J Bus Ethics (2016) 137:231–267
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2554-z
Literature Review of Shared Value: A Theoretical Concept
or a Management Buzzword?
Krzysztof Dembek • Prakash Singh •
Vikram Bhakoo
Received: 13 June 2014 / Accepted: 19 January 2015 / Published online: 1 February 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Porter and Kramer (Harv Bus Rev
84(12):78–92, 2006; Harv Bus Rev 89(1/2), 62–77, 2011)
introduced ‘shared value’ as a ‘new conception of capi-
talism,’ claiming it is a powerful driver of economic
growth and reconciliation between business and society.
The idea has generated strong interest in business and
academia; however, its theoretical precepts have not been
rigorously assessed. In this paper, we provide a systematic
and thorough analysis of shared value, focusing on its
ontological and epistemological properties. Our review
highlights that ‘shared value’ has spread into the language
of multiple disciplines, but that its current conceptualiza-
tion is vague, and it presents important discrepancies in the
way it is defined and operationalized, such that it is more of
a buzzword than a substantive concept. It also overlaps
with many other (related) concepts and lacks empirical
grounding. We offer recommendations for defining and
measuring the concept, take a step toward disentangling it
from related concepts, and identify relevant theories and
research methods that would facilitate extending the
knowledge frontier on shared value.
Keywords Bottom of the pyramid
Business and
society
Epistemology
Literature review
Ontology

Shared value
Theoretical concept
K. Dembek (&)
P. Singh
V. Bhakoo
Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne,
198, Berkeley Street, Carlton, VIC 3010, Australia
e-mail: krzysztof.dembek@unimelb.edu.au
P. Singh
e-mail: pjsingh@unimelb.edu.au
V. Bhakoo
e-mail: vbhakoo@unimelb.edu.au
Abbreviations
BoP Bottom of the pyramid
CAS Complex adaptive system
CSR Corporate social responsibility
CSV Creating shared value
NAB National Australia Bank
SVC Shared value creation
TRM Total responsibility management
Introduction
Porter and Kramer coined the term ‘shared value’ in 2006,
and later defined it as ‘‘policies and operating practices that
enhance the competitiveness of a company while simulta-
neously advancing the economic and social conditions in
the communities in which it operates’’ (Porter and Kramer
2011, p. 66). It sought to address declining social trust in
corporations and improve the relationships between busi-
ness and society by aligning social benefits with corporate
profits (Porter and Kramer 2011). Portrayed as a ‘new
conception of capitalism’ able to ‘‘unleash a next wave of
global growth’’ (Porter and Kramer 2011, p. 65), shared
value has been adopted by a number of the world’s major
corporations (NAB 2014; Nestle 2014). However, it has
also created controversies. Considered a powerful concept
and a valuable theory by some (Bosch-Badia et al. 2013;
Epstein-Reeves 2012; Moon et al. 2011), yet strongly
criticized both as a business idea (Baraka 2010; Denning
2011) and a theoretical concept (Aakhus and Bzdak 2012),
shared value is a topic that has generated a lot of debate.
For example, Crane et al. (2014, p. 130) contend that
shared value overlaps with other concepts such as corpo-
rate social responsibility (CSR), is ‘‘unoriginal; it ignores
the tensions inherent to responsible business activity; it is
123
232
naı̈ve about business compliance; and it is based on a
shallow conception of the corporation’s role in society.’’
Responding to this criticism, Porter and Kramer (2014,
p. 149) argue that Crane and colleagues are mistaken in
their judgments, and point out that shared value has led to a
substantial change in corporate behavior around the world,
and that it not only ‘‘extends past scholarship on corporate
philanthropy, CSR, and sustainability, but also distin-
guishes creating shared value (CSV) as a distinct, powerful,
and transformational model that is embedded in the core
purpose of the corporation.’’
This debate, while necessary and important, concen-
trates mostly around the Porter and Kramer (2011) article
and does little to advance knowledge on shared value as a
theoretical concept, inform about existing research, and
guide corporations toward its better implementation. We
contend that a thorough and systematic review of literature
examining the theoretical precepts of shared value and the
state of research, which we seek to provide in this article, is
required. Knowledge about shared value as a theoretical
concept is important because theory ‘‘is of value in
empirical science only to the extent to which it connects
fruitfully with the empirical world’’ (Blumer 1954, p. 4).
Theoretical concept is the primary means for establishing
this connection, as it ‘‘points to the empirical instances
about which a theoretical proposal is made’’ (Blumer 1954,
p. 4).
This article is intended to contribute a comprehensive
literature review on shared value, and clear suggestions for
future research. Shared value is explored using Goertz and
Mohoney’s (2012) insights on the epistemology and
ontology of concepts. Findings indicate that shared value
appears to be currently more of a buzzword than a theo-
retical concept. We analyze the core precepts of shared
value and seek to develop this concept further. The review
identifies three key areas for defining the concept: (1) the
means through which it is created, (2) its outcomes, and (3)
the beneficiaries of the outcomes. These areas also create
an opportunity to measure shared value. The review also
identifies the antecedents of shared value and suggests that
examining the approach to them may help clarify how
shared value differs from other concepts.
The article is organized as follows. We first explain the
methodology deployed for conducting the literature review.
Second, we provide an overview of research published in
academic and practitioner journals. We then follow with an
examination of the ontological and epistemological prop-
erties of shared value, which involves exploration of four
main areas: (1) what shared value is, (2) how it is opera-
tionalized, (3) how it relates to other concepts, and (4) how
existing cases and examples reflect the phenomenon of
shared value. Finally, we present conclusions and suggest
avenues for future research.
123
K. Dembek et al.
Data and Methods
The review of the literature was carried out in the following
manner. We first conducted a search in six academic dat-
abases: Business Source Complete, Econlit, Emerald
Journals, Jstore, Proquest, and Central Web of Science. We
chose these databases to include the most widely used
business and economics resources, and also to widen the
search to a variety of disciplines. In each case, we searched
for the term ‘shared value’ in the abstract, except for Web
of Science, where such a search was not possible, and
where we conducted searches for the term in the title and
the topic areas instead. We searched for ‘shared value’ in
the abstract to obtain articles with a focus on shared value.
We added citations to this list from Google Scholar to
Porter and Kramer (2006), and Porter and Kramer (2011)
articles. As a result, we obtained a list of 2690 publications
which, after removing repeated and non-journal publica-
tions, resulted in 402 articles. We added one article that is
not yet published, but which focuses on and forms part of
the current debate on shared value (Brown and Knudsen
2012), resulting in a preliminary set of 403 articles.
An initial review of these 403 articles showed that 11
articles used ‘shared value’ in a distinctly different way to
that proposed by Porter and Kramer (2006, 2011). For
example, Hanssen (2012) used ‘shared value’ in the context
of software development to mean technology and business
domain it supports. Similarly, Mukherjee and Nath (2003,
p. 7) studied trust in online relationship banking, and used
shared value to mean ‘‘the extent to which partners have
beliefs in common about what behaviors, goals and policies
are important or unimportant, appropriate or inappropriate,
and right or wrong.’’ We excluded these articles, leaving a
sample of 392 articles.
We conducted a two-part content analysis of the articles.
In the first part, we overviewed the current state of research
on shared value based on the 392 articles, which included
identifying the fields and outlets where the articles were
published, and determining how shared value was used in
the studies. To this end, we examined whether each article
used ‘shared value’ in a non-trivial way, for example in the
analysis and/or to form part of an argument (the purpose of
the article did not have to be exclusively focused on shared
value). The first part of the analysis resulted in the iden-
tification of 73 of the 392 articles for a more in-depth
analysis of the concept.
The second part of the analysis, based on the 73 articles,
involved assessing shared value as a theoretical concept by
examining its ontological and epistemological properties.
While there is considerable debate about these terms (Guba
1990), we have taken a practical perspective and used
ontology to cover aspects that deal with what is known
about shared value (definitions, constructs, theories, etc.),
Literature Review of Shared Value
and epistemology to cover the assumptions and processes
used to produce shared value-related knowledge (paradig-
matic stance and research methods). We used Goertz and
Mohoney’s (2012) guidelines to design this part of the
analysis because of the insights they provide on the epis-
temology and ontology of concepts and measurement. As a
result of following these guidelines, the analysis in this part
was divided into four steps, summarized as a framework in
Table 1, and explained below.
According to Goertz and Mohoney (2012), qualitative
and quantitative approaches to concepts and their mea-
surement have important ontological and epistemological
differences. From the qualitative perspective, ontology of a
concept relates to its semantics, that is, the meaning of the
concept (Goertz and Mohoney 2012). To explore the
question of what shared value is, in the first step we
investigated (1) how shared value was defined in the lit-
erature; and (2) what empirical instances were used to
illustrate shared value, that is, how the definitions relate to
the activities of an organization, as presented in the cases
and examples of shared value.
Ontological considerations from the quantitative per-
spective relate to the data and measurement of a concept
and, thus, to measurable indicators caused by it (Goertz and
Mohoney 2012). Consequently, as the second step, we
examined how shared value was operationalized, that is,
what the results (measurable indicators) of shared value
were, and how they were measured.
Epistemological aspects are issues about the nature and
quality of knowledge of a concept. From a qualitative
perspective, these aspects relate to ‘‘fuzziness’’, that is, to
what extent ‘‘cases may have partial degrees of member-
ship in conceptual sets’’ (Goertz and Mohoney 2012,
p. 206). Fuzziness is therefore an ontological claim with
epistemological implications (Goertz and Mohoney 2012).
This required us, in the third step, to assess to what degree
characteristics of shared value could also describe other
concepts. Hence, we compiled a list of concepts and
frameworks that were claimed to be similar or related to
Table 1 The framework for the analysis of ontological and epistemological properties of shared value
Qualitative perspective
Ontological What is shared value?
properties How is shared value defined?
How do the definitions of shared value relate to the activities of
an organization?
Epistemological How does shared value relate to other concepts and theories?
properties How is shared value similar to and different from the related
concepts and theories?
233
shared value, and analyzed the similarities and differences
between shared value and these concepts. In one case,
namely the bottom of the pyramid (BoP) (that introduces
the concept of mutual value), we conducted an additional
analysis of antecedents due to particularly strong criticism
in the literature and similarities to shared value. We coded
the text of the main article by Porter and Kramer (2011)
and the main works on BoP 1.0 and 2.0 (Simanis and Hart
2008; Simanis et al. 2005), to identify the antecedents of
shared and mutual value creation. To this comparative
analysis we added the antecedents of total responsibility
management (TRM), a concept that addresses the rela-
tionship between business and society, but in a significantly
different way to shared value. The TRM antecedents were
identified from the main texts introducing the concept
(Waddock et al. 2002, 2007).
Finally, from a quantitative perspective, epistemological
aspects relate to the error of data, that is, to the difference
between estimated and true value (Goertz and Mohoney
2012). To this end, as the fourth step, we analyzed the
cases and examples of shared value, with a special focus on
how they were compiled, in order to assess their potential
to reflect the phenomena in question.
Current State of Research on Shared Value
Fields of Study and Research Outlets
The first part of our analysis revealed that the 392 articles
examined were published in 223 different outlets. While
most articles were published in business journals focused
on different areas, including strategy (e.g., Porter and
Kramer 2011; Wang and Bansal 2012), CSR (e.g., Anast-
asiadis 2014), accounting and finance (e.g., Adams and
Simnett 2011), articles mentioning shared value also
appeared in non-business journals, including healthcare
(e.g., Gillespie et al. 2013; Modie-Moroka 2009), engi-
neering (e.g., Saguy 2011), politics (e.g., Rogers 2013), law
Quantitative perspective
How is shared value operationalized?
What are the indicators of shared value?
How is shared value measured?
What empirical evidence is presented to support shared
value?
How do the existing cases and examples reflect the
phenomenon of shared value?
Where do the data about shared value come from?
123
234 K. Dembek et al.

