If you are not broken do not fix it: Porter and Kramer CSR
not exhaust the capacity to put new names to our beloved CSR. time to time someone comes to call attention to a variant suggests a new interpretation for responsible practices.
Most times it is easy to ignore, but this time is highly respected author and first-half level. The famous Michael Porter and Mark Kramer published in the Harvard Business Review of January-February 2011 Article Creating Shared Value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and Growth (Creating shared value: As reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth). The article is featured on the cover and has a length of 16 pages, something extraordinary for the HBR, and is the section "The Big Idea" (The great idea). More prominence impossible!
Let's start by acknowledging that an article is very well written and very comprehensive, recommended reading for non-experts in CSR. But it is what it says it is nor add much.
Only authors like Porter and Kramer can afford to publish a paper with a caption and a cover so exaggerated. It seems that all the problems of the economy and businesses will be resolved with the requirements of Article: reinvent itself and be unleashed capitalism growth. I hope my readers will forgive me the audacity to criticize an article of such renowned authors and I suggest you read it so you draw your own conclusions. I do so with the best of intentions to promote discussion of current issues in CSR.
If this article came from less known authors would be easy to ignore, but we are facing the same phenomenon, but in reverse, about six years ago, when The Economist published the famous charge attacking CSR as business fallacy ( The Good Company, January 2005). could not ignore was The Economist . magazine three years later reconsidered and recognized the strategic value of CSR ( Just Good Business, January 2008).
Porter and Kramer are the same as four years ago gave us the excellent article Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility (Strategy and Society: The link between competitive strategy and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, December 2006), where, despite some shortcomings noted in the concept, highlighted the strategic importance of CSR. and also four years before had given us for Competitive advantge of Corporate Philanthropy (The competitive advantage of strategic philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, December 2002) which advocated philanthropy aligned with business strategy, concept has had an impact on corporate philanthropy. quadrennial Each item is a conceptual extrapolation of the above.
have to invent something new to publish. Hopefully sometime Porter and Kramer also recognize that CSR is a concept broad enough to cover what is now proposed and that does not need artificial enhancements or new names.
paper proposes a "solution" to the loss of legitimacy of business in recent years as a result of putting their interests above those of society. The solution is to share the value, or " the creation of economic value to the business so that also create value for society, to meet their needs and challenges. " Is not this the most rigorous definition of CSR?
According to the authors, NO. " The" shared value "is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success " ... ... ... ... "The company's goal should be redefined as Shared value creation, not just the achievement of benefits. This will produce the new wave of innovation on productivity growth in the global economy. capitalism and also redefine its relationship with society "
to be clear that this is a new concept, the authors highlight the differences and create a new acronym CSV (Creating Shared Value), to compete with CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) (in English can not do the game with CSR or CSR). The comparison uses the strategy that to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed concept is to degrade the concept opposite. reproduce the table used to demonstrate the superiority of CSV on CSR and added my comments in the right column.
| CSR | CSV | Comments | ||
| Value: Doing good | Value: Economic and social benefits on the cost | Did The CSR you just do good and pursuing the costs and benefits do not matter? | ||
| citizenship, philanthropy, sustainability | joint value creation between the enterprise and the community | Is that CSR is concerned only one of the two, business or community? | ||
| Volunteer or in response to external pressures | party competitiveness | Is that CSR is not part of the company's strategy? Solo "is done to appease the spirits and feeling good? | ||
| Separated from profit maximization | Integrated profit maximization | Is that responsible practices are not concerned about the costs and benefits? Or is that now we have maximize the benefits? This would not be a new capitalism, is the man! | ||
| Shares determined by reporting requirements and personal preferences | Actions are specific to the company and certain internally | Is that responsible practices are same for all business and management has nothing to do with them? | ||
| limited to the footprint impact business and CSR budget | Realigns the budget of the entire company | Is that CSR is only budgeted expenses? Is that CSR is only reactive and not proactive? | ||
Fortunately recognize that they have something in common: both concepts involve compliance laws, ethical standards and reducing the damage caused by business activities.
But the authors go one step further and explicitly mention that the CSV contribution to the objective of profit maximization. Is it possible to maximize profits share value?
however acknowledge that "Not all benefits are equal. The benefits involve a social purpose represent a higher form of capitalism, one that creates a virtuous cycle of business-community prosperity ". Totally agree, that IS the essence of CSR. But what we were, we maximize or shared? is desirable to improve sharing benefits, but you can not maximize them.
And now that society has gradually assembled an institutional frame around the CSR / Sustainability, propose a replacement. have been able to develop reporting systems, GRI, until a consensus has been achieved in a guide on responsible practices such as ISO 26000, have been developed for responsible investment indices, we are moving towards integrated reporting, there acceptance business, government and society on the issue of CSR. The authors do not mention these developments. Not that I intend to be staying with bad because we already have an investment in it, is that CSR is versatile enough, properly understood, as to guide corporate strategies to benefit themselves and society. CSR is a robust concept.
However, his criticism if it is valid for a large number of companies delayed, which have not yet understood the value of CSR. But the problem is not lack of knowledge of what to do, the problem is the lack of implementation of the ideas . Implementation worry not, nor mention it. Only worry about the conceptual. I would say the easy part. How to ensure more effective implementation does not propose anything.
explain the concepts very clearly and repetition of familiar things. Even the examples are the same as we have seen repeatedly. fuel economy and emissions in WalMart as a result of the reduction in packaging, new products GE Ecomagination strategy, care to employees of Johnson & Johnson, inclusive business, chain value, etc.. saw no example again.
To justify the "new" paradigm proposed by the same standard arguments for reducing consumption of resources, energy, water, logistics, procurement, responsibility, labor productivity, partnerships with NGOs and governments, public policies, etc. .
In this sense it is a very comprehensive article in defense of what the modern world meant by CSR. is what makes the most advanced companies. The problem is us believe there is a revolutionary proposal. Highly recommended reading, but instead of CSV, the reader must read CSR (ie CSR) and it seems to have already read. The "big idea" of Porter and Cramer is nothing more than a change of acronyms for CSR. Everything they propose is the strategic concept of CSR. Nothing new, but may complicate the progress of our beloved CSR, adding more confusion of terms.
I would add that claim to fix ideas and unleash capitalism growth is irresponsible. If a company did something equivalent in the announcement of its products would describe as irresponsible.
