In our current state of economic distress, the last thing you'd expect is for business to start solving problems for people who are not their customers.

And yet, this is what Harvard business guru, Clayton Christensen, has been talking about since the mid-90s. There are two ways to disrupt markets – one, low-end disruption, occurs when a product or service starts as a simple application at the bottom of a market and then moves up market, eventually disrupting the leading competitors. The second, which business has not paid enough attention to, is new market disruption which occurs when a product fits a new or emerging market segment that is not being served by existing incumbents in the industry. What bigger market is there than the poor? And why are they not being served?

A not-so recent estimate puts the size of the market at $5tn with 4 billion potential customers, but the reasons why the poor are not viewed as customers is not so clear. According to the research, the top reasons businesses cite for not serving those at the base of the pyramid are as follows:

• Business model adjustments

• Business environment

• Operational partnerships

• Market or supplier development

• Funding partnerships

To me there is another reason: the mindset of the company leadership. Too often senior executives focus on their most profitable customers, and ignore emerging markets because they are simply not viewed as big enough, or profitable enough, to make a difference. Instead, they focus on 10% of the market because it is profitable, ignoring the other 90% which is assumed to be unreachable or unservable.

Solving real problems at the right price

When will companies start designing products and services for the other 90%?

There's a growing movement lead by entrepreneurs such as Paul Polak who don't view the poor as a social responsibility or charity. Instead, the needs of the poor are viewed as a business opportunity. For example, Polak explains that while solar pumping systems have been available for years, they haven't been adopted at scale for one simple reason: they cost too much. The purchase price of solar PV systems is too high to be competitive with diesel pumps, even though the fuel and repair costs of diesel pumps are astronomical. By cutting the cost of solar pumping systems by 80%, Polak's Sunwater project is seeking to boost small farmer incomes, create tens of thousands of new jobs, and significantly lower carbon emissions. He calls his design approach zerobased design, an approach that starts from scratch, making no assumptions about the technology and strategy that can best be used or created to address a specific problem.

A few innovators engage the poor not just as consumers, but as producers, distributors, and retailers in their business models and value chains.

Project Nurture is a $11.5m dollar partnership among The Coca-Cola Company, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the international non-profit organisation, TechnoServe. In essence, the three organisations are working together to build and strengthen the local ecosystem of mango and passion fruit producers and processors.

The goal is to double the fruit incomes of more than 50,000 smallholder farmers in Kenya and Uganda. Over the span of the project, all the players will develop the capabilities and commercial incentives to continue doing business together even after the project ends.

Technology serving human rights

There is a growing understanding among policymakers that innovations in technology offer disruptive and transformative opportunities in the field of human rights. From the role of the internet in the Arab Spring, to the drama of WikiLeaks, technology and access to information have raised political stakes like never before.

Ushahidi, which means "testimony" in Swahili, was a website that was initially developed to map reports of violence in Kenya after the post-election fallout at the beginning of 2008. Since then, it has grown into an anti-corruption and transparency mapping engine for anyone, anytime, anywhere. But it's still about the people. In a blog post titled How to fight corruption with online tools, Tarik Nesh Nash says:

"Technology can empower citizens, raise awareness and pressure authorities. Yet, technology cannot fight corruption; it cannot change cultures, detect problems, propose solutions or amend laws. People can. As we are building online tools, we should remember their raison d'être: they should be part of a broader strategy of engagement and participation."

The idea that technology will solve everything is of course a false hope. Despite the enthusiasm of techgnostics across the world, the responsibility and burden for change lies with individuals and businesses that want to make a difference.

Job creation: the ultimate function of business?

There used to be a popular story that private enterprise could do something that governments weren't very good at: create jobs. Is that still true?

According to Clayton Christensen, the current focus across on efficiency and cost-cutting is succeeding in destroying jobs for many and creating capital for few: "Disruptive innovations create jobs, whereas efficiency innovations destroy them."

Businesses must get back to creating long-term value. Christensen has suggested that we change the capital gains tax rate so that it decreases the longer an investment is held. That would encourage investment for the long run and encourage real innovation, as opposed to short-term measures designed to boost the next quarter's results.

Living-job creation is what society requires most from business. What about it then?

Christian Sarkar is an independent consultant, author and entrepreneur. He is the co-founder of the $300 House Project.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox