In this thought provoking article, they describe four prevailing justifications for corporate social responsibility a moral obligation, b sustainability, c license to operate. Corporate social responsibility from friedman to porter and kramer. In a similar vein, porter and kramer 2006 claimed that the solution for csr lies in the principle of shared value. Kramer 94 disruptive innovation for social change clayton m. From then on, porter suggester the value chain be used to show how a csr project could impact the companys strategy. Employing porter and kramers corporate social responsibility csr framework harv bus rev 84. Michael porter and mark kramer 2006 proposed a new way to look at business that does not treat corporate success and social welfare as a zero sum game p. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, boston. Analyzing corporate social responsibility measurement parameters by vidya sawhny. Porter and kramer 2002, 2006, pearce and doh 2005, husted and salazar 2005, 2006, the efforts of these authors do not fill all the theoretical, methodological and practical gaps. Porter and kramer 2006 initially explored and linked csr activities to firms value chain in order to gain the best outcome.
Organizations that make the right choices and build focused, proactive, and integrated social initiatives in concert with their core strategies will distance themselves from the pack. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Porter and kramer 2006, 2011 are very clear that shared value is not corporate social responsibility. Sport club are classified according to the importance they give to csr. Branco and rodrigues 2006 lead csr in connection with the companys commitment to contribute to corporate sustainability.
Porter and kramer make a very convincing argument that companies have two choices. Pdf strategic corporate social responsibility through. As a result, csr has emerged as an inescapable priority for business. The business case for corporate social responsibility csr can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed. Michael porter and mark kramer, writing in hbr december, 2006 and januaryfebruary, 2011, advance the idea of creating shared value by developing strategies. The fact is, the prevailing approaches to csr are so disconnected from strategy as to obscure many great opportunities for companies to benefit society. It is in their interest to collaborate across profit and nonprofit boundaries. Comparing their definition of csv with carroll or kelly shows that csv is a more concrete concept than the. On this basis, we show how csr has adapted to value creation. Corporate social responsibility by porter and kramer essay. Csr, cso, and csv porter and kramer 2006 defined shared value as providing benefits for both society and. We analyze, from the viewpoint of value creation, the evolution of corporate social responsibility csr thought from friedman critical view of csr to porter and kramer sharedvalue proposition, emphasizing, at the same time, its parallelism with the evolution of asset valuation models from the viewpoint of common stocks value. Thus, the present article is justified by the lack of academic production regarding csr, business strategy and issues involving competitive advantage.
Analyzing corporate social responsibility measurement. Corporate social responsibility csr vs creating shared. Corporate social responsibility from friedman to porter. In this article, michael porter and mark kramer propose a fundamentally new way.
Strategic corporate social responsibility management for. The issue of csr vs business performance has been a longstanding debate key questions are corporates responsible for social consequences of their activities. Analyzing corporate social responsibility measurement parameters. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility michael e. Initiating the discussion on strategic csr, porter and kramer 2006 as. Shifting corporate social responsibility to corporate. First, due to stakeholder expectation and pressure, the company is demanded to perform certain social responsibility actions. Well in 2006, porter wrote a seminar article with his colleague kramer which mentioned the fact that csr is about creating shared value. Friedman critical view of csr to porter and kramer sharedvalue.
They d eveloped this as a guide for organizations to prioritize. Pdf corporate social responsibility from friedman to porter and. Thus, the importance of csr might be viewed from two perspectives. According to porter and kramer 2011, the businesses are in the best position to understand the true bases of their company productivity. Porter and kramer are the cofounders of both fsg social impact advisors and. Designmethodologyapproach traces the rise in interest in corporate social responsibility csr and the range of methodologies available to rank. Pdf the link between competitive advantage and corporate social. Second, they pressure companies to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways instead of in the way most appropriate to their individual strategies. Finally, the importance of csr within the belgian sport clubs is emphasized and it will be questioned whether shared value theory from porter and kramer 2006,2011 can be proven. However, by tracing a historical evolution, moon and parc 2019 argue that 1 responsive csr of porter and kramer 2006 and traditional csr defined by porter and kramer 2011 are identical while strategic csr of porter and kramer 2006 and csv developed by porter and kramer 2011 are similar when compared.
Csv is a way to grow economies, marketplaces, companies, and communities in the longterm interest of businesses and everyone else and enables a. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility in 2006. This highlights the increased significance attributed to sustainability. It is a source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage porter and kramer 2006. Not only do they criticize the four principles on which csr rests. This article was the winner of the 2011 mckinsey award. Carroll 1979 suggested a conceptual framework for categorizing csr that includes four levels of company obligations.
Porter me, kramer mr 2006, dec 2006 the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Frequently, though, csr efforts are counterproductive, for two reasons. Corporate social responsibility in international business. In response, corporate social responsibility has emerged as an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country. Either develop a csr program that is integrated with the rest of your business, or watch as your competitors do. Also, when a company uses the value chain to chart all the social consequences of its activities, it has, in effect, created an inventory of problems and opportunities. We observed that the sample mnes engage in strategic csr either through investment in competitive context or the transformation of value chain. Corporate social responsibility as competitive advantage. An extension of porter and kramers creating shared value. Categorising firms csr activities into responsive and strategic csr agendas porter and kramer 2006, this framework emphasises that different uses of mcs must be adopted to effectively operationalise different csr agendas.