Academic journal article Journal of International Business Ethics

Integrated Value Creation (IVC): Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Creating Shared Value (CSV)

Academic journal article Journal of International Business Ethics

Integrated Value Creation (IVC): Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Creating Shared Value (CSV)

Article excerpt

Integrated Value Creat ion (IVC) is a concept and practice that has emerged from a long tradition of think ing on the role of business in soc iety (Carroll, 1999). It has its roots in what many today call corporate (soc ial) responsibility, or CSR, corporate citizenship, business ethic s, and corporate sustainab ility (Visser et al., 2010). These ideas also have a long history but can be seen to have evolved primarily along tw o strands - let's call them streams of consciousness: the responsibility stream and the sustainability stream.

Two Streams Flowing into One

The responsibility stream had its origins in the mid-to-late 1800s with industrialists like John D. Roc kefeller and Dale Carneg ie setting a precedent for community philanthropy, while others like John Cadbury and John H. Patterson seeded the employee welfare movement (Carroll, 2008). Fast forw ard a hundred years or so, and we see the first social responsibility codes start to emerge, such as the Sullivan Princ ip les in 1977 and the subsequent steady march of standardization, giving us SA 8000 in 1997, ISO 26000 in 2010 and many others.

The sustainability stream, also, started early with air pollut ion regulation in the UK and land conservation in the USA in the 1870s (Visser, 2011). Fast forw ard by a century, and we get the first Earth Day, Greenpeac e and the UN Stockholm Conference on Environment and Development. By the 1980s and 1990s, we have the Brundt land defin it ion of "sustainable development" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), the Valdez Principles in 1989 (later called the CERES Principles) , and the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, tracking through to standards like ISO 14001 in 1996.

Weaving Together a Plait

As these tw o movements of responsibility and sustainability gathered momentum , they naturally began to see their interconnectedness. Labor rights connected with human rights, quality connec ted with health and safety, community connec ted with supply chain, environment connec ted with productivity, and so on. The coining of the "trip le bottom line " of economic, social, and environmental performance by John Elk ington (1994), and the introduction of the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact in 1999 reflec ted this trend.

We also saw integration start to happen at a more practic al level. The ISO 9001 quality standard bec ame the design template for ISO 14001 on environmental management and OHS AS 18001 on occupational health and safety. The Global Report ing Init iative and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index adopted the triple bottom line lens. Fair Trade certific ation inc orporated ec onomic, social, and environmental conc erns, and even soc ial responsibility evolved into a more holistic concept, now encapsulated in the 7 core subjec ts1 of ISO 26000.

Thinking outs ide the Box

At every stage in this proc ess, there have been those who have challenged and advanc ed our understanding of the sc ope and ambition of corporate responsibility and sustainab ility. Ed Freeman (1984) introduced us to stakeholder theory, John Elk ington (1994) to the "triple bottom line," Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1999) to "social innovation, " Jed Emerson (2000) to "blended value," C.K. Prahalad & Stuart Hart to "bottom of the pyramid" ( BOP) inclusive markets (Prahalad & Hart, 2002), and Michael Porter & Mark Kramer to "creating shared value" (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

There is a lively academic debate about Porter and Kramer 's shared value concept, including criticism that it is unoriginal; it ignores the tensions inherent to responsible business activity; it is naïve about business complianc e; and it is based on a shallow conception of the corporation's role in society (Crane et al., 2014). Nevertheless, shifting to the language of value, rather than of responsibility, is important, as is the emphasis on a more strategic and integrated focus (Visser, 2013).

Typically, all these new conceptions build on what went before but call for greater integration and an expansion of the potential of business to make positive impac ts. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.