates. Have a read of it and tell me what you think! Also let me know any other ways you can benefit yourself by giving to charity (I’ll be expanding on this and adding chunks to it over time, and showing more ways of how you can benefit by giving to others – and I’ll give you a mention for any idea I add in there!) Also – let me know what you think!
[4] World Bank
(2004), World Development Report 2005: A Better
Investment Climate for Everyone, World Bank, Oxford
University Press
[5] World Bank
(2009), Global Development Finance 2009: Charting a Global Recovery, Global Development
Prospects 2009
[6] Smith, C. 1994. “The New Corporate
Philanthropy.” Harvard Business Review
[7] Points of Light Foundation and the Center for
Corporate Citizenship at Boston College. 2005.
“Measuring Employee Volunteer Programs:
The Human Resources Model. “
[8] P. Godfrey, “The Relationship between Corporate
Philanthropy and Shareholder Wealth: A Risk Management Perspective.” Academy of Management
Review 30(4):777-798.
[9] C. Fombrun. Reputation:
Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Harvard Business School Press 1996
[10]K.
Jackson, “Building Reputational Capital: Strategies
for Integrity and Fair Play that Improve the Bottom Line. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004
Brand Image on Public Relations, Perception and Customer Loyalty”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol 26
Issue 1, 26-42, 2008
Cause-Related Marketing on Consumers’ Brand Loyalty” Journal of Consumer Marketing Issue 23/1
(2006), 15 – 25
[12] Porter, M. and Kramer, M. 2002. “The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy.” Harvard Business
Review 80(12):57-68.
[13] Field E. Pande R 2008, “Repayment Frequency and Default in Micro-Finance: Evidence
from India”, Journal of the European Economic Association 6,
501.509
[14] Osnos P 1998, “The Economist
Microlending From tiny acorns”, Grameen Bank 2013, Retrieved from: http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=215&Itemid=541&limit=1&limitstart=9
[13] Monsanto 2009, Monsanto & NGO ISAP Launch
Project Share – Sustainable Yield Initiative To Improve Farmer Lives, Monsanto Press release,
February 2009, Retrieved from: http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/project-share.aspx
[14] NDTV Profit 2013, Sony
aims to triple mobile phone sales in India by March 2014, NDTV March 2013, Retrieved from:
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/corporates/article-sony-aims-to-triple-mobile-phone-sales-in-india-by-march-2014-319067
solutions now reach over 40 million homes in India, Economic Times May 2014, Retrieved
from:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/35722108.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Mobile Phone Store Ecology in a Mumbai Slum Community: Hybrid Networks for
Enterprise” Information
Technologies and Development Journal, Vol 6, Issue 3 –
Fall 2010, 51-65
[17] OECD (2014), “Development aid: Net official development
assistance (ODA)“, Development: Key Tables from
OECD, OECD 2014, No. 1.
[18] OECD
press release, Development: Aid to
developing countries falls because of global recession, OECD 2011,
retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/developmentaidtodevelopingcountriesfallsbecauseofglobalrecession.htm
[19] United States, Government
Accountability Office, “INTERNATIONAL
FOOD ASSISTANCE; Local and Regional Procurement Can Enhance the Efficiency of
U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain Its Implementation,“ GAO-09-570 International Food Assistance, May 2009
[20]Younas, J (2008) “Motivation for Bilateral Aid Allocation:
Altruism or Trade Benefits” European Journal of
Political Economy, Vol 24, Issue 3 – September, 2008, 661 – 674
[21] Easterly W, Pfutze T, (2008) “Where
does the money go? Best and Worst Practices in Foreign Aid” Brookings
Global Economy and Development, June 2008
[22] Liu, H., Masera, D. and
Esser, L., eds. (2013). World Small Hydropower Development Report 2013. United
Nations Industrial Development Organization; International Center on Small
Hydro Power
[23] B Vaidyanathan (2008),
“Corporate Giving; A Literature
Review,” Center for the Study of Religion And Society,
University of Notre Dam, October
2008
[24] Margolis, J and J. Walsh,
(2001) “People and profits? The
search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance.”
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate:
Twenty-five Years of Incomparable Research.” Business and Society 36,
5–31.
Competative Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility” Harvard Business Review, December Issue 76
– 94
