However, its successful implementation could be influenced by a variety of factors including. Corporate social responsibility from friedman to porter and kramer. In this article, michael porter and mark kramer propose a fundamentally new way. Designmethodologyapproach traces the rise in interest in corporate social responsibility csr and the range of methodologies available to rank. The fact is, the prevailing approaches to csr are so disconnected from strategy as to obscure many great opportunities for companies to benefit society. On this basis, we show how csr has adapted to value creation.
An extension of porter and kramers creating shared value. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility michael e. Csr initiatives on the grounds that they will im december 2006 3 this article is.
Global conferences and meetings, as well as corporate actions show an increased interest in the implications for doing. In response, corporate social responsibility has emerged as an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country. Corporate social responsibility from friedman to porter. Well in 2006, porter wrote a seminar article with his colleague kramer which mentioned the fact that csr is about creating shared value. Pdf corporate social responsibility from friedman to porter and. Branco and rodrigues 2006 lead csr in connection with the companys commitment to contribute to corporate sustainability.
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. According to porter and kramer 2011, the businesses are in the best position to understand the true bases of their company productivity. The business case for corporate social responsibility csr can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed. This article was the winner of the 2011 mckinsey award. Frequently, though, csr efforts are counterproductive, for two reasons. Michael porter and mark kramer, writing in hbr december, 2006 and januaryfebruary, 2011, advance the idea of creating shared value by developing strategies. Pdf the link between competitive advantage and corporate social. Thus, the importance of csr might be viewed from two perspectives. It is in their interest to collaborate across profit and nonprofit boundaries. This highlights the increased significance attributed to sustainability.
Porter me, kramer mr 2006, dec 2006 the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Pdf strategic corporate social responsibility through. Analyzing corporate social responsibility measurement parameters. Second, they pressure companies to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways instead of in the way most appropriate to their individual strategies. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility in 2006. From then on, porter suggester the value chain be used to show how a csr project could impact the companys strategy. 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. Porter and kramer 2006 initially explored and linked csr activities to firms value chain in order to gain the best outcome. First, due to stakeholder expectation and pressure, the company is demanded to perform certain social responsibility actions. Csr, cso, and csv porter and kramer 2006 defined shared value as providing benefits for both society and. Corporate social responsibility in international business. The issue of csr vs business performance has been a longstanding debate key questions are corporates responsible for social consequences of their activities.
Csv is a way to grow economies, marketplaces, companies, and communities in the longterm interest of businesses and everyone else and enables a. Sport club are classified according to the importance they give to csr. As a result, csr has emerged as an inescapable priority for business. Either develop a csr program that is integrated with the rest of your business, or watch as your competitors do. Comparing their definition of csv with carroll or kelly shows that csv is a more concrete concept than the. Friedman critical view of csr to porter and kramer sharedvalue. Dyllick and hockerts 2002 defined corporate sustainability as meeting the needs of direct and indirect stakeholders of the firm. Corporate social responsibility csr vs creating shared.
They d eveloped this as a guide for organizations to prioritize. Corporate social responsibility as competitive advantage. Porter and kramer 2006, 2011 are very clear that shared value is not corporate social responsibility. We observed that the sample mnes engage in strategic csr either through investment in competitive context or the transformation of value chain. 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. Analyzing corporate social responsibility measurement parameters by vidya sawhny. Thus, the present article is justified by the lack of academic production regarding csr, business strategy and issues involving competitive advantage. Employing porter and kramers corporate social responsibility csr framework harv bus rev 84. Carroll 1979 suggested a conceptual framework for categorizing csr that includes four levels of company obligations. Shifting corporate social responsibility to corporate. 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. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, boston. 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. Kramer 94 disruptive innovation for social change clayton m. Not only do they criticize the four principles on which csr rests. 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. In this thought provoking article, they describe four prevailing justifications for corporate social responsibility a moral obligation, b sustainability, c license to operate. Initiating the discussion on strategic csr, porter and kramer 2006 as.
Corporate social responsibility by porter and kramer essay. It is a source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage porter and kramer 2006. Competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Analyzing corporate social responsibility measurement. More about corporate social responsibility by porter and kramer essay. Porter and kramer are the cofounders of both fsg social impact advisors and. 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 creating shared value proposition substantia mea. They recognize that many firms corporate social responsibility csr efforts are counterproductive, for two reasons. Porter and kramer make a very convincing argument that companies have two choices.