Governments, activists, and the media have become adept at holding companies to account for the social consequences of their actions. In response, corporate social responsibility has emerged as an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country. Frequently, though, CSR efforts are counterproductive, for two reasons. First, they pit business against society, when in reality the two are interdependent. Second, they pressure companies to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways instead of in the way most appropriate to their individual strategies. The fact is, the prevailing approaches to CSR are so disconnected from strategy as to obscure many great opportunities for companies to benefit society. What a terrible waste. If corporations were to analyze their opportunities for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices, they would discover, as Whole Foods Market, Toyota, and Volvo have done, that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed--it can be a potent source of innovation and competitive advantage. In this article, Michael Porter and Mark Kramer propose a fundamentally new way to look at the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate growth and social welfare as a zero-sum game. They introduce a framework that individual companies can use to identify the social consequences of their actions; to discover opportunities to benefit society and themselves by strengthening the competitive context in which they operate; to determine which CSR initiatives they should address; and to find the most effective ways of doing so. Perceiving social responsibility as an opportunity rather than as damage control or a PR campaign requires dramatically different thinking--a mind-set, the authors warn, that will become increasingly important to competitive success.

Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.

I offer an institutional theory of corporate social responsibility consisting of a series of propositions specifying the conditions under which corporations are likely to behave in socially responsible ways. I argue that the relationship between basic economic conditions and corporate behavior is mediated by several institutional conditions: public and private regulation, the presence of nongovernmental and other independent organizations that monitor corporate behavior, institutionalized norms regarding appropriate corporate behavior, associative behavior among corporations themselves, and organized dialogues among corporations and their stakeholders. Concerns about corporate social responsibility have grown significantly during the last two decades. Not only has the issue become commonplace in the business press and among business and political leaders (Buhr & Graf

http://laisumedu.org/DESIN_Ibarra/desin/imagenescampbell/tres-c.pdf

Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? an institutional theory of corporate social responsibility

All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

Two Treatises of Government.

Executive Overview We examine the current state of the social entrepreneurship literature, asking what is unique about social entrepreneurship and what avenues create opportunities for the future of the field. After an evaluation of social entrepreneurship definitions and comparison of social entrepreneurship to other forms, we conclude that while it is not a distinct type of entrepreneurship, researchers stand to benefit most from further research on social entrepreneurship as a context in which established types of entrepreneurs operate. We demonstrate these opportunities by describing avenues for further inquiry that emerge when examining valuable assumptions and insights from existing theories inherent in conventional, cultural, and institutional entrepreneurship frameworks and integrating these insights in ways that address the unique phenomena that exist in the context of social entrepreneurship.

Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don't Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward From Here

In the spring of 2003, the Center for Social Innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business launched the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Our first “Editors’ Note” defined social innovation as “the process of inventing, securing support for, and implementing novel solutions to social needs and problems.” That same manifesto also described the publication’s unique approach to social innovation: “dissolving boundaries and brokering a dialogue between the public, private, and nonprofit sectors.”

Rediscovering Social Innovation

https://ngobiz.org/picture/File/Social%20Enterpeuneur-The%20Case%20of%20Definition.pdf

Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition

1 The Science and Art of Business 2 Reliability versus Validity 3 The Competitive Advantage of Design Thinking 4 The Design of Procter & Gamble 5 Organizational Implications 6 Implications for Leadership 7 Implications for You

The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage

Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, is interviewed on the subject of “design thinking”—approaching managerial problems as designers approach design problem...

Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion

Executives who want to make their organizations better corporate citizens face many obstacles: If they undertake costly initiatives that their rivals don't embrace, they risk eroding their company's competitive position. If they invite government oversight, they may be hampered by costly regulations. And if they adopt wage scales and working conditions that prevail in the wealthiest democracies, they may drive jobs to countries with less stringent standards. Such dilemmas call for clear, hard thinking. To aid in that undertaking, Roger Martin introduces the virtue matrix--a tool to help executives analyze corporate responsibility by viewing it as a product or service. The author uses real-life examples to explore the forms and degrees of corporate virtue. He cites Aaron Feuerstein, CEO of Malden Mills, a textile company whose plant was destroyed by fire in 1995. Rather than move operations to a lower-wage region, Feuerstein continued to pay his idled workforce and rebuilt the plant. Unlike the typical CEO of a publicly held corporation, who is accountable to hundreds or thousands of shareholders, Feuerstein was free to act so generously because he had only a few family members to answer to. But as Martin points out, corporations don't operate in a universe composed solely of shareholders. They can be subject to pressure from citizens, employees, and political authorities. The virtue matrix provides a way to assess these forces and how they interact. Martin uses it to examine why the public clamor for more responsible corporate conduct never seems to abate. Another issue the author confronts is anxiety over globalization. Finally, Martin applies the virtue matrix to two crucial questions: What are the barriers to increasing the supply of corporate virtue? And what can companies do to remove those barriers?

The virtue matrix. Calculating the return on corporate responsibility.

Chapter One - Choices, Conflict, and the Creative Spark: The Problem-Solving Power of Integrative Thinking Chapter Two - No Stomach for Second-Best: How Integrative Thinkers Move Beyond Trade-offs Chapter Three - Reality, Resistance, and Resolution: How Integrative Thinkers Keep Their Options Open Chapter Four - Dancing Through Complexity: Shaping Resolutions by Resisting Simplification Chapter Five - Mapping the Mind: How Thought Circulates Chapter Six - The Construction Project: Imagining Reality Chapter Seven - A Leap of the Mind: How Integrative Thinkers Connect the Dots Chapter Eight - A Wealth of Experience: Using the Past, Inventing the Future

Roger L. Martin

Papers

Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition

The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage

Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion

The virtue matrix. Calculating the return on corporate responsibility.

The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking