[1] The concept was further expanded in the January 2011 follow-up piece entitled Creating Shared Value: Redefining Capitalism and the Role of the Corporation in Society.
Critics, on the other hand, argue that "Porter and Kramer basically tell the old story of economic rationality as the one and only tool of smart management, with faith in innovation and growth, and they celebrate a capitalism that now needs to adjust a little bit".
Companies can create shared value opportunities in three ways: Many approaches to CSR put businesses against society, emphasizing the costs and limitations of compliance with externally imposed social and environmental standards.
[11] In a 2013 video for the Huffington Post World Economic Forum, Porter said shared value is a logical progression from CSR because incomes are raised for everyone, not through charity and by being a "good corporate citizen", but by "being a better capitalist – it's a win-win".
[12] Such development of stages by redefining CSR has laid theoretical foundations for companies and society to sustainably and communally overcome societal issues.
As capitalism matures, it is companies' duties to break itself out of the traditional CSR by realizing its limitations and try to restructure and pursue new market strategies that value both economic and societal development.
(…) Instead of dealing with a contemporary understanding of CSR, corporate social responsibility seems to be used instead as a straw man to rhetorically justify the authors' contribution and its proclaimed originality.
Researchers found some literature focusing on the development of shared value by Porter and Kramer (2006) with most work coming from few sources like the Monitor Group.
[15] Whilst it can be argued that capitalism would certainly change if businesses en masse re-orientated their core frameworks to focus on shared value, there is little analysis on how this would occur.
In a 2013 article, Pfitzer et al. add Dow Chemicals, Nestlé, Novartis, Mars and Intel to their "Who's Creating Shared Value" list.
Counterfactuals of non SV approaches in case studies were not offered and tools and strategies to integrate, operationalise and measure shared value are only now being developed.
[15] The researchers claim Multi National Corporation motivations are mixed with some highlighting climate change and others a desire for employees to have better links with local communities.
They say a more direct influence, consistent with moves in inclusive business, is companies pursuing shared value developed new types of relationships with other organisations like NGOs.
[15] Much focus has been on the application of shared value at the bottom of the pyramid reflecting both greater social needs among this group and the new markets they offer.
[15] Direct links between shared value and the bottom of the pyramid were further brought together in a 2007 conference titled "The role of the private sector in expanding economic opportunity through collaborative action" hosted by Harvard CSR Initiative, FSG Social Impact Advisors, and the IFC focusing on how companies could improve livelihoods of the bottom of the pyramid through both new services and new markets.
They found the IFC[20] presenting the results of a survey analysing the obstacles to companies wishing to incorporate inclusive business models in their value chains.
[15] As inclusive business model products are often entering new markets they tend to be push based requiring high levels of awareness-building and education, unlike pull categories that customers already desire, like low cost cell phones.
"[23] identifying two dominant core business models pursued at the bottom of the pyramid: "harnessing innovation capacity" and "leveraging supply chains and the production process".
"[15] Simanis's three solutions for generating higher values are These received criticism in Karnani's 2007 paper[27] which suggests that costs to serve the poor are still too high and the bottom of the pyramid will not be reached.
Lucci[23] highlights two examples of this: They found Davis[18] arguing that the state and corporate sector need a "genuinely symbiotic relationship" which recognises the potential developmental activity that companies undertake as core operations, noting however that this rarely exists.
[15] Researchers found little rigorous analysis into the impact of shared value mechanisms, with the majority of evidence existing as standalone case studies of mixed analytical rigour.
[38] Notwithstanding the limitations in the evidence base there have been a number of reports that have sought to capture and synthesise lessons from successful shared value and inclusive business ventures.
[21] An IFC report into the impact of their portfolio of inclusive business models,[40] found that revenue growth had been the main business outcome for business, whereas development outcomes included expanded economic opportunities for suppliers, distributors and retailers and access to goods and services[15][40] They found factors which led to successful models included, adaption of products and processes that leveraged networks and to reach significant numbers of low-income consumers; models designed to be appropriate with low-income groups' cash management strategies, also leveraging social networks of the poor; capacity building of suppliers, distributors and retailers and collaborations with other organisations (NGOs, development organisation, social enterprises) to leverage knowledge and infrastructure.
[15] They found Hills et al.[41] identify two key areas that are essential for successful create shared value companies, "intentionality" and "materiality."
Intentionality requires a company or business unit to set specific goals for intended social and financial benefits with clear guidelines that can guide resource allocation decisions along the way and recommend looking at Gradl and Jenkins.
It represents the extent to which creating shared value is central to the financial performance of a business unit or company and as materiality grows strategies are likely to be scaled up.
[45] The SVI also hosts the Global Shared Value Summit, an annual three-day gathering of over 200 leaders from the business, public, and not-for-profit sectors citation.
[49] Thomas Beschorner regards the CSV concept, based on "several terminological and conceptual misunderstandings", as a "one-trick pony approach" with little chance that an increasingly critical civil society will buy into such a story.