Shifting corporate social responsibility to corporate social opportunity through creating shared value

• Author: Jimmyn Parc,Hwy‐Chang Moon
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2252

RESEARCH ARTICLES

Shifting corporate social responsibility to corporate social

opportunity through creating shared value

†

Hwy-Chang Moon

1

| Jimmyn Parc

2

1

Seoul Business School, Seoul School of

Integrated Sciences & Technologies and

Graduate School of International Studies

(GSIS), Seoul National University, Seoul,

South Korea

2

Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA),

Sciences Po Paris, France and EU Center,

Graduate School of International Studies

(GSIS), Seoul National University, Seoul,

South Korea

Correspondence

Jimmyn Parc, Paris School of International

Affairs (PSIA), Sciences Po Paris, 27, rue Saint-

Guillaume 75337, Paris cedex 07, France.

Email: jimmynparc@gmail.com

Abstract

Contributing to society is not simply a charitable gesture but can be a value creating activity

when utilized with an appropriate strategy. Companies should attempt to move from “good cor-

poration”to “smart corporation.”Society should also recognize that corporations are the organi-

zations that create values in collaboration rather than just offering away some of their profits to

society. When both corporations and society realize this mutually beneficial role, we can

develop a virtuous cycle of increasing the benefits for both corporations and society.

1|INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there ha s been much discussion on th e ways in

which innovation can be u tilized in business to t ackle the serious

social issues facing ca pitalism. This has manif ested itself as an

increasing demand for philanthropic activities under the term of cor-

porate social respons ibility (CSR). Although many companies have

undertaken great efforts to improve the social and environmental

consequences of their b usiness as part of CSR, Por ter and Kramer

(2006) concluded that these efforts have not been as productive as

they should have been. In this respect, Porter and Kramer (2006,

2011) dedicated their research toward producing a series of articles

on creating shared value (CSV), currently one of the hottest issues in

the field of contemporary b usiness strategy.

Despite the fact that Porter and Kramer (2011) argued that the

concept of CSV is innovative and considerably different from CSR

and that Porter, Hills, Pfitzer, Patscheke, and Hawkins (2016) fur-

ther sought to bolster this concept, many scholars and practitioners

continue to express uneasiness in distinguishing CSV from CSR. I n

fact, they have declared that CSV is not a new concept at all, but

rather a different terminology (Crane, Palazzo, Spence, & Matten,

2014; Elkington, 2011; Epstein-Reeves, 2012; The Economist,

2011). Furthermore, the boundary between CSR and CSV is not as

clear as Porter and Kramer intended. This confusion hinders the

ability of innovative management to achieve an improved level of

CSR. As yet few studies have sought to analyze the origins of this

uneasiness and confusion.

This article addresses this issue and examines the most relevant

studies in order to analyze and compare the various concepts of CSR.

Based on this analysis, this article points out the essential problematic

issues of the various concepts and sharpens the definitions of CSR

and CSV. Furthermore, this article proposes a new typology for corpo-

rate social activities. This typology possesses a clear distinction

between various social activities. In this way, it can function as useful

guidelines for a firm to enhance its competitiveness while supporting

social benefits simultaneously.

2|ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING

STUDIES

Since there are a number of existing studies on CSR, this article briefly

highlights the critical points and unsolved issues of the most relevant

existing studies for their similarities and differences, particularly in

relation to CSV. This comparative analysis is useful in enhancing the

level of understanding on CSR and CSV. Following this analysis, this

article proposes new perspectives on different types of corporate

social activities.

2.1 |Porter and Kramer's CSR and CSV

Porter and Kramer (2006) classified CSR into two types: responsive

and strategic. According to their study, the motivation of responsive

†

JEL classification codes: D21, L20, L21, M14, Q01

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2252

Strategic Change. 2019;28:115–122. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 115