The article by Crane et al. (2014) provides criticism to Porter and Kramer’s idea of creating shared value (CSV). Precisely, the authors pointed to the fact that CSV is a popular idea among academic audiences and practitioners. Its strengths lie in linking social goals to strategy. Nonetheless, they highlight some of the weaknesses observed in the application of CSV. For instance, they contend that CSV concept is unoriginal and it disregards the pressures intrinsic to ethical business practices (Crane et al. 2014, p.131). Additionally, they argued that CSV is impractical concept since it is naïve about the compliance in business and it is founded on a trivial notion of the role of corporations in society.
Similarly, the article by Dembek et al. (2016) uses thorough and systematic analysis to appraise the theoretical precepts of shared value. It concentrated on epistemological and ontological properties of the CSV. The scholars stressed that the conceptualization of CSV is quite ambiguous and it delivers discrepancies in the manner in which it is operationalized and defined. The article alludes to the impression that CSV is not a substantive concept but rather a buzzword (Dembek et al. 2016, p.231). Furthermore, its weakness is further compounded because it overlaps with a wide range of ideas and it fall short of empirical basis. For these reasons, the researchers recommended that measures should be taken to separate it from interrelated concepts. Moreover, appropriate research methods and theories should be identified that would promote spreading out information on shared value (Dembek et al. 2016, p.231).
The CSV concept by Porter and Kramer is a milestone towards realizing the aim of a business in terms of meeting stakeholders, societal and shareholder value. However, Crane et al. (2014) discovered that its precepts are marred by shallowness and limitation. Therefore, they suggested that the CSV might not be the solution to the achievement of business sustainability. In fact, CSV delivers a promising solution to the common reputation that corporations are considered to be prospering at the detriment of the wider community. Therefore, if they desired to recapture their validity and legitimacy in the community they had embrace initiatives in bringing society and business back together. Due to shallow structures of capitalism, most businesses are unable to realize their full potential and avoid focusing solely on profit making (Crane et al. 2014, p.133-9). Instead, they should be guided by the pursuits to solve the broader challenges facing the society. In this respect, Kramer and Porter pointed to the fact that the aim of business must be re-structured as establishing economic values in a manner that also generates society’s values by meeting its needs and challenges.
However, Crane et al. (2014) are opposed to the impression that the new approach by Porter and Kramer would link societies and business in a more holistic and integrated fashion. In fact, the scholars accuse it of disregarding the real strain between social and economic goals. Similarly, the article explicitly discusses how CSV is founded on a narrow conception of the responsibility of corporation in the society. In fact, they argued that instead of concentrating on the intrinsic problems and the unavoidable between the social and economic creation of value. They consider CSV as an effort to wipe-out the challenges of trade-offs. Additionally, it ignores the negative effects of companies’ activities (Crane et al. 2014, p.143). Their disapproval of the CSV is founded on the fact that it concentrates on win-win resolutions