Training Wheels

---

My Sustainable Encounter with Love Kashyap

by Albert Schiller

The core challenge of implementing innovative systems in skeptical environments is not technical. It is the "trust deficit". For stakeholders like farmers, who have been "cheated many times" by outsiders promising long-term gains, distrust is a rational and pragmatic survival mechanism by default. A brilliant long-term solution is worthless if no agent is willing to take the initial risk to adopt it. Love Kashyap’s methodology does not rely on persuasion. It is a sophisticated architecture for building trust that creates buy-in where none exists by providing tangible, immediate proof. It is a framework that respects skepticism and engineers a pathway aiming for mutual benefit.

Shared Value

Kashyap’s approach begins with a core principle: a solution must create clear and immediate value for all parties to achieve a "product-market fit". He argues that any new system, which he calls "institutionalization," will fail unless it's paired with a clear, immediate benefit, or "incentivization". A new system cannot be imposed. It must be accompanied by a compelling reason for stakeholders to participate. This incentive is the first step in creating a "shared value" system. It is a demonstration from day one that the new model is a partnership, a refutation of an exploitative history. It directly answers the farmer's unspoken but critical question: What is in this for me, right now? This approach reframes the incentive as a crucial down payment on a promise, a signal that the system's architect understands the stakeholder's immediate needs and is willing to share value from the beginning.

5%

This architecture was tested and proven in a project to produce high-quality, antibiotic-free milk for infant formula. The long-term value for farmers was a potential 100% increase in milk production. The immediate problem was their valid skepticism: "Why should I trust you?". Kashyap’s solution was to build an incentive bridge. He created a "short-term value" by offering a guaranteed bonus of one rupee per liter for compliant milk, a 5% premium at the time. The incentive functioned as a low-risk "green shoot" that demonstrated the system was designed for their benefit. The design included a clever mechanism for collective responsibility: the milk was tested in bulk, meaning if any farmer's milk was non-compliant, the entire group of 50 to 100 farmers would lose the incentive. This created a significant peer pressure system that aligned individual actions with the collective reward, making the community a self-policing agent of quality control.

Baptism of Fire

The small premium worked as a catalyst. It encouraged farmers to adopt the new practices, unlocking the system's embedded long-term benefits. Within one year, milk production increased by 37%, and by the second year, it had doubled. This exceptional increase in their core income was the intended outcome of a system built for sustainable growth. As a result, the initial 1-rupee bonus became "irrelevant to them". Kashyap's baptism of fire succeeded. The short-term incentive was a temporary bridge, proving that the shared value proposition was the correct path to build trust among the farmers. Its purpose was fulfilled once the long-term value was reached. The architectural element converts a transactional relationship into one built on experienced trust.

So what can we take from his approach?

Questions for Audience

1. Kashyap's "incentive bridge" was highly effective for a commodity like milk, where results and payments are frequent. How could this model be adapted for long-term interventions, like regenerative agriculture, where the financial benefits might not become evident for several years?

2. The model uses peer pressure (bulk testing) to enforce compliance. In what situations could this powerful tool become coercive or unfair to individual community members, and what safeguards would be needed to protect them?