(e.g., Bagley 2010; Millon 2011) and others. On average,
1.76 articles were published per journal and only 22 out of
223 journals had published three or more articles referring
to ‘shared value.’ These 22 journals are listed in Table 2
(full list of journals is available from the authors).
As Table 2 highlights, Journal of Business Ethics is by
far the main outlet for articles on shared value, with 48
(12.25 %) articles published. Second on the list is Corpo-
rate Governance that published 15 (3.83 %) articles.
Table 2 also indicates that the term ‘shared value’ is widely
used outside of business research, and has filtered through
to a number of different disciplines. At the same time, the
main discussion is centered in ten journals dedicated pre-
dominantly to issues related to ethics, governance, and
strategy.
Use of Shared Value in the Studies
et al. 2012), sometimes without referencing it (e.g., Álvarez
et al. 2013).
We analyzed the number of times the term ‘shared
value’ and its abbreviations, such as ‘CSV’ or ‘SVC,’ were
used in the text of each article. We found that, out of the
392 articles reviewed in the first part of the analysis, 308
(78.57 %) used the term not more than twice in the entire
text. Additionally, out of the remaining 84 articles, 11 also
treated ‘shared value’ in a rather trivial way, as a common
word. Consequently, we removed these articles before
starting the second part of the analysis and based our
examination of ontological and epistemological properties
of shared value on the remaining 73 publications.
Ontological and Epistemological Properties of Shared
Value

The first part of our analysis also found that, while shared
value has expanded to a large number of research fields, it
is mostly employed rather loosely as a common word
rather than a key concept. Many articles simply cited or
referred to some sentences from one of Porter and Kra-
mer’s articles in the background of the argument (e.g.,
Laasonen et al. 2012; Lauesen 2013), or used the term
‘shared value’ as a common word (e.g., Timoteo Álvarez
In the following sections we present and discuss the results
of the second part of the analysis that assessed ontological
and epistemological properties of shared value as a concept
based on the 73 publications. As Table 1 indicates, fol-
lowing Goertz and Mohoney (2012), we first analyzed how
shared value is defined and presented in terms of organi-
zational activities. We then examined how it is operation-
alized and measured. Third, we explored how shared value

Table 2 Journals with three or Journal name Number of papers published

more shared value articles
published Journal of Business Ethics 48
Corporate Governance 15
Business Strategy and the Environment 9
Journal of Business Research 8
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 6
Harvard Business Review 6
Journal of Cleaner Production 5
Journal of Corporate Citizenship 5
Journal of Management Development 5
Organization & Environment 5
Business Ethics Quarterly 4
Business Ethics: A European Review 4
Journal of Global Responsibility 4
Social Responsibility Journal 4
Business & Professional Ethics Journal 3
Business & Society 3
Business and Society Review 3
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 3
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 3
Social Enterprise Journal 3
Universia Business Review 3
Voluntas 3

123
Literature Review of Shared Value 235

relates to other concepts and the degree to which the
characteristics of shared value overlap with other concepts.
Finally, we investigated the cases and examples of shared
value to see how well they reflect the phenomenon in
question. Table 3 presents the main findings of the analysis
of ontological and epistemological properties of shared
value. These findings are discussed in detail below.
Shared Value Definition and Empirical Instances
Identified
We found that only 30 out of 73 articles provided a defi-
nition of shared value. This supports our previous finding
that most of the articles use shared value as a common
word rather than a theoretical concept. We divided all the
definitions into two groups. The first group, 13 out of 30
articles, uses the definition by Porter and Kramer (2011,
p. 66), who define shared value as ‘‘policies and operating
practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company
while simultaneously advancing the economic and social
conditions in the communities in which it operates.’’ The
second group, comprised of 17 articles, defines shared
value in terms of creating value of different type for vari-
ous stakeholders. Additionally, three articles refer to
another part of Porter and Kramer’s text (2011) and
describe shared value somewhat fuzzily as ‘a new way to
achieve economic success’ (Leandro and Neffa 2012;
Moon et al. 2011; Wilbrun and Wilbrun 2013). Table 4
summarizes the definitions of shared value.
As Table 4 indicates, the initial definition of shared
value proposed by Porter and Kramer (2011) (group 1)
implies that shared value comprises activities in at least
one of the three areas (product, value chain, cluster crea-
tion), and that a direct positive relationship exists between
social and organizational benefit (both benefits are created
simultaneously). This definition excludes instances when
social and organizational benefit could be in tension, which
has been one of the criticisms of shared value (Crane et al.
2014). While some definitions seem to vary from this ini-
tial conceptualization (e.g., Pavlovich and Corner 2014),
our analysis of practical instances of shared value, as
presented in the published examples and cases summarized
in Appendix 2, illustrates how shared value indeed remains
a ‘sweet spot’ between social and organizational benefit.
While the origins of all the definitions used in the arti-
cles can be seen in Porter and Kramer’s (2006, 2011) work,
a closer analysis of definitions and practical instances of
shared value raises a number of issues about shared value.
These can be classified into three groups, namely: (1)
means to create shared value; (2) resulting outcomes of
shared value; and (3) beneficiaries of the outcomes of
shared value. Each of these areas contains a number of
issues and questions about what shared value is, which we
analyze below.
Means to Create Shared Value
In the articles reviewed, three out of 30 definitions included
means for shared value creation (SVC). These means were
policies and operating practices (Porter and Kramer 2011),
global commercial initiatives (Maltz and Schein 2012), and
choices (See 2009). Having clearly defined means in the

Table 3 Main findings of the analysis of ontological and epistemological properties of shared value
Qualitative perspective Quantitative perspective

Ontological What is shared value? How is shared value operationalized?

properties Studies are indecisive on what shared value is.
Shared value has been defined in terms of: (1) policies and
operating practices; (2) creating different types of value for
multiple stakeholders; (3) a way to economic success
Three key areas in definitions: (1) means to create shared value;
(2) outcomes of shared value; (3) beneficiaries of the outcomes
Specific activities disputed but are determined by means to create
shared value
Epistemological How does shared value relate to other concepts and theories?
properties Different but related concepts: innovation, business model, social
technology
Overlapping concepts with unclear distinction from shared value:
corporate social responsibility, sustainability, corporate
citizenship, blended value, stakeholder theory, and the bottom
of the pyramid
Shared value and bottom of the pyramid have common
antecedents
No agreement exists
Approaches include different organizational and social
indicators, externalities, triple bottom line and ethics
Proposed measurement frameworks do not reflect the
key areas from the definitions (means, outcomes,
beneficiaries)
A measure suitable for quantitative research still to be
developed
What empirical evidence is presented to support shared
value?
Only 12.5 % of cases supported with primary data
Cases of research financed by the studied companies
Absence of multi-stakeholder perspectives in cases
Overall poor potential of cases and examples to reflect
the phenomenon of shared value

