• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • 24th Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference 📣
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
You are here: Home / Business / Renegotiating value and values – do we have a choice?

By Adam Gorley | 2 Minutes Read July 18, 2011

Renegotiating value and values – do we have a choice?

Image: http://adelwyn.posterous.com
Image: http://adelwyn.posterous.com

After preparing the last issue of Inside Internal Control, I came across the concept of “shared value” in the Harvard Business Review (subscription), which seems like another expression of Natural Step Canada’s rethinking of corporate social responsibility.
Harvard professors Michael Porter and Mark Kramer write:

The capitalist system is under siege. In recent years business increasingly has been viewed as a major cause of social, environmental, and economic problems. Companies are widely perceived to be prospering at the expense of the broader community.

But:

A business needs a successful community, not only to create demand for its products but also to provide critical public assets and a supportive environment.

Harvard researcher David Weinberger responds that shared value is great—”when it works.” But in reality, shared value will require great sacrifice from business.

Suppose doing the right Shared Value thing requires closing plants, raising prices, becoming less competitive, reducing profits? Should an automobile manufacturer abruptly exit a lucrative market for high-performance gas guzzlers, luxury gas guzzlers, and cheap gas guzzlers on the grounds that expensive fuel-efficient cars are better for us all?

Porter and Kramer add:

We are suggesting that social and environmental factors carry genuine economic implications for business strategy—both costs and benefits—and that these considerations, long resisted by businesses, must be included in corporate decision-making. … It is possible for businesses to help solve social and environmental problems in ways that increase profitability or accentuate competitive advantage. … there is much more business opportunity in solving social problems than in causing them.

It seems hopeful that a serious debate over the greater role of business in society is underway, and I’m going to look more closely at shared value in the near future. In the meantime, I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on the topic. Has short-term business thinking harmed communities, the economy and the environment? Is it time for business owners of all sizes to recognize the value and necessity of supporting the communities in which they operate? Are there really vast opportunities for businesses in previously ignored markets or to meet previously unmet needs?
Adam Gorley
First Reference Internal Controls, Human Resources and Compliance Editor

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me
Adam Gorley
Editor at First Reference Inc.
Adam Gorley is a copywriter, editor and researcher at First Reference. He regularly contributes to First Reference Talks, Inside Internal Controls and other First Reference publications. He writes about general HR issues, accessibility, privacy, technology in the workplace, accommodation, violence and harassment, internal controls and more.
Follow me
Latest posts by Adam Gorley (see all)
  • Can you implement a mandatory vaccine policy or ask employees if they have been vaccinated? - June 10, 2021
  • Do you know the latest on terminations? Find out at the Ontario Virtual Employment Law Conference - May 11, 2021
  • Announcing the 2021 Virtual Ontario Employment Law Conference - April 15, 2021

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window)

Article by Adam Gorley / Business, Finance and Accounting, Not for Profit / business strategy, capitalism, community, community support, corporate social responsibility, CSR, economy, environment, Harvard Business Review, HBR, Natural Step Canada, shared value, sustainability

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

Electronic monitoring

About Adam Gorley

Adam Gorley is a copywriter, editor and researcher at First Reference. He regularly contributes to First Reference Talks, Inside Internal Controls and other First Reference publications. He writes about general HR issues, accessibility, privacy, technology in the workplace, accommodation, violence and harassment, internal controls and more.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Adam Gorley says

    July 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Thanks for your thoughts Ross!
    It’s good to hear that corporations are taking voluntary steps to engage Aboriginal communities before beginning operations that will affect those communities. And of course, you’re right that companies don’t particularly deserve commendation for simply following the law. It’s through exceeding standards (e.g., the law) that organizations stand out and, hopefully, earn associated financial, operational, and social/community rewards.
    At any rate, I’m not sure businesses deserve rewards even for exceeding community/operational/legal standards. I think success should be the greatest reward; but success should include enhancing the community. Of course, other rewards or commendations can motivate an organization to continue to act in a “responsible” manner, and to act as an example for others.
    I wonder if communities would be better able to hold businesses to account if communities (in general) had real power over what organizations opened up and operated in their midst.

  2. Ross Holden says

    July 19, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Yes there are many “concepts” of corporate social responsibility floating around out there – some more logical, and thus benign, than others. My research on relationships between Aboriginal communities and the private sector (I’m assuming that this comment was posted in such context as it appears in the Aboriginal Economic Development group) in Canada has left me increasingly concerned about the use of “CSR” to describe the entire gamut of impact mitigation and project benefits that result between a resource development company and a community. For the most part Canada’s private sector is engaging communities early in a transparent and accountable manner, providing financial and other support to ensure their meaningful and effective participation in regulatory processes and project development, and investing in strengthening community cohesion through sponsorship of community events, scholarships, etc. These early, pre-regulatory investments are not legally required of a proponent, but they demonstrate that it understands that a project can have either a net negative or positive impact on a community, depending on how well the ground beneath the relationship has been prepared. That is corporate social responsibility – investing in communities not because it is required to do so, but because it recognizes the mutual benefit from doing so.
    Consulting communities on a project-specific basis, mitigation of project environmental effects, and benefit agreements, on the other hand, have nothing to do with corporate social responsibility. They are required of the proponent both by legislation and regulation, and de facto under the Crown’s duty to consult, and thus are neither discretionary, nor optional. To suggest that these activities, when they do occur, are a result of discretionary good will on the part of a proponent and thus worthy of a feather in the headdress of accumulated social license debases the growing recognition that the relationship between Aboriginal communities and the private sector is grounded in statute and common law, not simply goodwill. Don’t expect kudos for complying with legal or contractual obligations, or even a treaty for that matter: They are commitments that have been made and must be honoured, regardless of the reward, or lack thereof, that is received in return. Put another way, companies would be naive to believe that sponsoring powwows, or complying with legal obligations alone, will secure ongoing social license for their project. Hence the need for more creative and strategic approaches to community engagement; from the beginning of the trail, to the end.

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy