Contesting the value of "creating shared value"

Andrew Crane, Guido Palazzo, Laura J. Spence, Dirk Matten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

197 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article critiques Porter and Kramer's concept of creating shared value. The strengths of the idea are highlighted in terms of its popularity among practitioner and academic audiences, its connecting of strategy and social goals, and its systematizing of some previously underdeveloped, disconnected areas of research and practice. However, the concept suffers from some serious shortcomings, namely: it is unoriginal; it ignores the tensions inherent to responsible business activity; it is naïve about business compliance; and it is based on a shallow conception of the corporation's role in society. [Michael Porter and Mark Kramer were invited to respond to this article. Their commentary follows along with a reply by Crane and his co-authors.]

LanguageEnglish
Pages130-153
Number of pages24
JournalCalifornia Management Review
Volume56
Issue number2
Early online date1 Feb 2014
DOIs
StatusPublished - Dec 2014

Fingerprint

Shared values
Conception
Business activity
Michael Porter

Keywords

  • Business and society
  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Ethics
  • Partnerships
  • Philanthropy
  • Stakeholders

Cite this

Contesting the value of "creating shared value". / Crane, Andrew; Palazzo, Guido; Spence, Laura J.; Matten, Dirk.

In: California Management Review, Vol. 56, No. 2, 12.2014, p. 130-153.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Crane, Andrew ; Palazzo, Guido ; Spence, Laura J. ; Matten, Dirk. / Contesting the value of "creating shared value". In: California Management Review. 2014 ; Vol. 56, No. 2. pp. 130-153.
@article{4de0f165693a4ce6948eb6b9ea38a993,
title = "Contesting the value of {"}creating shared value{"}",
abstract = "This article critiques Porter and Kramer's concept of creating shared value. The strengths of the idea are highlighted in terms of its popularity among practitioner and academic audiences, its connecting of strategy and social goals, and its systematizing of some previously underdeveloped, disconnected areas of research and practice. However, the concept suffers from some serious shortcomings, namely: it is unoriginal; it ignores the tensions inherent to responsible business activity; it is na{\"i}ve about business compliance; and it is based on a shallow conception of the corporation's role in society. [Michael Porter and Mark Kramer were invited to respond to this article. Their commentary follows along with a reply by Crane and his co-authors.]",
keywords = "Business and society, Corporate social responsibility, Ethics, Partnerships, Philanthropy, Stakeholders",
author = "Andrew Crane and Guido Palazzo and Spence, {Laura J.} and Dirk Matten",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "130--153",
journal = "California Management Review",
issn = "0008-1256",
publisher = "Haas School of Business",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contesting the value of "creating shared value"

AU - Crane, Andrew

AU - Palazzo, Guido

AU - Spence, Laura J.

AU - Matten, Dirk

PY - 2014/12

Y1 - 2014/12

N2 - This article critiques Porter and Kramer's concept of creating shared value. The strengths of the idea are highlighted in terms of its popularity among practitioner and academic audiences, its connecting of strategy and social goals, and its systematizing of some previously underdeveloped, disconnected areas of research and practice. However, the concept suffers from some serious shortcomings, namely: it is unoriginal; it ignores the tensions inherent to responsible business activity; it is naïve about business compliance; and it is based on a shallow conception of the corporation's role in society. [Michael Porter and Mark Kramer were invited to respond to this article. Their commentary follows along with a reply by Crane and his co-authors.]

AB - This article critiques Porter and Kramer's concept of creating shared value. The strengths of the idea are highlighted in terms of its popularity among practitioner and academic audiences, its connecting of strategy and social goals, and its systematizing of some previously underdeveloped, disconnected areas of research and practice. However, the concept suffers from some serious shortcomings, namely: it is unoriginal; it ignores the tensions inherent to responsible business activity; it is naïve about business compliance; and it is based on a shallow conception of the corporation's role in society. [Michael Porter and Mark Kramer were invited to respond to this article. Their commentary follows along with a reply by Crane and his co-authors.]

KW - Business and society

KW - Corporate social responsibility

KW - Ethics

KW - Partnerships

KW - Philanthropy

KW - Stakeholders

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894544782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130

U2 - 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130

DO - 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 130

EP - 153

JO - California Management Review

T2 - California Management Review

JF - California Management Review

SN - 0008-1256

IS - 2

ER -