123
236
Table 4 Definitions of shared value
Studies
Group 1
Chatterjee (2012), Crane et al. (2013), Follman (2012), Hamann
(2012), Hancock et al. (2011), Hartmann et al. (2011), Juscius and
Jonikas (2013), Kapoor and Goyal (2013), Porter and Kramer (2011),
Schmitt and Renken (2012), Sojamo and Larson (2012), Spitzeck
et al. (2013) and Spitzeck and Chapman (2012)
Group 2
Aakhus and Bzdak (2012) and Porter and Kramer (2006)
Athanasopoulou and Selsky (2012), Brown and Knudsen (2012),
Cao and Pederzoli (2013) and Kendrick et al. (2013)
Driver (2012)
Dubois and Dubois (2012)
Fearne et al. (2012)
Maltz and Schein (2012)
Maltz et al. (2011)
Pavlovich and Corner (2014)
Pirson (2012)
See (2009)
Shrivastava and Kennelly (2013)
Verboven (2011)
Arjaliès et al. (2011)
shared value definition is important because these will
determine, to a large extent, the costs of shared value (each
policy, operating practice, choice, and commercial initia-
tive generates different costs). As Porter and Kramer
(2011) argue, shared value should be regarded in terms of
both costs and benefits, not benefits only. Comparing the
three different means (policies and operating practices,
global commercial initiative, and choices) in the current
definitions, however, raises doubts about the scope of and
the basis upon which the decisions about shared value are
taken.
In terms of scope, policies, operating practices, and
choices are broad and could refer to any action. Porter and
Kramer (2011) limit the scope of policies and practices to
redesigning product, value chain, and building clusters. In
contrast, global commercial initiative limits the scope of
shared value to one specific area, that is, to a commercial
action that involves a number of countries. Following this
logic would mean that actions involving one country or not
directly related to a commercial area cannot be defined as
shared value. Further, it is unclear if shared value is related
123
K. Dembek et al.
Definition of shared value
Policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a
company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social
conditions in the communities in which it operates
A meaningful benefit for society that is also valuable to the business
Creation of economic value ‘‘in a way that also creates value for
society by addressing its needs and challenges’’ (Porter and Kramer
2011, p. 64)
The ability to both create economic value and … social or societal
benefit simultaneously
Creating organizational value while simultaneously adding value to
society and to the environment
Value that is mutually beneficial to both the value chain and society
A global commercial organization’s initiative to simultaneously create
value for shareholders and the communities in which the firm
operates, beyond the efforts required by law
Consider the shared value of multiple stakeholders instead of focusing
solely on firm value
Putting social and community needs before profit
Balance of social and financial value creation
Choices that benefit both society and corporations that arise out of the
‘‘mutual dependence of corporations and society’’
The simultaneous creation of economic value for the firm and social
and environmental value for the places in which they do business
Creation of value not only for shareholders but for all stakeholders
Shared value (i.e. concerning at the same time economic and social
progress) [own translation]
to one particular project, activity of an entire organization,
coordinated activities of more than one organization, or all
three. Currently, some examples of shared value refer to
singular projects (Porter and Kramer 2011; Spitzeck and
Chapman 2012; Vaidyanathan and Scott 2012), while
others refer to shared value organizations (Pavlovich and
Corner 2014; van der Lugt et al. 2013).
There is also a lack of clarity about the basis on which
decisions about shared value are taken. For example,
according to Porter and Kramer (2011), shared value pol-
icies and operating practices exclude personal values, while
other researchers suggest that values are key determinants
of a corporation’s ability to create shared value (Brown and
Knudsen 2012; Carter and Greer 2013; Schmitt and Renken
2012).
The Outcomes of Shared Value
The outcomes of shared value include a wide range of
concepts, namely, competitiveness (Porter and Kramer
2011), social and economic conditions (Porter and Kramer
Literature Review of Shared Value
2011), value (Fearne et al. 2012), economic value (Brown
and Knudsen 2012; Shrivastava and Kennelly 2013),
environmental value (Shrivastava and Kennelly 2013),
financial value (Pirson 2012), firm value (Maltz et al.
2011), social value (Pirson 2012; Shrivastava and Kennelly
2013), benefit (Porter and Kramer 2006; See 2009), and,
economic and social progress (Arjaliès et al. 2011). The
exact definitions of many of these concepts have been
debated for decades and depend on the context (Bowman
and Ambrosini 2000; Brandenburger and Stuart Jr. 1996;
Heilbroner 1988; Kivleniece and Quelin 2012; Schumpeter
1909). It is also difficult to see, in the analyzed articles, the
exact difference, if any, between, for example, economic
and financial value, or between economic value and
improved economic conditions, as they are used in a way
that implies a very similar if not the same meaning.
We, therefore, propose to consider the outcomes of
shared value from the perspective of needs. Such an
approach is consistent with Porter and Kramer’s (2011)
focus on addressing needs and challenges as the basis for
creation of value for society. Further, needs have long been
used as basic building blocks of value and related concepts
identified as shared value outcomes. For example, needs
form a fundamental part of the concept of well-being, and
are essential in defining ‘basic capabilities,’ as well as the
main principles for economic justice (Constanza et al.
2007; Gotoh and Yoshihara 2003; White 1996). Similarly,
according to Nussbaum (2004), focusing on human needs
is the only way to solve problems with global justice,
which requires strong social cooperation and contributes to
the good of all people. Finally, needs are nested in human
systems where value is co-created by different parties at the
individual, organizational, and societal levels (Korhonen
2013).
We first examine what different authors see as shared
value from both the organization and society’s perspective,
and then look at these propositions through the lens of
needs. The specific outcomes identified in our review of
examples and cases, presented in Appendix 2, indicate that
on society’s side, shared value is viewed in terms of better
quality of natural environment, nutrition, access to water
and housing, health, education, and income (achieved in
many ways including savings, employment, and entrepre-
neurial activities). On the organization side, shared value is
viewed in terms of profits (including increased sales, sav-
ings, productivity), access to resources (including raw
materials, employees), and improved competitive position.
From the perspective of needs, the outcomes of shared
value for society indicate a clear focus on basic human
needs (Doyal and Gough 1991; Max-Neef 1992; Nussbaum
and Glover 1995). Basic human needs have been identified
as determinants of well-being and the quality of life
(Constanza et al. 2007). Human well-being is closely
237
related with the well-being of organizations that depend on
their members and external stakeholders for access to
resources (Korhonen 2013). As such, organizational needs
are nested in human systems of value co-creation and
extend beyond mere organizational survival and profit-
making (Korhonen 2013). Shared value seems to recognize
that fact, but it focuses on a limited number of selected
stakeholders and needs instead of adopting a systemic
perspective. The literature has perceived needs primarily as
fundamentals of well-being and as factors that explain
goal-directed behavior (Korhonen 2013). The examples
and cases of shared value suggest that, on the social side,
needs are treated as fundamentals of well-being of certain
stakeholder groups, while on the organization side, they are
factors that direct organizational behavior.
It is important to note three crucial aspects of shared
value outcomes considered from the perspective of needs.
These are (1) What needs are addressed; (2) How they are
addressed; and (3) If they are satisfied.
In terms of what needs are addressed, we have indicated
that on the social side shared value concentrates on basic
human needs. However, a closer look at the literature
reveals many instances that could not intuitively be clas-
sified as shared value. Consider examples such as a two-
day shipping service for all orders for a flat annual fee
implemented, by Amazon, or sending customers a trans-
parent and easy-to-understand telephone invoice, by
Shenzen Telecom, both provided by Bertini and Gourville
(2012) to illustrate shared value. In these examples, cus-
tomers might save some money and the organization’s
sales might be increased, but it is difficult to see how these
examples address needs and advance social and organiza-
tional well-being. Examples like the above raise a number
of questions about what constitutes shared value. Should
sales of toothpaste be considered shared value because they
address a corporation’s needs for profits and societal needs
for health? Will it make a difference if the same toothpaste
is sold in communities that previously lacked access to this
kind of product? What if these communities had an equally
efficient or better way of addressing their dental health?
Similarly, if helping people save for retirement is an
example of addressing needs that define shared value
(Driver 2012), will all the pension funds be considered
shared value initiatives? These questions remain unre-
solved and suggest the necessity to determine better what
needs should be addressed, and in what circumstances, to
constitute shared value. Without determining these aspects,
almost any business activity could be portrayed as a shared
value initiative. If shared value is to deliver on the promise
of advancing society, it should focus on unmet basic human
needs. Providing Amazon customers with somewhat
cheaper posting service is unlikely to meet this criterion
and advance society. Further, it is necessary to define
123
238
advancement beyond just the economic meaning, which
requires considering needs from a systemic perspective.
Brown and Knudsen (2012) criticize a number of examples
of shared value presented in the literature, such as Walm-
art’s attempt to create shared value by reducing packaging
and transport (achieving both environmental and financial
benefits). According to Brown and Knudsen (2012), despite
these benefits, Walmart follows a highly damaging low
price value chain policy. The compelling rationale for
adopting a systems perspective is that it addresses a wide
spectrum of needs affected by an organization’s activities
rather than focusing on a selected few. While Porter and
Kramer (2011) argue that shared value is about core
business activities (not non-business related CSR initia-
tives), it is necessary to consider all the core activities of an
organization and their impact on needs. Similarly, if shared
value is to be considered in terms of both costs and benefits
(Porter and Kramer 2011), both positive and negative
impacts on needs should be addressed. Currently, as the
analyzed cases and example indicate, there is little atten-
tion paid to costs (both in terms of financial costs invested
by an organization, as well as negative impact on needs).
In regard to the second point, existing definitions and
studies do not provide clear indications of how the needs
should be addressed for shared value to emerge. Will
addressing both symptoms and causes of a need be equally
considered as shared value? Consider a situation when a
community lacks access to clean water because a nearby
production plant is polluting the water. Will selling
drinking water at an affordable price to this community be
considered shared value (addressing symptoms)? Will
modifying the production process to stop polluting the
water be considered shared value (addressing causes)? In
their empirical study of apparel brands, Schmitt and Ren-
ken (2012) consider sales of fair trade organic clothing as
an example of shared value because, as they claim, this
resulted in better conditions for producers from third world
countries. Porter and Kramer (2011), however, treat fair
trade as an example of how not to create shared value
because, in their opinion, it redistributes existing wealth
rather than creating a ‘bigger pie.’ A prospect of this
‘bigger pie’ is without a doubt appealing and has poten-
tially contributed to the growing popularity of shared value.
However, what is important is how this ‘bigger pie’ is
achieved. A better form of capitalism created by shared
value should not be based on advancing excessive con-
sumerism. Examining the cases and examples of shared
value, this is arguably one of the greatest challenges for
companies that have, for a long time, based their business
models on maximizing consumption. While consumption is
indispensable and needs to be increased in some social
groups, for example to raise the living standards of the
poor, it should be done with care to avoid reducing well-
123
K. Dembek et al.
being just to economic status and consumerism (Oswald
1997). Otherwise, in a consumption-oriented society, the
supposed benefits from initiatives like energy efficient
technologies (including Toyota Prius, presented as a shared
value example) can be eradicated by the increase in use of
these technologies or by directing the savings to other,
consumption-based goals (Owen 2012; Polimeni et al.
2008). Finally, considering how the needs are addressed, it
is necessary to remember that the satisfiers of needs are
context- and culture-dependent, and may change over time
(Doyal and Gough 1991).
For the final point, none of the definitions, cases and
examples considers if, or to what degree, the needs are
satisfied. There are two important facets in the satisfaction
of needs, namely the level of needs met and the satisfaction
with this level (Constanza et al. 2007). While the level of
needs met can be subject to standards (and is objective at
least to some extent), the satisfaction with the level of
needs met is highly subjective and reliant on comparisons
with others (such as peer groups, other organizations, etc.)
(Constanza et al. 2007). Satisfaction of needs requires
determining issues such as, by what standards the needs
should be considered satisfied, and who should decide
whether a need is satisfied (Doyal and Gough 1991). While
these are not simple tasks, they are crucial for addressing
needs and CSV. For example, let us imagine a family of
poor farmers who earn 1.20 dollars per day. This level of
earning is below the 1.25 dollars per day extreme poverty
line used by the World Bank. A corporation includes this
family of farmers in its supply chain, which addresses the
family’s need for secure income, and improves the cor-
poration’s access to resources. To what extent should the
family’s need for secure income be satisfied in order to
consider the corporation’s action as shared value creation?
Is it enough to increase their income to two dollars per day
(a 66 % increase) because they will be above the 1.25
dollars per day extreme poverty line if, with the earnings of
two dollars, they still cannot afford three meals a day?
Beneficiaries of the Outcomes of Shared Value
In terms of the last area identified in the definitions, cases
and examples that were analyzed, that is, the beneficiaries
of the outcomes, there is inconsistency in saying who
should benefit: should it be a corporation and its multiple
stakeholders (Maltz et al. 2011), all the stakeholders
(Verboven 2011), the entire value chain and society
(Fearne et al. 2012), or will it be enough if beneficiaries
consist of a firm and one social group, as some empirical
instances suggest (Porter and Kramer 2011; Schmitt and
Renken 2012)? Additionally, should environment be con-
sidered as a separate beneficiary (Dubois and Dubois
2012), or should the environment-related value be
Literature Review of Shared Value
considered only to the extent to which it benefits the cor-
poration and social groups? This brings us back to the fact
that needs are nested in human systems of value co-crea-
tion, and to the importance of a systemic perspective,
mentioned in the previous subsection (Korhonen 2013).
Individuals, social groups, organizations, and the natural
environment are interrelated, and activities of one organi-
zation can have an impact at different levels far beyond the
directly involved stakeholders (e.g., in a farmer – company
dyad). Limiting the focus to primary stakeholders directly
involved in the activities may result in omission of
important needs of others, as criticized by Brown and
Knudsen (2012) in the cases of Walmart and Nike.
Another discrepancy observed in the definitions, cases
and examples is the importance of each beneficiary group.
Should societal benefits be considered before those of the
company, or should they be equal? For example, Pavlovich
and Corner (2014, p. 341) defined shared value as ‘‘putting
social and community needs before profits’’, but Pirson
(2012, p. 43) defined it as the ‘‘balance of social and
financial value creation.’’ While the empirical study of
eight organizations by Maltz and Schein (2012, p. 63)
suggests that shared value can be created, both in ‘‘eco-
nomics-first perspective [i.e., putting profits before the
community] and the mission-based perspective [i.e., putt-
ing community before profits]’’, Brown and Knudsen
(2012, p. 5) critique that ‘‘telling companies how to look
for shared value opportunities does not prepare them for
the complexities and trade-offs that are entailed in
addressing social issues.’’
The question of the importance of beneficiaries of
shared value also reopens a much deeper and older issue,
namely, the role of a firm in a society (Friedman 2007;
McMahon 1986; Steurer 2006). The view that a firm’s role
is to create and maximize profits for its shareholders is a
basic premise of neo-classical economic view criticized by
Porter and Kramer (2011) as a fundamental cause of poor
trust in corporations and of the corporate-social divide.
Yet, our analysis of definitions, cases, and examples of
shared value indicates, in line with Brown and Knudsen
(2012), that they are mainly focused on corporate ‘win.’
Many of the examples do not even mention social benefits.
Shared value seems, first and foremost, a way to achieving
economic success (Porter and Kramer 2011). Economic
success is also a focus of cases that put social and com-
munity needs before profits (Pavlovich and Corner 2014).
The main difference, in our view, lies in how the economic
success (and profits) is treated, that is, if it is an end in itself
or if it is a means to a different, higher end that is not
consumption or accumulation of financial wealth, but
‘‘rather the enrichment of mankind’s feeling of well-being’’
(Oswald 1997, p. 1815). Profits may involve a social pur-
pose, what Porter and Kramer (2011) see as a higher form
239
of capitalism, both in the case when they are treated as an
end (e.g., Walmart) and when they are a means to an end
(e.g., We’ar). This approach to profits, however, is what
distinguishes a narrow, neo-classical form of capitalism
from its higher form.
In summary, it is necessary to answer the questions in
the three areas ((1) means; (2) resulting outcomes; and (3)
beneficiaries of the outcomes) in order to determine what
shared value is. The above discussions suggest how this
task can be approached, which also could help to solve
some of the current problems, as we indicate in the fol-
lowing sections.
Operationalizing Shared Value: Clues
from the Literature
As expected, the lack of clarity and precision in defining
shared value is reflected in problems with the operational-
ization and measurement of the concept. Some international
initiatives, such as industry-based standards currently under
development by the Sustainability Accounting Standards
Board, as well as the Integrated Reporting created by the
International Integrated Reporting Council, are expected to
assist in measuring shared value in the future (Pfitzer et al.
2013). Triple Bottom Line accounting is another method
that is similar to shared value and considers economic,
social, and environmental value. However, according to
Maltz et al. (2011, p. 345), it ‘‘does not provide a basis for
considering the relative value of business decisions to the
firm, the environment, and society. Instead, it tends to con-
sider each aspect separately and calculate the effects on
different scales.’’ Consequently, no universal approach to
measuring shared value currently exists (Pfitzer et al. 2013).
We analyzed the articles to obtain more detailed information
about their contribution to measurement of shared value and
found six articles that attempted to do so. Table 5 summa-
rizes these contributions.
The contributions to measurement of shared value listed
in Table 5 represent very different approaches, varying
from externalities, through to triple bottom line, and to
ethics. Further, they are assessment frameworks rather than
specific measurement tools. For example, the Impartial
Spectator Test by Szmigin and Rutherford (2013), instead
of assessing shared value, aims to end the separation
between ethics and business and sets clear criteria of
demarcation for businesses to follow. A number of indi-
cators deployed to measure shared value by Spitzeck and
Chapman (2012) and Spitzeck et al. (2013) could serve as a
starting point for operationalization of shared value and for
construction of measurement tools, but they do not con-
sider addressing needs which, as our discussion on shared
value definition indicates, appears to be the core of shared
value.
123
240 K. Dembek et al.

Table 5 Contributions to shared value measurement

Study Contribution to shared value measurement

Maltz et al. (2011) Developed a nine-step method based on resource and externalities-based view of the firm in society to compare
multiple shared value initiatives on their costs and benefits
Mohammed (2013) Proposed to base shared value measurement on the principle of firms’ accountability for externalities
Pfitzer et al. (2013) Proposed a three-step assessment: (1) estimate business and social value linking change in social condition to profits;
(2) establish intermediate measures and track progress to validate (or invalidate) the anticipated link; (3) assess the
shared value produced by measuring the ultimate social and business benefits
Spitzeck and Chapman Used socio-eco-efficiency analysis consisting of an evaluation of triple bottom line indicators along the life cycle of
(2012) a specific product to determine if the company’s strategy could be considered a case of shared value creation
Spitzeck et al. (2013) Proposed a series of organizational and societal indicators. Organizational indicators: financial (profitability, growth,
competitive capabilities, and strategic repositioning), and intangible value (reputation, risk reduction, access to
government, and long-term legacy). Social indicators: positive impact, and reduced negative impacts
Szmigin and Rutherford Developed an Impartial Spectator Test composed of five questions aiming to provide an objective route for setting
(2013) criteria of ethical behavior

Consequently, following the previous analysis of what
shared value is, we suggest that the measures of shared
value could reflect the three main areas identified in its
definitions, cases, and examples, namely, means, outcomes,
and beneficiaries of the outcomes. Focus on means of SVC
should provide a basis for controlling organizational costs
(as it should track the resources spent by an organization on
SVC). Outcomes should focus on the needs addressed and
establish measurement of the level at which the needs are
met, as well as the satisfaction related to the levels at which
the needs are met, accounting for both increases and
decreases in these two aspects. Hence, measurement of
shared value would become a continuous monitoring sys-
tem providing a continuous flow of information for an
organization. Finally, determining clearly the beneficiaries
of the outcomes (needs) would clearly indicate where to
measure the shared value created and who should provide
the necessary information.
Disentangling Shared Value from Other (Related)
Concepts
Shared value has been criticized for overlapping with a
number of other concepts and, therefore, lacking novelty
(Aakhus and Bzdak 2012; Crane et al. 2013; Economist
2011). We identified the following related concepts and
theories: innovation, business model, social technology,
CSR, sustainability, corporate citizenship, blended value,
stakeholder theory, social innovation, social entrepreneur-
ship, and the BoP approach. Consequently, we analyzed
how shared value is perceived with respect to these con-
cepts and theories. We found that researchers have very
diverse perspectives and that there is, indeed, significant
confusion surrounding both the views on how shared value
relates to different concepts and theories, and the views on
how it differs from them as a distinct concept. We first
discuss those perspectives where agreement on differences
between shared value and other concepts appears to exist.
We then turn to those concepts with no such agreement.
Related Concepts Recognized as Distinct from Shared
Value
Shared value has been presented as a goal of innovation
(Lee et al. 2012) and an outcome of business model
(Michelini and Fiorentino 2012). These perspectives
appear to be in line with Porter and Kramer (2011), who
consider shared value as likely to unlock a new wave of
innovation. It is also logical to consider shared value as an
outcome of a business model and a goal for innovation
because business model is the main value creation element
of the corporation, and innovation is one of the most
important tools to do this (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart
2010, 2011). Further, product and value chain which,
according to Porter and Kramer (2011), are two elements
through which shared value is created are, at the same time,
components of business models (Yunus et al. 2010).
Leandro and Neffa (2012, p. 487) argue that shared
value ‘‘presents some premises already covered by Social
Technology, a methodology developed with and for pop-
ulations for problem-solving and social inclusion through
the creation of value, innovation and valuation of local
potential.’’ Social technology focuses on using new tech-
nologies as development options for less-developed coun-
tries, and is ‘‘a systematic effort to widen the application of
knowledge about improving the quality of life of people
excluded by the market actions’’ (Leandro and Neffa 2012,
p. 485). In this aspect, it is similar to benefiting society

