Skip to main content

Creating Shared Value as Institutionalization of Ethical Responsibilities of the Business Corporation as a Good Corporate Citizen in Society

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Creating Shared Value – Concepts, Experience, Criticism

Part of the book series: Ethical Economy ((SEEP,volume 52))

Abstract

This article discusses Michael Porter’s paradigm of creating shared value (CSV) based on the criticism of corporate social responsibility by Milton Friedman in the perspective of contemporary debates on legitimacy and good corporate citizenship. This is a development of the argument presented by Jacob Dahl Rendtorff concerning the liberal property rights paradigm of business ethics in his book Responsibility, Ethics and Legitimacy of Corporations (Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations. Copenhagen Business School Press, 2009). This article discusses the work that Michael Porter has developed together with Mark Kramer, which can be presented as a strategic approach to business ethics and corporate social responsibility. This work began with Porter’s concept of Strategic Philanthropy (The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Reprinted In: Harvard Business School Press (ed) Harvard business review on corporate social responsibility, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003) which became Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility (Harv Bus Rev 84(12):78–92, 2006) and gradually developed into the concept of Creating Shared Value (Harv Bus Rev 89(1):62–77, 2011). We see how Michael Porter integrates the critical perspective on CSR from Friedman in a strategic concept of philanthropy, corporate social responsibility and creating shared value (CSV). Accordingly, the concept of creating shared value should be considered as a development of the ideas of strategic philanthropy and corporate social responsibility in the perspective of capitalism and freedom. At the same time, however, the concept of creating shared value is broader and more oriented towards society and towards the idea of profit-based CSR since it integrates the values of society and business in corporate legitimacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The sections in this article “Milton Friedman’s concept of Corporate Social Responsibility” and “Michael Porter’s interpretation of Friedman’s concept of Corporate Social Responsibility as strategic philanthropy and creating shared value (CSV)” are partly slightly modified and updated versions of the pages on “the liberal property right of business” in the book Responsibility, Ethics and Legitimacy of Corporations (Rendtorff 2009: 91ff.). I am grateful to Copenhagen Business School Press for allowing me to use this material.

References

  • Aras, Güler, and David Crowther. 2009. Global perspectives on corporate governance and CSR. Farnham: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J.R. 1999. Does business ethics rest on a mistake? Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 583–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Ethics and the conduct of business. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnafous-Boucher, Maria, and Jacob D. Rendtorff. 2014. La théorie des parties prenantes. Paris: Editions La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, Thomas. 1993. Friedman’s theory of corporate social responsibility. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 12(1): 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R.H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16): 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, Andrew, Guido Palazzo, Laura J. Spence, and Dirk Matten. 2014. Contesting the value of creating shared value. California Management Review 56(2): 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desjardins, Joseph R. 2014. An introduction to business ethics. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, Amatya. 1988. The moral dimension. Towards a new economics. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E. 1984/2010. Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. (1970) Reprinted In Beyond integrity. A Judeo-Christian approach to business ethics, ed. Scott B. Rae and Kenman L. Wong, 241–246. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1973. Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ims, K.J., and L.J.T. Pedersen. 2015. Business and the greater good. Rethinking business ethics in the age of crisis. Studies in transatlantic business ethics. Cheltenham/Northmaton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. The Journal of Financial Economics 3(4): 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Inger, John D. Scheuer, and Jacob D. Rendtorff. 2013. The balanced company: Organizing for the 21st century. Farnham: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L.S. 1994a. Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review 72(2): 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994b. Law, ethics and managerial judgment. The Journal of Legal Studies Education 12(2): 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review 65(3): 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review 86(1): 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 2003. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Reprinted In Harvard business review on corporate social responsibility, ed. Havard Business School Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive Advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84(12): 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Creating shared value. How to reinvent Capitalism – And unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review 89(1): 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R.A., and R.E. Freeman. 2010. Stakeholders. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff, J.D. 2009. Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations. Koge/Portland/Abingdon: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Power and principle in the market place, on ethics and economics. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011a. Institutionalization of corporate ethics and social responsibility programs in firms. In Corporate social and human rights responsibilities: Global, legal and management perspectives, ed. Karin Buhmann, Lynn Roseberry, and Mette Morsing, 244–266. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011b. Corporate citizenship as organizational integrity. In Corporate citizenship and new governance: The political role of corporations, ed. Ingo Pies, and Peter Koslowski, 59–91. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Philosophical theories of management and corporations. In Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics, ed. Christoph Luetge, 1409–1432. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer Science+Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. French philosophy and social theory: A perspective for ethics and philosophy of management. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer Science+Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Business ethics, strategy, and organizational integrity: The importance of integrity as a basic principle of business ethics that contributes to better economic performance. In Handbook of research on business ethics and corporate responsibilities, ed. D.E. Palmer, 91–105. Herschey: IGI global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M.C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review 20(3): 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez, M.G. 2002. Business ethics. Concepts and cases. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O.E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. The mechanisms of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Dahl Rendtorff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rendtorff, J.D. (2017). Creating Shared Value as Institutionalization of Ethical Responsibilities of the Business Corporation as a Good Corporate Citizen in Society. In: Wieland, J. (eds) Creating Shared Value – Concepts, Experience, Criticism. Ethical Economy, vol 52. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48802-8_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics