Explain How Creating Shared Value (CSV) Differs From Corpora

Explain how Creating Shared Value (CSV) differs from Corporate Social Responsibility

The purpose of this assessment is to investigate and discuss the differences between Creating Shared Value (CSV) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Additionally, it explores whether adopting a CSV approach can effectively address major socio-economic and environmental challenges such as climate change, obesity, and gender inequality. The paper will analyze theoretical foundations, historical context, stakeholder impacts, and relevant case studies, supported by scholarly references.

Creating Shared Value (CSV), as articulated by Porter and Kramer (2011), represents a strategic approach that integrates social issues into core business operations to generate economic value while simultaneously addressing societal needs. Unlike traditional CSR, which often functions as a peripheral or philanthropic activity disconnected from profitability, CSV emphasizes aligning societal benefits with business competitiveness (Porter & Kramer, 2011). This distinction signifies a paradigm shift—from viewing social responsibility as an add-on to embedding social value creation as a fundamental element of competitive strategy.

In contrast, Corporate Social Responsibility has historically been rooted in philanthropy, compliance, and ethical practices, often perceived as voluntary actions separate from a company's primary economic activities (Carroll, 1999). CSR initiatives tend to focus on mitigating negative impacts post hoc rather than fostering innovation that solves social problems through business solutions. The development of CSV as a concept addresses the limitations of CSR by providing a framework where social issues drive business growth, thereby establishing a mutual value proposition.

The evolution from CSR to CSV is largely driven by the rise of large multinational corporations (MNCs) wielding significant influence and power. These entities often impact environmental and social systems on a global scale, leading to increased scrutiny and calls for more sustainable and responsible practices (Banerjee, 2007). Recent catastrophic environmental disasters such as BP's Deepwater Horizon spill (2010) and Samarco/BHP Billiton dam collapses (2015) exemplify failures in traditional CSR frameworks and underscore the necessity for more systemic approaches like CSV, which proactively address risks and societal impacts in strategic planning.

CSV's potential to address major socio-economic and environmental challenges is supported by evidence that integrating social value into core strategies can lead to innovative solutions. For example, Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan demonstrates how embedding social and environmental considerations into product development and supply chain management can create shared value (Unilever, 2020). Similarly, Nestlé's focus on sustainable sourcing and community development exemplifies CSV as a driver for long-term profitability intertwined with social progress (Nestlé, 2018).

Beneficiaries of CSV extend beyond corporations to various stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, community groups, consumers, employees, and social enterprises. Governments can facilitate supportive policies, while NGOs and community groups often collaborate with businesses to implement sustainable practices. Consumers increasingly prefer brands committed to social and environmental responsibility, influencing corporate strategies (Bhattacharya et al., 2013). Employees benefit from meaningful work aligned with social good, enhancing engagement and retention. The role of social enterprises is crucial—they exemplify practical applications of CSV principles by balancing profit with social impact (Murray et al., 2010).

Proponents argue that CSV offers a pragmatic pathway to address pressing global challenges, citing the potential for innovation-driven solutions that align economic incentives with societal needs. Critics, however, contend that CSV may be co-opted as a marketing tool or a means to obscure ongoing social inequities and environmental degradation (Friedman & Miles, 2006). Analyzing case studies reveals that while CSV can be effective, its success depends on authentic commitment, transparency, and aligning corporate practices with broader sustainability goals.

In conclusion, CSV distinguishes itself from CSR by integrating social issues into core business strategy for mutual benefits, making it a promising approach for tackling complex societal challenges. However, realizing its full potential requires genuine commitment from corporations, supportive policy environments, and active stakeholder engagement. Embracing CSV could lead to more innovative, sustainable solutions to global problems such as climate change, obesity, and inequality, ultimately fostering resilient and equitable business-society relationships.

References

• Banerjee, S. B. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Critical Sociology, 33(1), 51-79.
• Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2013). Strengthening Stakeholder–Company Relationships Through Mutually Beneficial Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257–272.
• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Framework. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.
• Friedman, M., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press.
• Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation. NESTA.
• Nestlé. (2018). Creating Shared Value and The Nestlé Corporate Business Principles. Retrieved from https://www.nestle.com/
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1-2), 62-77.
• Unilever. (2020). Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. Retrieved from https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/
• Additional scholarly sources to be incorporated as needed for a comprehensive analysis.