123
Literature Review of Shared Value
through products and services suggested by shared value.
However, shared value proposes more ways for value
creation (including redefining productivity on the value
chain and enabling local cluster development) than social
technology does. Moreover, while social technology, sim-
ilarly to shared value, relies on market mechanisms for its
value and impact generation, it is not focused as much on
corporate profit as shared value is. According to Leandro
and Neffa (2012, p. 488), social technology ‘‘is much more
autonomous and generates more social value than SVC
because it develops a network of people connected with
political, economic and social development, resulting in a
decrease in inequality.’’
Related Concepts with No Agreement on Distinction
from Shared Value
In contrast to the case of innovation, business model, and
social technology, the relationships of shared value with
other concepts are much less clear. Table 6 summarizes the
findings of our analysis of the overlaps with these concepts
and suggests possible solutions.
Two types of issues can be observed in Table 6. One
type is the disputes over whether shared value forms part
of CSR, sustainability, and corporate citizenship. The
other type of issues are the overlaps in fundamental tenets
between shared value on one side, and blended value,
stakeholder theory, social innovation, social entrepre-
neurship, and the BoP (mutual value) on the other. A key
toward solving both types of issues is a more precise
definition of shared value, addressing the (1) means; (2)
resulting outcomes; and (3) beneficiaries of the outcomes
of shared value and related questions discussed earlier in
this article. Our findings also reveal that the issue of
overlaps is not exclusive to shared value and extends to
other concepts (e.g., blended value, mutual value). One
could say it is difficult to see the forest (positive rela-
tionship between business and society) for the trees
(concepts). A meta-level study is needed to clarify how
the concepts addressing the relationship between business
and society (the list in Table 6 is not an exhaustive one)
are similar and different. Such study should address the
question of whether we really need all these different
concepts and, if yes, why? The results could help break
the conceptual silos and allow for a more effective and
impactful research.
The overlap between shared value and the BoP approach
has been highlighted and has received especially strong
criticism (Comini et al. 2012; Crane et al. 2013; Economist
2011; Esposito et al. 2012). The BoP approach has been
developing for over twelve years and has two versions,
BoP 1.0, and BoP 2.0. BoP 1.0 represents the idea that
241
‘‘low-income markets present a prodigious opportunity for
the world’s wealthiest companies to seek their fortunes and
bring prosperity to the aspiring poor’’ (Prahalad and Hart
2002, p. 2), which companies should address by offering
the appropriate products and services. BoP 2.0 was
developed, shifting the approach from ‘‘selling to the poor’’
to co-venturing businesses with them (Karnani 2007;
London and Hart 2011). The guiding principle and the
underlying concept of mutual value, that is, addressing
poverty and related social problems in a way that also
creates profits for the corporations, however, have
remained unchanged.
Given the particularly strong similarities between
shared value and BoP mutual value, we conducted a
detailed comparative analysis of their antecedents. As
mentioned in the methodology section, we compared the
antecedents identified from the main shared value, and
BoP (1.0 and 2.0) literatures. We added the antecedents of
TRM for comparative purposes. We chose TRM because,
in contrast to shared and mutual value, it proposes
responsibility as a tool to address increasing societal
pressures on corporations by considering their impact on
all stakeholders and the natural environment (Waddock
et al. 2007). Following TRM principles, similar to shared
and mutual value, is expected to result in benefits for
society as well as improve corporations’ performance
(Waddock and Bodwell 2004). Table 7 shows the identi-
fied antecedents and compares them across BoP 1.0, BoP
2.0, shared value, and TRM.
As Table 7 indicates, most of the antecedents are well-
established concepts, each with a large separate body of
research. Comparing the antecedents, we observe that eight
of them are common across shared value, BoP 1.0, BoP
2.0, and TRM. It may be the case that these factors are
common predictors of simultaneous value creation for
corporations and society irrespective of the approach to this
task. Further, it seems that the differences among the
concepts lies mostly in the way in which the key ante-
cedents are approached. For example, one of the funda-
mental differences between shared value and TRM is the
way in which human needs are perceived (as market
opportunity and corporation’s responsibility, respectively).
Approach to antecedents may, therefore, set a way to dis-
tinguish the concepts.
To this end, examining the overlaps (e.g., approach to
human needs) and differences (e.g., approach to leadership
and costs) between shared value and mutual value (both in
BoP 1.0 and 2.0), it can be observed that the level of dif-
ference in approaches to the antecedents, between shared
and mutual value, is similar to how mutual value differs
across BoP 1.0 and BoP 2.0, confirming a strong proximity
of the concepts.
123
242 K. Dembek et al.

Table 6 Concepts related to shared value with an overlap or disputed area and no agreement on distinction from shared value
Related Concepts Overlap or dispute with shared Competing views Proposed path towards solution
and Theories value

CSR and 1. Is shared value part of CSR and
sustainability sustainability?
2. If yes, how does shared value
relate to CSR and sustainability?
Corporate Is shared value an approach to
citizenship corporate citizenship?
Blended value Claims that:
Business and society are not at
odds
Social and economic value are not
separate aspects of a value
proposition
Simultaneous creation of different
types of value (social, economic,
and environmental)
Stakeholder Claims that:
theory Jointness of interests
Cooperative posture
Rejection of a narrow economic
view of the firm
Social innovation The idea of benefitting the company
and social and the society by redesigning the
entrepreneurship products and markets as well as
through partnerships
Bottom of the Claims that social problems can be
pyramid (mutual addressed in a profitable way
value) Use of redesigned products and
reconfigured value chain
1. Shared value is neither CSR nor 1. Determine if CSR and sustainability
sustainability because in contrast to relate to core business model activities
these concepts it creates social benefits (in which case shared value becomes
through business model (not through part of CSR and sustainability) or only
additional non-core business activities) comprise activities additional to the
(Porter and Kramer 2011) business model
versus 2. Additional theoretical and empirical
Shared value is part of CSR (e.g., studies
Kendrick et al. 2013) and sustainability
(e.g., Dubois and Dubois 2012)
2. A vast array of perspectives on how
shared value relates to CSR and
sustainability as their parts (e.g.,
Harrison and Coombs 2012; Lassch
and Yang 2011; Verboven 2011)
Corporate citizenship relates to CSR not Provide a more precise definition of
shared value (Porter and Kramer 2011) shared value
versus
Shared value is an approach to corporate
citizenship and allows for
understanding the role and context in
which companies contribute as citizens
(Darigan and Post 2009)
Shared value is about solving social Provide a more precise definition of
problems to create economic value shared value, especially addressing the
(Porter and Kramer 2014) area of outcomes of shared value, and
versus clarifying the importance of different
types of value and stakeholders
Shared value is about simultaneous
creation of social, economic, and
environmental value (Shrivastava and
Kennelly 2013) and is difficult to
distinguish from shared value (Aakhus
and Bzdak 2012; Crane et al. 2014)
Shared value is a restatement of the Provide a precise definition of shared
tenets of the stakeholder theory (Crane value especially addressing the relative
et al. 2014; Strand and Freeman 2013) importance of different stakeholder
versus groups
No counter arguments Acknowledge possible overlaps
Shared value repeats the tenets of social Provide a more precise definition of
innovation and social entrepreneurship shared value
and is difficult to distinguish from
these concepts (Crane et al. 2014)
versus
Social entrepreneurship is a transitional
vehicle leading to new capitalist
system and shared value creation
(Driver 2012)
Shared value resembles bottom of the Approach to the antecedents
pyramid too much and its mutual value Acknowledge possible overlaps
concept (Aakhus and Bzdak 2012;
Focus on context
Crane et al. 2014)
versus
Bottom of the pyramid can be an aspect
of shared value (Porter and Kramer
2014)

123
Literature Review of Shared Value 243

Table 7 Antecedents of the mutual value (bottom of the pyramid 1.0, bottom of the pyramid 2.0), shared value, and total responsibility
management
Antecedents BOP 1 BOP 2 Shared value TRM

Human needs Market opportunity
Stakeholder Used to identify needs, create
engagement and distribution channels, and
partnerships sell products
Social Achieved by franchising and
embeddedness value chain
Innovation Used to design and distribute
products/services
Social Not addressed
entrepreneurship
Leadership Focused on project teams
Needs to be effective in
multicultural and complex
environment
Vision and values Not addressed
Approach to costs 90 % reduction while
maintaining quality and
increasing sustainability by
redesign of existing costs
Approach to Focused on profit
profits maximization and balance
between short- and long-term
profits
Performance Directed to firm’s management
measurement Focused on satisfying needs of
company and local
community
Time perspective Short/long-term balance
Market opportunity Market opportunity Company responsibility
Used to co-create and develop Used to build Used to build ongoing
businesses with local clusters and dialog, identify common
communities reconfigure value values, vision, and share
chain power
Achieved by including community Achieved by value Not addressed
members in the business venture chain and creating
clusters
Used to design and develop Used to drive Used to continuously
business venture, and products/ company decision- improve TRM processes
services making process
Used as a vehicle to create mutual Used as a role model Not addressed
value
Focused on project teams Focused on top Focused on entire company
Needs to be effective in management Needs to support change
multicultural and complex Needs to resist
environment and empower local pressures from
communities capital markets
Used to build the team including Not addressed Used to strengthen company
local community members identity, create context,
and guide change and
behavior
Costs designed at the stage of Reduction by Reduction, need first to
business concept co-creation with addressing social demonstrate that higher
the community and embedded in problems responsibility is not
business model related to higher costs
Focused on profit maximization in Focused on profit Not addressed
long-term maximization in
Profits shared with community long-term
partners Profit is generated in
a way that also
creates social
value
Directed to firm’s management and Directed at investors Directed to multiple
the new venture Focused on stakeholders
Focused on long-term milestones relationship Focused on reporting
and learning between social and financial, social, and
firm’s economic environmental impact
value
Long-term Long-term Long-term

Cases and Examples of Shared Value
We examined the cases and examples of shared value in the
subsection on the definition and empirical instances of
shared value when analyzing what shared value is. This
analysis revealed that, independently of the definition of
shared value, its cases and examples represent a ‘sweet
spot’ between social and organizational benefits. Further,
they lack a systemic perspective in a way that they address
single needs of selected stakeholders, while neglecting the
costs and broader impacts of organizational actions. We
also found that the cases and examples tend to focus on
benefits while omitting the cost side of shared value. We
now extend our analysis of the cases and examples of
shared value, focusing on their potential to reflect the
phenomena in question.
The majority of cases and examples illustrating shared
value are brief and lack the detailed information and data to

123
244
support the authors’ arguments. As the data in Appendix 2
indicate, 49 % (50 out of 103) of all cases and examples
come from only four articles authored by Porter, Kramer
and others from FSG Consulting (a consulting company
established by Porter and Kramer) and Harvard University
(Bertini and Gourville 2012; Pfitzer et al. 2013; Porter and
Kramer 2006, 2011). Only 13 out of 103 cases published
(12.6 %) were supported with some primary data. None of
these articles was authored by researchers from FSG or
Harvard University. Indeed, Pfitzer et al. (2013), who are
senior employees of FSG, disclose that the examples used
in the article are based on FSG research, but do not provide
any details about data collected or methodology deployed.
Further, many of the companies presented in the article
supported the FSG research financially.
In cases where data were used, data have been sourced
predominantly from the organizations’ internal documents
and interviews with their managers. Only Sojamo and
Larson (2012) used additional informants from outside the
case companies. In addition, two publications presented
shared value cases on the basis of reports provided by the
executives of the companies in question, namely Hans
Joehr, the corporate head of agriculture at Nestle (Kru-
schwitz 2013), and Anand Mahindra, vice-chairman and
managing director of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (an Indian
multinational automobile corporation) (Mahindra 2012).
Finally, most studies relied on very few informants per
organization.
We believe that the absence of multiple perspectives,
especially views from societal stakeholders in the cases, is
a critical shortcoming. First of all, the companies are
interested in building their image. This is especially con-
cerning point in the cases where the studied companies
provide financial support for the research (e.g., Pfitzer et al.
2013). Second, some aspects of social benefits, such as
satisfaction with the level of needs met, can be addressed
adequately only by the societal stakeholders. Considering
the sources of data deployed for the cases, it comes as no
surprise that the benefits and impact of shared value on
society are presented in a limited way only and the cases
focus on the organizational side of shared value.
Further, analysis reveals that only 12 examples address
shared value through more than one of the three ways
suggested by Porter and Kramer (i.e., product, value chain,
and clusters). Out of these 12 examples, 11 combine
product and value chain approaches and one value chain
and clusters. Additionally, three other examples relate to
cluster building. These findings further support our previ-
ous observation about the lack of systemic perspective in
shared value, and show that currently shared value is
limited to considering only immediate and direct links
123
K. Dembek et al.
between the benefits of the company and those of a
stakeholder.
Overall, presenting shared value on the basis of brief
examples, without adequate data support and analysis, is
unlikely to reflect the reality of the phenomenon more
broadly. To improve this situation, more empirical studies
with support data that includes perspectives from multiple
stakeholders are needed.
Recommendations and Avenues for Future Research
Our literature review confirms that the relationship
between business and society addressed by shared value is
limited to addressing these needs and issues in the society,
and in a way that directly generates economic benefits for
the organization. This is arguably one of the reasons why
shared value has proved so appealing to some of the largest
corporations (NAB 2014; Nestle 2014). While this ‘sweet
spot’ orientation has been criticized (Aakhus and Bzdak
2012; Crane et al. 2014), we propose to accept it as a
characteristic of shared value. Doing so, however, requires
also realizing that shared value has a weak potential for
solving social problems. Porter and Kramer (2011, p. 77)
indicate that ‘‘not all social problems can be solved through
shared value solutions.’’ Our literature review indicates that
it is, indeed, unlikely that any social problems will be
solved through shared value. Instead, it may be possible to
address some unmet needs through shared value. For
example, shared value may contribute to increasing income
within a poor community, but it is very unlikely to solve
poverty, which is a much more complex and multifaceted
problem. If shared value is to become a reputable concept,
claims about social benefits achieved need to be made
carefully and be supported by data.
Based on the literature review, we identify four major
avenues for future research on shared value. First, it is
necessary for research to address the question of exactly
what shared value means. If activities such as sending
customers an easier-to-understand invoice continue to be
considered shared value initiatives, almost any business
activity may become a shared value initiative. This is
unlikely to convert shared value from a buzzword and
another marketing tool to shape organizational image, to a
reputable strategic concept. A way to establish what shared
value means is to clarify the means, outcomes, and bene-
ficiaries of the outcomes of shared value, and focus on
satisfying human needs.
Another way that could contribute to clarifying the
meaning of shared value would be to conduct a meta-level
study to clarify the meaning and use of different concepts
Literature Review of Shared Value
related to shared value that we identified in this literature
review (e.g., CSR, sustainability, and blended value). Such
a meta-level study could build on our findings of common
antecedents, should establish theoretical origins and rela-
tions of shared value (e.g., with stakeholder theory), and
address the question of whether we really need all these
different concepts and, if yes, why?
The second question to be addressed by future research
is that of how shared value should be measured. The cur-
rent efforts to measure shared value do not appear to offer a
solution. The issue of measurement obviously relates to the
definition of shared value. We therefore propose to focus
the development of a measure on satisfaction of human
needs of particular stakeholders.
Third, future research should carefully consider the
levels of analysis of shared value and their implications.
Our literature review reveals that, currently, shared value is
analyzed primarily at a project or initiative level. What are
the potential consequences? Are they different if we look at
shared value from the organization or business model level
perspective? Consider the example Dow Chemical’s Nex-
era canola and sunflower seeds project presented as a
shared value project (Pfitzer et al. 2013). While these
particular seeds are not genetically engineered, Dow
Chemical is one of the main players on the genetically
engineered crops’ market and sells, among others, very
controversial products including so-called ‘agent orange
seeds’ that are engineered to survive the toxicity of the
active ingredients of agent orange used by the US army
during the Vietnam War, and known to cause many very
serious health problems, including cancer. Dow Chemical
has been involved in many controversial and highly criti-
cized actions and even has a dedicated watchdog website
(www.dow-watch.org). Is focusing on the Nexera seeds
project as shared value (project level) going to improve the
way in which Dow Chemical does business and impacts the
society and environment? Or is it more likely to help the
company advance its controversial projects by focusing the
attention on one shared value project? Is focusing on
shared value at the organizational level going to help
develop a more holistic and systemic perspective? These
are very important questions both for research and practice.
Finally, shared value has been criticized for avoiding the
tensions between business and society by focusing on the
‘sweet spot’ between the two (Aakhus and Bzdak 2012;
Crane et al. 2014). Is this sweet spot really free from ten-
sions? The case of Nazava (www.nazava.com), a company
distributing affordable water filters among poor commu-
nities in Indonesia, that we studied in one of our recent
projects indicates that in the sweet spot, tensions may be
reduced but they are not completely absent and cannot be
ignored. Nazava works in a sweet spot where a filter
delivered results both in an income for the organization and
245
in access to safer water for the community. Management in
Nazava, however, discovered that their activities caused a
significant income decrease for owners of local shops that
were selling purified water. The shop owners were offered
alternative income streams that compensated for the losses
of water sales. As this case suggests, even in a sweet spot
tensions may occur. Future research should further inves-
tigate such sweet spot tensions. To do this, it is necessary to
consider broader impact (in terms of both costs and bene-
fits) of shared value and to use data from multiple
stakeholders.
Limitations
Our literature review is not without its limitations. Despite
using six large academic databases and Google Scholar, it is
possible that not all relevant articles were reviewed. Further,
it is possible that, at the time of writing this article, new
studies have been published and are not included in this
review. Consequently, despite being comprehensive, our
review cannot be considered exhaustive. Also, while our
intention in this literature review was to provide an objective
and evidence-based discussion of the state of shared value as
a concept (without advocating for or against shared value),
the analysis and interpretation of the data have been, to some
extent, influenced by our perceptions, experiences, and
expertise. Consequently, directions and recommendations in
this article should be treated as proposals, and we encourage
and welcome different viewpoints. Finally, we adopted
Goertz and Mohoney (2012) perspective to analyze onto-
logical and epistemological properties of shared value. This
resulted in a particular framework that we used for this lit-
erature review, looking at the definition and empirical
instances of shared value, its operationalization, its rela-
tionships with other concepts and theories, and the sources
and suitability of the data deployed by research. We
acknowledge that there are other perspectives on ontology
and epistemology of concepts, which could result in differ-
ent analytical frameworks.
Conclusion
Considering all the findings, it is clear that shared value as
a theoretical concept is at a nascent stage. It has, however,
entered into the language of many disciplines, and it thus
resembles a management buzzword. ‘‘Buzz words are over
used; as a result their meanings often get distorted and
overextended and they burn-out of existence’’ (Thornton
and Ocasio 2008, p. 99). It is, therefore, important to
provide shared value with meaning and organizations with
guidance of how to implement it. For this to happen,
123
246 K. Dembek et al.

ontological and epistemological properties of shared value 28 Harrison and Coombs (2012)
need to be developed. 29 Hartmann et al. (2011)
Through this rigorous literature review that follows 30 Hiller (2013)
Goertz and Mohoney’s (2012) guidelines on epistemology 31 Jackson (2012)
and ontology of concepts and measurement, we assessed 32 Juscius and Jonikas (2013)
the current state of shared value and provided recommen- 33 Kendrick et al. (2013)
dations for future research. Our review indicates three areas 34 Kiran and Sharma (2011)
for determining what shared value is, namely, its means, 35 Kolodinsky and Bierly (2013)
outcomes, and beneficiaries. These areas can also help in 36 Kruschwitz (2013)
measuring the concept while considering all the affected 37 Lassch and Yang (2011)
stakeholders, both negative and positive impacts, as well as 38 Leandro and Neffa (2012)
short-term and long-term effects. A meta-level study is 39 Leavy (2012)
necessary to map the area of relating business to society 40 Lee et al. (2012)
and determine if and why we need multiple existing con- 41 Mabaya et al. (2013)
cepts. Finally, there is a large body of existing knowledge 42 MacGregor and Fontrodona (2011)
that shared value can build upon and that should not be 43 Mahindra (2012)
neglected.
44 Maltz and Schein 2012
45 Maltz et al. (2011)
46 McGahan (2012)
Appendix 1: Articles Included in the Second Step
47 Michelini and Fiorentino (2012)
of the Analysis
48 Mohammed (2013)
49 Moon et al. (2011)
50 Pavlovich and Corner (2014)
51 Pfitzer et al. (2013)
1 Aakhus and Bzdak (2012)
52 Pirson (2012)
2 Athanasopoulou and Selsky (2012)
53 Porter and Kramer (2006)
3 Baraka (2010)
54 Porter and Kramer (2011)
4 Bertini and Gourville (2012)
55 Sastry (2011)
5 Bosch-Badia et al. (2013)
56 Schmitt and Renken (2012)
6 Bose et al. (2012)
57 See (2009)
7 Brown and Knudsen (2012)
58 Shaw and de Bruin (2013)
8 Caligiuri et al. (2013)
59 Shrivastava and Kennelly (2013)
9 Cao and Pederzoli (2013)
60 Sojamo and Larson (2012)
10 Carter and Greer (2013)
61 Spitzeck et al. (2013)
11 Chatterjee (2012)
62 Spitzeck and Chapman (2012)
12 Comini et al. (2012)
63 Strand and Freeman (2013)
13 Condosta (2011)
64 Szmigin and Rutherford (2013)
14 Condosta (2012)
65 Topal and Toledano (2013)
15 Danko et al. (2008)
66 Vaidyanathan and Scott (2012)
16 Darigan and Post (2009)
67 van der Lugt et al. (2013)
17 Driver (2012)
68 Verboven (2011)
18 Dubois and Dubois (2012)
69 Vermeulen (2013)
19 Duran-Encalada and Paucar-Caceres (2012)
70 Vitasek and Manrodt (2012)
20 Dyda (2008)
71 Wilbrun and Wilbrun (2013)
21 Etzkowitz and Zhou (2012)
72 Wilson (2012)
22 Fayet and Vermeulen (2014)
73 Woolley (2011)
23 Fearne et al. (2012)
24 Fleming et al. (2013)
25 Florin and Schmidt (2011)
26 Follman (2012)
Appendix 2: Cases and Examples of Shared Value
27 Hamann (2012)

123
 Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

11 unnamed fair Perceive shared value as composed of N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Schmitt and Interviews with
trade organic social, economic, environmental value. Renken CEOs and
clothing Explore success factors and obstacles to (2012) COO
producers creating shared value. Main shared
value success factors: value orientation,
credibility, transparency in relationships
to customers, knowledge, and
innovation. Main obstacles (specific to
Literature Review of Shared Value

fair trade apparel industry): shortage of

supplies, customer cognitive frame, and
investor inexperience
28 L3C Provide two-dimensional view of shared N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Florin and Interviews,
Companies value (customer value and public value Schmidt emails,
proposition) that allows acknowledging (2011) documents
strategy paradox in order to design
innovative business models. Develops
and tests strategy process model with 28
L3C companies
32 unnamed Develop a framework for understanding N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Maltz and Interviews
organizations conditions that generate initiatives with Schein (2012) mostly with
high shared value for global enterprises sustainability
and society. Conclude that shared value and CSR
is created when: companies have the directors
capability to do so, when there is
consistency between the creation of
shareholder value and social value, and
when social value can be cultivated
beyond the enterprise that created the
original initiative
50 ? outsourcing Partnership with a ‘‘win–win’’ mindset or N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Vitasek and 7 years of field
relationships ‘‘what’s in it for us’’ Manrodt research—
(2012) informants not
disclosed, full
list of
partnerships
not provided
Amazon Prime Service—provide two-day shipping Product Clients—cheaper N/I Increased sales N/I Bertini and N/I
for all orders for annual fee shipping (30 %) and Gourville
share price (2012)
Amul Cooperative Set up diary production—transformed Value N/I N/I N/I N/I Mahindra Own company
Society milk-starved country into one with chain (2012)
world-class Amul dairy products, i.e.
milk, cheese, ice-cream, chocolate
247

123
 continued
248

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Anglo American Provide employees, their families and Value Improved health N/I Greater N/I Condosta Surveys,
closest communities in Africa access to chain productivity, (2011) interviews,
free HIV retroviral treatment, and loyalty, website,
screening tests employee’ reports, other
sense of secondary
belonging sources
Basf Grameen Provided multi-micronutrient sachets and Product Lower prices, N/I Access to Risks for long- Michelini and Presentations,
interceptor mosquito nets employment, markets and term Fiorentino reports, press
local knowledge, sustainability, (2012) releases,
entrepreneurial increased CSR complexity of websites,
development, governance publications
skill
acquisition,
access to
service and
products,
increased
quality of life
BASF, André Intend to provide empirical evidence of Value Improved social N/I Enhanced triple N/I Spitzeck and Interviews,
Maggi Group, shared value strategies. Examines Andre chain conditions bottom line Chapman participant
and Fundacao Maggi Group farms’ creation of shared thinking, (2012) observation,
Espaco Eco in value using social-eco-efficiency increase in use document
Brazil analysis of scenario analysis
planning to
inform
decisions
Basf, Bayer, Companies communicate sense of shared N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Verboven Company
Dupont, value creation through image (2011) websites
Lanxess, campaigns. No specific examples
Tessenderlo provided
Becton–Dickinson Needle-less injection system Product Health of N/I Increased N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
healthcare revenue (2013)
workers
Boehringer Health programs—financing external Value N/I N/I Use gained N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
Ingelheim entrepreneurs to revolutionize access to chain knowledge (2013)
basic healthcare
BP (–) Emission reduction, developing clean N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Brown and N/I
fuels contrasts events such as Mexican Knudsen
Gulf spill and wrong management (2012)
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

BracNET (–) Brought wireless broadband internet to Product, Access to internet N/I Profits N/I Pirson (2012) Literature,
rural Bangladesh; later added sales of value and technology published case
computing devices, provided financing, chain studies
affordable renewable energy, and
offered local language content provision
and teacher training—criticized for
drifting toward financial benefits and
Literature Review of Shared Value

providing 50 % to a for-profit partner

that brings funds
Britania Milk Bikis and Tiger Biscuits fortified Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Vaidyanathan FSG research
with iron, supplemented with education and Scott
to address iron deficiency in children (2012)
Chetna, Zameen, Study different ways of inclusion of Value Income, reduced Costs of Access to raw Initial Fayet and Interviews
Oxfam, Trade smallholder farmers to sustainable chain use of chemical certification materials investment to Vermeulen
Craft, ACF, supply chains in cotton industry using 9 pesticides, create (2014)
SSM, Arvind, for profit and nonprofit organizations. improved health infrastructure,
Prathiba, BioRe Conclude that farmers can be involved and education capacity etc
in sustainable way only if provided with
capacity building and extension
services, which requires investment
from organizations to create structures,
institutions, capacities, extensions,
certification, and supply chain tracking.
All studied organizations operate under
Organic, Fair Trade, or other similar
certification
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems’ Networking Academy Value Millennium N/I for society. Access to Costs of Lassch and N/I. Some data
founded in cooperation with public chain Development School network equipment Yang (2011) referenced
schools to train network administrators. Goal (MDG) provides administrators donated and Aakhus
Cisco donated equipment and trained 16—decent and infrastructure, (should and Bzdak
teachers productive work teachers, and increase (2012)
for youth; MDG organizational demand for
8—partnerships structure products).
for Training cost
development advantage
leveraging on
school
infrastructure.
Government
goodwill
249

123
 continued
250

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Coca-Cola Examines social and inclusive business N/I Employment, Oligopolistic Increased sales Negative image Michelini and Presentations,
models as tools for shared value acquisition of market, profit and facilitated Fiorentino reports, press
creation. Coca-Cola is an example of new skills, orientation, distribution (2012) releases,
inclusive business. Do not provide a access to loss of websites,
description of what company does services and autonomy for publications
quality suppliers
products,
increased
quality of life
Coca-Cola Colectivo initiative in Brazil— Value Increased N/I Increased sales N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
partnership with NGOs -trained young chain employability by (2013) and
people for two months in retailing, of youth strengthening Comini et al.
business development, and distribution (2012)
entrepreneurship; pairing them with and brand
local retailers to tackle specific awareness
improvement projects
Coca-Cola Reduced 9 % of worldwide water Value N/I N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
consumption chain Kramer
(2011) and
Leavy (2012)
Credit Agricole Specialized financial products related to Product N/I N/I Differentiation N/I Porter and N/I
environment (i.e. financing audits for Kramer
organic certification) (2006)
Daewoo Donated books, provided support for town Not clear N/I in Zambia N/I N/I in Zambia N/I. Costs of Lassch and N/I
events, expansion of education facilities and Nigeria. and Nigeria. donations Yang (2011)
for local communities in Nigeria and Economic Economic assumed
Zambia. Performed projects in Libya benefits in benefits in
during sanctions, which helped country Libya Libya
overcome economic difficulties
Danone Sold off beer, meat and cheese unit, Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
focusing on water, non-cheese diary, (2013)
baby food, medical nutrition
Doosan Heavy Took less profitable projects ignored by Product Access to water N/I Market share N/I Moon et al. Literature
Industries larger companies for construction of (2011)
desalination plants and providing water
technologies
Dow Chemical Nexera sunflower and canola seeds used Product Income for N/I Sales N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
for producing oil with longer shelf life farmers, lower (2013)
trans and
saturated fats
content of the
oils
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Dow Chemical Reduced water consumption Value N/I N/I Financial N/I Porter and N/I
chain savings Kramer
(2011)
Fabindia Created community-owned company with Value Improved N/I Growth N/I Mahindra Own company
artisan shareholders and directors, chain livelihood (2012)
Fabindia significantly impacted
Literature Review of Shared Value

sustainable livelihoods in rural sector,

while helping Fabindia become one of
largest private platforms for products
made from traditional techniques, skills,
and hand-based processes
Ferrero Examines social and inclusive business N/I Employment, Profit Increased sales Implementation Michelini and Presentations,
models as tools for shared value acquisition of orientation, costs, difficulty Fiorentino reports, press
creation. Ferrero is an example of new skills, loss of of controlling (2012) releases,
inclusive business. Do not provide a access to autonomy for supply chain, websites,
description of what company does services and the suppliers long-term publications
quality economic
products, sustainability
increased
quality of life
GE (±) Ecomagination—ecologically and Product N/I N/I Increased sales N/I Aakhus and Websites
socially beneficial products and and revenue Bzdak (2012), (Aakhus and
services. Aakhus and Bzdak 2012 Porter and Bzdak 2012),
criticize GE arguing that Ecomagination Kramer (2011, N/I by other
delivered little to solve problem caused 2006), authors
by company’s actions, i.e. polluting Hamann
Hudson River (2012) and
Moon et al.
(2011)
GE and Embrace Develop affordable healthcare products. Product N/I—improved N/I N/I Investment in Pfitzer et al. FSG research
Partnered to distribute affordable health issues R&D (2013)
incubator (developed by Embrace not assumed
GE) for hospitals in India
Google, Apple, I-Tunes, Kindle, Google scholar—alter Value Reduction in N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
Kindle distribution systems chain paper and Kramer
plastic use (2011)
251

123
 continued
252

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Grameen Adidas Introduced new model of footwear for 1 Product Lower prices, N/I Increased CSR Risks for long- Michelini and Presentations,
USD employment, term Fiorentino reports, press
local sustainability (2012) releases,
entrepreneurial and websites,
development, complexity of publications
skill governance
acquisition,
access to
service and
products,
increased
quality of life
Grameen Danone Provided yogurt enriched with Product, Better nutrition, N/I Access to Risks for long- Michelini and Presentations,
(±) micronutrients. Pirson criticizes strong value lower prices, markets and term Fiorentino reports, press
shift toward social value creation; chain employment, knowledge, sustainability, (2012) and releases,
argues that organizational benefits are local increased CSR complexity of Pirson (2012) websites,
uncertain entrepreneurial governance publications
development,
skill
acquisition,
access to
service and
products,
increased
quality of life
Grameen Intel Provided services and technology at Product, Lower prices, N/I N/I Risks for long- Michelini and Presentations,
affordable prices value employment, term Fiorentino reports, press
chain access to new sustainability, (2012) releases,
services and complexity of websites,
products, governance publications
increased
quality of life
Grameen Phone Provided affordable access to phone Product, Income—combat N/I Profits N/I Pirson (2012) Literature,
(–) service in rural Bangladesh. Pirson value poverty published case
criticizes domination of financial focus chain studies
and incidents of unethical behavior i.e.
child labor, violation of laws regulating
use of VOIP protocol
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Grameen Veolia Provided affordable drinking water Product, Lower prices, Privatization of Increased CSR Risks for long- Michelini and Presentations,
value employment, public goods term Fiorentino reports, press
chain local sustainability, (2012) releases,
entrepreneurial complexity of websites,
development, governance publications
skill
acquisition,
Literature Review of Shared Value

access to
service and
products,
increased
quality of life
Gyeongnam Donation for emergency relief in Sri N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Lassch and N/I
Lanka after 2004 earthquakes; Yang (2011)
construction projects in this country
H&M Describe suppliers and industry peers (i.e. N/I Advances N/I More stable N/I Strand and Company
competitors) as partners. Reject narrow interests of supplies Freeman websites and
economic view of firm through Unicef and (2013) literature
addressing issues of human rights of Save the
children in partnership with Unicef and Children, giving
Save the Children them better
access to
children
Heineken Fight AIDS among African employees Value Health N/I Economic due to 2 million dollars Lassch and N/I. Some data
offering treatment to employees and chain less employee a year Yang (2011) referenced
their relatives turnover and
absenteeism;
Higher
employee
motivation;
Public
goodwill
Hilti Fleet Management program—monthly fee Product Reduced financial N/I Market share N/I Bertini and N/I
tool hiring program planning, Gourville
administrative (2012)
work, and
downtime
HP Machine that scans, prints, and transmits Product N/I— N/I Increased N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
data, used to accelerate diagnosis and improvement in demand for (2013)
treatment of HIV in children HIV detection product
assumed
253

123
 continued
254

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Ikea Unassembled furniture (Ikea finds cheap, Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Bertini and N/I
good looking furniture, customers Gourville
assemble them) (2012)
Ikea Examines social and inclusive business N/I Employment, Profit Increased supply Implementation Michelini and Presentations,
models as tools for shared value acquisition of orientation, chain costs, difficulty Fiorentino reports, press
creation. Ikea is an example of inclusive new skills, local loss of sustainability of controlling (2012) releases,
business. Do not provide a description entrepreneurial autonomy for and CSR supply chain, websites,
of what company does development, suppliers non-profitable publications
increased market and
quality of life social
instability,
negative image
Ikea Reject narrowly economic view of firm N/I Advances N/I More stable N/I Strand and Company
through addressing issues of human interests of supplies Freeman websites and
rights of children in partnership with Unicef and (2013) literature
Unicef and Save the Children Save the
Children giving
them better
access to
children
Intel Trained teachers in technology use Value Improved N/I Profits N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
chain educational (2013)
outcomes
J.C.Penney Three types of simple, transparent Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Bertini and N/I
pricing: everyday, month-long, Gourville
clearance, and all prices end in .00, not (2012)
in .99
Jain Irrigation Manufactures water drip irrigation Value N/I N/I Growth at a N/I Porter and N/I
systems. Demand for water saving chain compound Kramer
technology allowed growth in revenue annual rate of (2011)
41 %
Johnson&Johnson Helps employees stop smoking (75 % Value N/I N/I Savings in N/I Porter and N/I
reduction in 15 years), and introduced chain healthcare Kramer
wellness programs costs, more (2011) and
productive Leavy (2012)
workforce
Johnson&Johnson Recall of Tylenol capsules from market as Value N/I N/I N/I N/I Szmigin and Literature
response to cyanide contamination in chain Rutherford
1982 (2013)
Kemira Set up R&D activities to create new ways Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
of increasing customers’ water and (2013)
energy efficiency
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

London Olympic Pricing tickets for sporting events in a Product Access to events N/I Profits N/I Bertini and N/I
games way that provides access for everybody Gourville
(2012)
Mahindra Group Designed and produced small tractor for 5 Product Productivity N/I Income N/I Mahindra Own company
acres or less land; trained women how (2012)
to drive tractors (due to exodus of men
Literature Review of Shared Value

to the city jobs)

Mahindra Employed and prepared early retirees Value Employment N/I Sales, product N/I Mahindra Own company
Navistar from armed forces to train new drivers chain awareness (2012)
Automotive Ltd. for their new vehicles
Marks & Specer Stopped shipping across hemispheres Value Reduced carbon N/I Financial N/I Porter and N/I
chain emissions savings Kramer
(2011) and
Hamann
(2012)
Marriott Provided 180 paid hours of training for Value Jobs N/I Access to loyal N/I Danko et al. N/I
chronically unemployed chain employees (2008) and
Porter and
Kramer
(2006)
Mars Created long term cross-sector Product, N/I N/I Access to N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
collaboration to improve productivity of value resources (2013)
cocoa by introducing innovations such chain
as super cocoa clones, providing access
to fertilizer, training and grafting
services
Merck (–) Disastrous airing of its ‘Where Patients Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Brown and N/I
Come First’ campaign same time Merck Knudsen
was forced to recall Vioxx (drug found (2012)
to increase risk of heart attacks in some
patients)
Microsoft Working Connections—Reduce shortage Value N/I N/I Address 50 mln dollars Danko et al. N/I
of information technology workers by chain shortage of IT over 5 years (2008), Porter
helping colleges develop IT curricula, employees and employee and Kramer
sending employees as volunteers to volunteering (2006) and
assess college needs, and creating Moon et al.
faculty development institutes (2011)
255

123
 continued
256

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Nestle Milk districts—company created Value Income, N/I Access to raw Investment in Aakhus and Survey and
programs educating local farmers on chain improved materials of local Bzdak (2012), interviews,
effective farming procedures, providing healthcare, good quality, infrastructure Condosta website,
services like veterinary, and expert economic profits and knowledge (2011), Kiran reports and
advice supporting them with financial development, transfer and Sharma other
micro-credit aids, paying in cash when better education (2011), Moon secondary
collecting milk, and creating local et al. (2011), sources
collection points close to farmers Porter and (Condosta
Kramer 2011);
(2006) and FSG research
Vaidyanathan (Vaidyanathan
and Scott and Scott
(2012) 2012); Other
authors do not
mention
sources
Nestle SAI Platform (sustainable agriculture Value N/I N/I N/I—secured N/I Kruschwitz Interview with
initiative) created with other companies chain sourcing of (2013) Hans Joehr,
to develop sustainable sourcing and good quality Nestlé’s
rural development. Ten times bigger products corporate head
than on all niche market approaches, i.e. assumed of agriculture
organic, fair trade, or others
Nestle Examines social and inclusive business N/I Employment, Oligopolistic Enter new Implementation Michelini and Presentations,
models as tools for shared value local market, profit markets costs, non- Fiorentino reports, press
creation. Nestle is an example of entrepreneurial orientation, profitable (2012) releases,
inclusive business. Does not provide development, loss of market, and websites,
description of what company does skill autonomy for social publications
acquisition, the suppliers instability
access to
service and
products,
increased
quality of life
Nestle Introduced Maggi Masala-ae-Magic— Product Increased nutrient N/I Sales N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
nutrient reinforced spices in India intake (2013)
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Nestle Nespresso—helps farmers grow more Value Better yields per N/I Reliable coffee N/I Porter and N/I
coffee, build coffee clusters, and chain, hectare, supplies Kramer
redesigned procurement among others cluster production (2011)
by providing advice on farming quality and thus
practices, guaranteeing bank loans, greater income,
helping secure inputs such as plant decreased
stock, pesticides, and fertilizers environmental
Literature Review of Shared Value

impact of the
farms
Nestle, Cargill, Examines agency of corporations in N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Sojamo and Semi-structured
Bunge global water security. Only Nestle Larson (2012) interviews with
openly engaging in shared value over different
water management. However, study stakeholders
finds its shared value programs mostly
an outward expression, marketed for
consumers. Objectives, targets and
challenges in relation to water
management remain unidentified.
Impact of shared value programs on
water security debatable and cannot be
verified. All companies approach water
management from a profit-making
perspective, addressing mostly non-
consumptive water use which.
Corporations ‘‘are powerfully framing
discourses on water without necessarily
addressing all the complexity around it,
influencing national and international
policies besides their direct operations’’
p. 630
NIKE (–) Investment in codes of conduct and Value Working Damaging N/I N/I Brown and N/I
auditing of supply chain contrasts with chain conditions lowest price Knudsen
lowest possible cost purchase policy supply chain (2012)
policy. No
child labor
policy
potentially
damaging for
14-17 year
olds who
finished
compulsory
education
257

123
 continued
258

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Norsk Hydro Advance cooperative strategic posture as N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Strand and Company
main element of ‘‘Hydro Way.’’ Reject Freeman websites and
narrow economic view of firm (2013) literature
partnering with Amnesty International
to address human rights issues. Amnesty
International provides training in Norsk
Hydro
Novartis Integration of disabled in Brazil. Hired Value Sense of N/I Compliance N/I Condosta Survey and
116 disabled people; created diversity chain belonging and with (2011) interviews,
and inclusion team to evaluate income for legislation website,
accessibility of its infrastructures and disabled reports and
define changes to be made other
secondary
sources
Novartis Arogya Parivar (healthy family)—created Clusters N/I N/I Profits Investment in Pfitzer et al. FSG research
healthcare clusters targeting 11 diseases local (2013) and
areas with selected drugs, lowered distribution Vaidyanathan
prices, established distribution, and and training and Scott
education networks in India to increase (2012)
access for remote villages
Novo Nordisk Uses organizational culture and values as Value N/I N/I N/I N/I Brown and N/I
basis of a management system chain Knudsen
(2012)
Novo Nordisk Novo Nordisk considers itself only one N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Strand and Company
element within stakeholder network; Freeman websites and
does not perceive itself in center of this (2013) literature
network
Novozymes Demonstrates a mature state of N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Strand and Company
stakeholder engagement by employing Freeman websites and
stakeholder language, adopting (2013) literature
cooperative strategic posture, and
referring to jointness of interests
between company and stakeholders
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Odebrecht Construction of a dam in Amazons with Value Employment and N/I Access to 18 million Spitzeck et al. Interviews,
implementation of training program chain income, lower workforce, dollars for (2013) participant
Acreditar environmental decreased training people observation,
impact due to social (many were document
use of new opposition to employed after analysis
technology dam resulting training)
in earlier start
Literature Review of Shared Value

of energy
production,
profitability,
reduced labor
costs,
improved
reputation
Odebrecht Construction of road connecting Iñapari Value Employment, N/I Cheaper 3 million dollars Spitzeck et al. Interviews,
with San Juan de Mancona in Peru with chain income, financing due (leverages to (2013) participant
initiatives aimed at improving health literacy, to partners 12.5 by the observation,
and education, and to develop improved skills partners) document
sustainable forms of tourism to enable analysis
communities to benefit from new
highway
Olam Open local processing plants in African Value Reduced carbon N/I Decreased N/I Porter and N/I
International countries instead of shipping nuts to chain emissions, processing and Kramer
Asian plants employment shipping costs; (2011)
(directly and Better
indirectly) relationships
with local
farmers
P&G Provided PUR sachets for purifying water Product Access to service N/I New market Implementation Michelini and Presentations,
and products, segments, and costs Fiorentino reports, press
increased increased CSR (2012) releases,
quality of life websites,
publications
259

123
 continued
260

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Petroleros Develop system dynamics model of N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Duran-Encalada GRI Website
mexicanos sustainability implementation in an and Paucar-
(PEMEX) organization and run simulation of Caceres
model using case of Pemex. According (2012)
to the model ‘‘when the variable
concept of sustainability rises, there is a
positive link with shared value,
indicating that stakeholders are able to
find a larger common ground regarding
their social, economic, and
environmental interests.’’ p. 1069 which
leads to increased sustainable
initiatives. Provide no particular
examples of shared value
Port Authorities Port authorities are shared value N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I van der Lugt Literature
organizations because they present et al. (2013)
public aspects like ownership and
funding, but act in competitive
environment and are increasingly
accountable for their performance, both
from economic and societal
perspectives. No specific case provided
Revolution Foods Provided 60000 healthy meals to students Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
with profits greater than competitors Kramer
(2011)
Root capital Provides financing to farmers and Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
businesses too large for micro financing, Kramer
too small for traditional bank financing (2011)
Santam Insurance company that instead of raising Value Reduced risk of N/I Reduced risk of N/I Hamann (2012) N/I
premiums, took proactive approach to chain floods and fires; floods and fires
management of risk related to climate No higher
change (flood and fire); company in premiums;
partnerships with farmers and Improved
municipalities undertook activities natural
aiming to reduce hard surfaces in environment
sensitive areas of catchment, unblock
and extend critical drainage systems,
reduce spread of invasive alien plants,
avoid tilling close to streams, improve
estuarine management practices
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Shenzen telecom Design simpler and clearer invoice for Product N/I N/I Savings (on N/I Bertini and N/I
customers handling Gourville
complaints) (2012)
increased
customer
satisfaction
and loyalty
Literature Review of Shared Value

SKF Group Price value for customer instead of Product Monetary savings N/I Profits N/I Bertini and N/I
product. Splitting benefits between firm Gourville
and customer (2012)
Southwest, Provide many amenities free, that others Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Bertini and N/I
JetBlue, Virgin charge for Gourville
America (2012)
Statoil Programs for supplier and Value N/I N/I N/I N/I Brown and N/I
underdeveloped region development, chain Knudsen
anti-corruption initiatives, and clear (2012)
health and safety standards for all of its
operations, minimizing damage to
environment
Statoil Demonstrates cooperative strategic N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I Strand and Company
posture; considers stakeholder interests Freeman websites and
broadly (2013) literature
Sysco Offered locally grown products to Product, Preserve local N/I Competitive N/I Porter and N/I
customers value farms differentiation Kramer
chain (2006)
Technoserve Partnered with global and local Clusters N/I N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
corporations to promote the Kramer
development of agricultural clusters in (2011)
30 countries
Thomson Reuter Provides weather, crop pricing Product Increased income N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
information and agricultural advice for in 60 % of Kramer
fee of 5 USD per quarter customers (2011), Moon
et al. (2011),
Follman
(2012) and
Leavy (2012)
Ticketmaster Disclose the additional fees earlier in the Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Bertini and N/I
checkout process of online purchase Gourville
(2012)
261

123
 continued
262

Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example

123
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Toyota (±) Prius—uses less petrol. However, benefits Product Less Safety problems Competitive N/I Brown and N/I
due to lower emissions go with losses environmental advantage Knudsen
due to safety problems damage (2012), Danko
et al. (2008),
Porter and
Kramer
(2006) and
Moon et al.
(2011)
Unilever Developed products, packaging and Product, N/I N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
distribution systems for the poor value Kramer
chain (2006)
Unilever Shakti—distribute basic FMCG products Value Reduction in N/I Increased N/I Porter and N/I
through poor women-distributors chain communicable revenues Kramer
diseases, (2011),
increased skills Follman
and income (2012) and
Leavy (2012)
Urbi Payment system (rent-to-own) provides Product Access to housing N/I Profit N/I Danko et al. N/I
access to housing (2008), Porter
and Kramer
(2006,2011)
Vodafone & M-Pesa—payment systems via mobile Product Access to N/I Profits N/I Pfitzer et al. FSG research
Safaricom financial (2013), Moon (Pfitzer et al.
services and et al. (2011), 2013);
communication Jackson Published
results in (2012), Porter reports
increased and Kramer (Jackson
employment, (2011) 2012); other
income, savings authors do not
mention
sources
Walmart Reduced price on generic drugs by 75 % Product Reduced cost of N/I Increased sales Increased costs Maltz et al. Publicly
treatment; of other of operation (2011) available data
better follow up products; due to from company,
of prescription competitive increased store websites, and
(not skipping advantage by traffic literature
doses) which forcing
leads to competitors to
decrease in make
overall cost for unprofitable
the system moves
K. Dembek et al.
 continued
Company Example description Type Society and partners Organization Studies using Data sources
the example
Benefits Costs Benefits Costs

Walmart (±) Sustainable supply chain initiative— Value Reduce waste and Highly Reduce overall 500 million Brown and Publicly
provide suppliers with guidelines to chain CO2 emissions; damaging costs of doing investment a Knudsen available data,
reduce packaging and CO2 emissions, reduced costs lowest price business year (2012), Maltz websites,
retouring trucks, buying from local supply chain et al. (2011), literature
farmers. Brown and Knudsen criticize policy Moon et al. (Maltz et al.
Walmart for maintaining highly (2011), Porter 2011); other
damaging lowest price supply chain and Kramer authors do not
Literature Review of Shared Value

policy (2011) and mention

Leavy (2012) sources
Waste Concern Converts 700 tons of rubbish into Value Increased crop N/I Gross margin— N/I Porter and N/I
fertilizer daily chain, yields and profit Kramer
product decreased CO2 (2011)
emissions;
Improved
health
Water Health Uses innovative water purification Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
International techniques to distribute clean water at Kramer
minimal cost to more than 1 million (2011)
people in rural India, Ghana, and the
Philippines
We’ re Yoga clothing company with holistic Product, Less N/I Differentiation Higher Pavlovich and Interviews
approach to shared value—set up value environmental and sales manufacturing Corner (2014)
production in Bali to increase skill and chain impact, income costs
employment, using organic, fabric and for
natural dying processes and water communities
consumption reduction systems,
involved in movement of increased
production of organic cotton
Wells Fargo Developed line of products and tools that Product N/I N/I N/I N/I Porter and N/I
help customers budget, manage credit, Kramer
pay down debt (2011)
Whole foods Sells organic food; runs its stores in Product, Environmentally N/I Premium prices, N/I Porter and N/I
environmentally friendly way. Entire value friendly distinction Kramer
value proposition built around social chain operations (no from (2006)
issues impact on competitors
environment
mentioned)
263

123
264 K. Dembek et al.

References
Data sources
Aakhus, M., & Bzdak, M. (2012). Revisiting the role of ‘‘Shared
Value’’ in the business–society relationship. Business and
N/I Professional Ethics Journal, 31(2), 231–246.

N/I
Adams, S., & Simnett, R. (2011). Integrated reporting: An opportu-
nity for Australia’s not-for-profit sector. Australian Accounting

and Porter and

Hamann (2012)

Jackson (2012)
Review, 58(3), 292–301.
Studies using
the example

Álvarez, M., Moreno, A., & Mataix, C. (2013). The analytic hierarchy

Kramer
(2011)
process to support decision-making processes in infrastructure projects
with social impact. Total Quality Management, 24(5), 596–606.
Anastasiadis, S. (2014). Toward a view of citizenship and lobbying:
Corporate engagement in the political process. Business and
Society, 53(2), 260–299.
Arjaliès, D. L., Goubet, C., & Ponssard, J.-P. (2011). Approches stratégiques
60 million
des émissions CO2. Revue Française de Gestion, 215, 123–146.
dollars
Athanasopoulou, A., & Selsky, J. W. (2012). The social context of
Costs

corporate social responsibility: Enriching research with multiple

N/I

perspectives and multiple levels. Business and Society, 1–43.

doi:10.1177/0007650312449260.
Business growth

Bagley, C. E. (2010). What’s law got to do with it?: Integrating law

(products to
Organization

and strategy. American Business Law Journal, 47(4), 587–639.

resources
Access to

Baraka, D. (2010). Corporations and the third sector: Responsible

Benefits

marriages at last? Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(1), 34–54.

sell)

Bertini, M., & Gourville, J. T. (2012). Pricing to create shared value.

Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 96–104.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American
Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.
Bosch-Badia, M. T., Joan Montllor-Serrats, J., & Tarrazon, M. A.
(2013). Corporate social responsibility from Friedman to Porter
Costs

and Kramer. Theoretical Economics Letters, 3, 11–15.

N/I

N/I

Bose, A., Ramji, A., Singh, J., & Dholakia, D. (2012). A case study
Society and partners

for sustainable development action using financial gradients.

Energy Policy, 47(1), 79–86.
environmental
decreased use

benefits from
of pesticides,

more natural
productivity,

Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value

Employment

N/I not identified, - negative example, ± example used both negatively and positively

capture: Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy.

methods
farming

British Journal of Management, 11, 1–15.

Benefits

Better

Brandenburger, A. M., & Stuart, H. W., Jr. (1996). Value-based

business strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strat-
egy, 5(1), 5–24.
Brown, D., & Knudsen, J. S. (2012). No shortcuts: Achieving shared
Cluster
chain
Value

value means changing your business culture. doi:10.2139/ssrn.

Type

2179926.
Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–win–win: The
company’s value chain to enhance their

influence of company-sponsored volunteerism programs on

growth corridors in Mozambique and
Fertilizer company—built agricultural

employees, NGOs, and business units. Personnel Psychology,

‘‘Farming for the future’’ program of
direct engagement with farmers in

64(4), 825–860.
Cao, L., & Pederzoli, D. (2013). International retailers’ strategic
responses to institutional environment of emerging market retailers’
strategic responses: Multiple case studies in China. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41(4), 289–310.
Example description

Carter, S. M., & Greer, C. R. (2013). Strategic leadership: Values,

styles, and organizational performance. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 20(4), 375–393.
productivity

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to

Tanzania

business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(1/2),

195–215.
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2011). How to design a
winning business model. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2),
100–107.
Chatterjee, B. (2012). Business and communities—redefining bound-
aries. NHRD Network Journal, 5(1), 55–60.
Woolworths
continued

Comini, G., Barki, E., & Trindade de Aguiar, L. (2012). A three-

Company

pronged approach to social business: A Brazilian multi-case

Yara

analysis. Revista de Administracao (Sao Paulo), 43(3), 385–397.

123
Literature Review of Shared Value
Condosta, L. (2011). The strategic relevance of corporate community
investments. Corporate Governance, 11(4), 446–458.
Condosta, L. (2012). How banks are supporting local economies
facing the current financial crisis: An Italian perspective.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(6), 485–502.
Constanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R.,
et al. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportu-
nities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological
Economics, 61, 267–276.
Crane, A., Matten, D., Palazzo, G., & Spence, L. J. (2013). Contesting
the value of the shared value concept. California Management
Review, 56(2), 130–153.
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting
the value of ‘‘Creating Shared Value’’. California Management
Review, 56(2), 130–151.
Danko, D., Goldberg, J. S., Goldberg, S. R., & Grant, R. (2008).
Corporate social responsibility: The United Stated vs. Europe.
The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 19(6), 41–47.
Darigan, K. H., & Post, J. E. (2009). Corporate citizenship in China:
CSR challenges in the ‘Harmonious Society’. Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 35(Autumn), 39–53.
Denning, S. (2011). Why ‘‘shared value’’ can’t fix capitalism. Forbes.
Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. Houndmills:
Macmillan.
Driver, M. (2012). An interview with Michael Porter: Social
entrepreneurship and the transformation of capitalism. Academy
of Management Learning and Education, 11(3), 421–431.
Dubois, C. L., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Expanding the vision of
industrial-organizational psychology contributions to environ-
mental sustainability. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
5(4), 480–483.
Duran-Encalada, J., & Paucar-Caceres, A. (2012). A system dynamics
sustainable business model for Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex):
Case based on the Global Reporting Initiative. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 63, 1065–1078.
Dyda, D. J. (2008). Jobs change lives: Social capital and shared value
exchange. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 29(3), 147–156.
Economist, T. (2011). Oh, Mr Porter; Schumpeter. The Economist
[US].
Epstein-Reeves, J. (2012). What is ‘‘Creating Shared Value’’? THe
CSR Blog. Forbes.
Esposito, M., Kapoor, A., & Goyal, S. (2012). Enabling healthcare
services for the rural and semi-urban segments in India: When
shared value meets the bottom of the pyramid. Corporate
Governance, 12(4), 514–533.
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2012). Developing venture capital system
beyond economic capital concept. Journal of Knowledge-based
Innovation in China, 4(3), 189–202.
Fayet, L., & Vermeulen, W. J. V. (2014). Supporting smallholders to
access sustainable supply chains: Lessons from the Indian cotton
supply chain. Sustainable Development, 22(5), 289–310.
Fearne, A., Garcia Martinez, M., & Dent, B. (2012). Dimensions of
sustainable value chains: Implications for value chain analysis.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(6),
575–581.
Fleming, P., Roberts, J., & Garsten, C. (2013). In search of corporate
social responsibility: Introduction to special issue. Organization,
20(3), 337–348.
Florin, J., & Schmidt, E. (2011). Creating shared value in the hybrid
venture arena: A business model innovation perspective. Journal
of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 165–197.
Follman, J. (2012). BoP at ten: Evolution and a new lens. South Asian
Journal of Global Business Research, 1(2), 293–310.
Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to
increase its profits. Berlin: Springer.
265
Gillespie, S., Haddad, L., Mannar, V., Menon, P., Nisbett, N., & The
Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group (2013). The politics
of reducing malnutrition: Building commitment and accelerating
progress. Lancet, 382, 552–569.
Goertz, G., & Mohoney, J. (2012). Concepts and measurement:
Ontology and epistemology. Social Science Information, 51(2),
205–216.
Gotoh, R., & Yoshihara, N. (2003). A class of fair distribution rules a‘
la Rawls and Sen. Economic Theory, 22, 63–88.
Guba, E. B. (1990). The paradigm dialogue. London: Sage Publications.
Hamann, R. (2012). The business of development: Revisiting
strategies for a sustainable future. Environment: Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development, 54(2), 18–29.
Hancock, C., Kingo, L., & Raynaud, O. (2011). The private sector,
international development and NCDs. Globalization and Health,
7(23), 1–11.
Hanssen, G. K. (2012). A longitudinal case study of an emerging
software ecosystem: Implications for practice and theory. The
Journal of Systems and Software, 85(7), 1455–1466.
Harrison, J. S., & Coombs, J. E. (2012). The moderating effects from
corporate governance characteristics on the relationship between
available slack and community-based firm performance. Journal
of Business Ethics, 107(4), 409–422.
Hartmann, L., Werhane, P., & Lane Clark, K. (2011). Development,
poverty and business ethics. Universia Business Review, 30(Seg-
undo Trimestre), 96–108.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1988). Behind the veil of economics: Essays in the
wordly philosophy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Hiller, J. S. (2013). The benefit corporation and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 287–301.
Jackson, K. (2012). Cura personalis and business education for
sustainability. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 31(2),
265–288.
Juscius, V., & Jonikas, D. (2013). Integration of CSR into value
creation chain: Conceptual framework. Engineering Economics,
24(1), 63–70.
Kapoor, A., & Goyal, S. (2013). Inclusive healthcare at base of the
pyramid (BoP) in India. International Journal of Trade and
Global Markets, 6(1), 22–39.
Karnani, A. (2007). The mirage of marketing to the Bottom of the
Pyramid: How the private sector can help alleviate poverty.
California Management Review, 49(4), 90–111.
Kendrick, A., Fullerton, J. A., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Social
responsibility in advertising: A marketing communications
student perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(2),
141–154.
Kiran, R., & Sharma, A. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A
corporate strategy for new business opportunities. Journal of
International Business Ethics, 4(1), 10–17.
Kivleniece, I., & Quelin, B. V. (2012). Creating and capturing value
in public-private ties: A private actor’s perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 37(2), 272–299.
Kolodinsky, R. W., & Bierly, P. E. (2013). Understanding the
elements and outcomes of executive wisdom: A strategic
approach. Journal of Management and Organisation, 19(1),
1–24.
Korhonen, H. (2013). Organizational needs: A co-creation and human
systems perspective. Journal of Business Market Management,
6(4), 214–227.
Kruschwitz, N. (2013). Creating shared value at Nestle. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 55, 1–3.
Laasonen, S., Fougère, M., & Kourula, A. (2012). Dominant
articulations in academic business and society discourse on
NGO–business relations: A critical assessment. Journal of
Business Ethics, 109(4), 521–545.
123
266
Lassch, O., & Yang, J. (2011). Rebuilding Dynamics between
Corporate Social Responsibility and International Development
on the Search for Shared Value. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 15(2), 231–238.
Lauesen, L. M. (2013). CSR in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Social Responsibility Journal, 9(4), 641–663.
Leandro, L., & Neffa, E. (2012). Is the integration of Shared Value
Creation (SVC) with strategy management of productive orga-
nizations an innovative approach to environmental challenges
faced by companies today? International Journal of Business
Management & Economic Research, 3(2), 484–489.
Leavy, B. (2012). Getting back to what matters – creating long-term
economic and social value. Strategy and Leadership, 40(4), 12–20.
Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation:
Convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organiza-
tional values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817–831.
London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2011). Next generation business strategies
for the base of the pyramid: New approaches for building mutual
value. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.
Mabaya, E., Tihanyi, K. Z., Nwogac, M., & Cacho, J. (2013). Next
steps: The evolution of CSR at Novus International, Inc.
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
16(3), 153–166.
MacGregor, S. P., & Fontrodona, J. (2011). Strategic CSR for SMEs:
Paradox or possibility? Universia Business Review, 30, 80–95.
Mahindra, A. G. (2012). Business and society in the twenty-first
century—beyond CSR. NHRD Network Journal, 5(1), 36–40.
Maltz, E., & Schein, S. (2012). Cultivating shared value initiatives: A
three Cs approach. Journal of Corporate Citizenship,
47(Autumn), 55–74.
Maltz, E., Thompson, F., & Jones Ringold, D. (2011). Assessing and
maximizing corporate social initiatives: A strategic view of
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4),
344–352.
Max-Neef, M. (1992). Development and human needs. In P. Ekins &
M. Max-Neef (Eds.), Real life economics: Understanding wealth
creation (pp. 97–213). London: Routledge.
McGahan, A. M. (2012). Challenges of the informal economy for the
field of management. Academy of Management Perspectives,
26(3), 12–21.
McMahon, T. F. (1986). Models of the relationship of the firm to
society. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(3), 181.
Michelini, L., & Fiorentino, D. (2012). New business models for
creating shared value. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4),
561–577.
Millon, D. (2011). Two models of corporate social responsibility.
Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 523–540.
Modie-Moroka, T. (2009). Does level of social capital predict
perceived health in a community?— A Study of adult residents
of low-income areas of Francistown, Botswana. Journal of
Health, Population and Nutrition, 27(4), 462–476.
Mohammed, M. (2013). Corporate accountability in the context of
sustainability: A conceptual framework. EuroMed Journal of
Business, 8(3), 243–254.
Moon, H.-C., Pare, J., Yim, S. H., & Park, N. (2011). An extension of
Porter and Kramer’s creating shared value (CSV): Reorienting
strategies and seeking international cooperation. Journal of
International and Area Studies, 18(2), 49–64.
Mukherjee, A., & Nath, P. (2003). A model of trust in online
relationship banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing,
21(1), 5–15.
NAB. (2014). Spotlight: Creating shared value. National Australia
Bank.
Nestle. (2014). Nestle in society: Creating shared value and meeting
our commitments 2013. Vevey: Nestle.
123
K. Dembek et al.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Beyond the social contract: Capabilities and
global justice. Oxford Development Studies, 32(1), 3–18.
Nussbaum, M. C., & Glover, J. (1995). Women, culture, and
development: A study of human capabilities. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. The
Economic Journal, 107, 1815–1831.
Owen, D. (2012). The conundrum: How scientific innovation,
increased efficiency, and good intentions can make our energy
and climate problems worse. Brunswick: Scribe Publications.
Pavlovich, K., & Corner, P. D. (2014). Conscious enterprise
emergence: Shared value creation through expanded conscious
awareness. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 341–351.
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V., & Stamp, M. (2013). Innovating for shared
value. Harvard Business Review, 91, 100–107.
Pirson, M. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as the paragons of shared
value creation? A critical perspective. Social Enterprise Journal,
8(1), 31–48.
Polimeni, J. M., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., & Alcott, B. (2008).
The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency
improvements. London: Earthscan.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link
between competitive advantage and corporate social responsi-
bility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value.
Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2014). A response to Andrew Crane
et al’.s article by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer.
California Management Review, 56(2), 149–151.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). Fortune at the bottom of the
pyramid. Strategy and Business, 26, 1–14.
Rogers, C. (2013). ‘Hang on a Minute, I’ve got a great idea’: From the
third way to mutual advantage in the political economy of the
British Labour Party. The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations, 15, 53–69.
Saguy, S. I. (2011). Academia-industry innovation interaction:
Paradigm shifts and avenues for the future. Procedia Food
Science, 1, 1875–1882.
Sastry, T. (2011). Exploring the role of business in society. IIMB
Management Review, 23, 246–256.
Schmitt, J., & Renken, U. (2012). How to earn money by doing good!
Shared value in the apparel industry. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 45(Spring), 79–103.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1909). On the concept of social value. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 23(2), 213–232.
See, G. K. H. (2009). Harmonious society and Chinese CSR: Is there
really a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 1–22.
Shaw, E., & de Bruin, A. (2013). Reconsidering capitalism: The
promise of social innovation and social entrepreneurship?
International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 737–746.
Shrivastava, P., & Kennelly, J. J. (2013). Sustainability and place-
based enterprise. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 83–101.
Simanis, E., & Hart, S. L. (2008). Base of the pyramid protocol:
Toward next generation BoP strategy. NY: Ithaca.
Simanis, E., Hart, S. L., Enk, G., Duke, D., Gordon, M., & Lippert, A.
(2005). Strategic initiatives at the Base of the Pyramid: A
protocol for mutual value creation. WI: Racine.
Sojamo, S., & Larson, E. A. (2012). Investigating food and
agribusiness corporations as global water security, management
and governance agents: The case of Nestlé, Bunge and Cargill.
Water Alternatives, 5(3), 619–635.
Spitzeck, H., Boechat, C., & França Leao, S. (2013). Sustainability as
a driver for innovation: Towards a model of corporate social
entrepreneurship at Odebrecht in Brazil. Corporate Governance,
13(5), 613–625.
Literature Review of Shared Value
Spitzeck, H., & Chapman, S. (2012). Creating shared value as a
differentiation strategy—the example of BASF in Brazil.
Corporate Governance, 12(4), 499–513.
Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping stakeholder theory anew: From the
‘stakeholder theory of the firm’ to three perspectives on
business–society relations. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment, 15(1), 55–69.
Strand, R., & Freeman, E. R. (2013). Scandinavian cooperative
advantage: The theory and practice of stakeholder engagement in
Scandinavia. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–21. doi:10.1007/
s10551-013-1792-1.
Szmigin, I., & Rutherford, R. (2013). Shared value and the impartial
spectator test. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 171–182.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Lon-
don: Sage Publications.
Timoteo Álvarez, J., Ferruz González, S. A., & Calzadilla Daguerre,
J. (2012). Pricing and valuation of intangible assets. Journal of
Modern Accounting and Auditing, 8(12), 1780–1788.
Topal, J., & Toledano, P. (2013). Why the extractive industry should
support mandatory transparency: A shared value approach.
Business and Society, 118(3), 271–298.
Vaidyanathan, L., & Scott, M. (2012). Creating shared value in India:
The future for inclusive growth. The Journal for Decision
Makers, 37(2), 108–113.
van der Lugt, L., Dooms, Ml., & Parola, F. (2013). Strategy making
by hybrid organizations: The case of the port authority. Research
in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 103–113.
Verboven, H. (2011). Communicating CSR and business identity in
the chemical industry through mission slogans. Business Com-
munication Quarterly, 74(4), 415–431.
267
Vermeulen, W. J. V. (2013). Self-governance for sustainable global
supply chains: Can it deliver the impacts needed? Business
Strategy and the Environment, 1–13. doi:10.1002/bse.1804.
Vitasek, K., & Manrodt, K. (2012). Vested outsourcing: A flexible
framework for collaborative outsourcing. Strategic Outsourcing:
An International Journal, 5(1), 4–14.
Waddock, S. A., & Bodwell, C. (2004). Managing responsibility:
What can be learned from the quality movement? California
Management Review, 47(1), 25–37.
Waddock, S. A., Bodwell, C., & Graves, S. B. (2002). Responsibility:
The new business imperative. Academy of Management Exec-
utive, 16(2), 132–148.
Waddock, S. A., Bodwell, C., & Leigh, J. (2007). Total responsibility
management: The manual. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures:
Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management
Journal, 33, 1135–1153.
White, S. (1996). Needs, labour, and Marx’s conception of justice.
Political Studies, 44(1), 88–101.
Wilbrun, K., & Wilbrun, R. (2013). Using global reporting initiative
indicators for CSR programs. Journal of Global Responsibility,
4(1), 62–75.
Wilson, T. A. (2012). Supporting social enterprises to support
vulnerable consumers: The example of community development
finance institutions and financial exclusion. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 95(2), 197–213.
Woolley, M. (2011). Beyond control: Rethinking industry and craft
dynamics. Craft Research, 2(1), 11–36.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building
social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience.
Long Range Planning, 43(1–2), 308–325.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.