迈克尔·波特发表在《哈佛商业评论》上的经典文章——《战略与社

december 20061overnments, activists, and th e media have become adept at

holding companies to account for the social consequences of their

activities.Myriad organizations rank companies on the performance of

their corporate social responsibility (CSR),and,despite sometimes questionable methodologies,these rankings attract considerable publicity.As a result,CSR has emerged as an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country.

Many companies have already done much to improve the social and environ-mental consequences of their activities,yet these efforts have not been nearly as productive as they could be –for two reasons.First,they pit business against so-ciety,when clearly the two are interdependent.Second,they pressure companies to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways instead of in the way most appropriate to each ?rm’s strategy.

by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer

G The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility &Society Strategy

Michael E.Porter is the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard University; he is based at Harvard Busi-ness School in Boston.He is a frequent contributor to HBR,and his most recent article is “Seven Surprises for New CEOs”(October 2004).Mark R.Kramer(mark.kramer@53462cee172ded630b1cb682) is the managing director of FSG Social Impact Advisors, an international nonpro?t consulting ?rm,and a senior fellow in the CSR Initiative at Harvard’s John F.Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge,Massachusetts.Porter and Kramer are the cofounders of both FSG Social Impact Advisors and the Center for Effective Philanthropy,a nonpro?t research organization.

2harvard business review | 53462cee172ded630b1cb682

december 20063

4harvard business review | 53462cee172ded630b1cb682

ment to social responsibility.But even for these compa-nies,the social impact achieved,much less the business bene?t,is hard to determine.Studies of the effect of a company’s social reputation on consumer purchasing preferences or on stock market performance have been inconclusive at best.As for the concept of CSR as insur-ance,the connection between the good deeds and con-sumer attitudes is so indirect as to be impossible to mea-sure.Having no way to quantify the bene?ts of these investments puts such CSR programs on shaky ground, liable to be dislodged by a change of management or a swing in the business cycle.

All four schools of thought share the same weakness: They focus on the tension between business and society rather than on their interdependence.Each creates a ge-neric rationale that is not tied to the strategy and opera-tions of any speci?c company or the places in which it operates.Consequently,none of them is suf?cient to help a company identify,prioritize,and address the so-cial issues that matter most or the ones on which it can make the biggest impact.The result is oftentimes a hodge-podge of uncoordinated CSR and philanthropic activi-ties disconnected from the company’s strategy that nei-ther make any meaningful social impact nor strengthen the ?rm’s long-term competitiveness.Internally,CSR prac-tices and initiatives are often isolated from operating units–and even separated from corporate philanthropy. Externally,the company’s social impact becomes diffused among numerous unrelated efforts,each responding to a different stakeholder group or corporate pressure point. The consequence of this fragmentation is a tremendous lost opportunity.The power of corporations to create so-cial bene?t is dissipated,and so is the potential of compa-nies to take actions that would support both their com-munities and their business goals.

Integrating Business and Society

T o advance CSR,we must root it in a broad under-standing of the interrelationship between a

corporation and society while at the same time anchoring it in the strategies and activities of spe-ci?c companies.To say broadly that business and society need each other might seem like a cliché,but it is also the basic truth that will pull companies out of the muddle that their current corporate-responsibility thinking has created.

Successful corporations need a healthy 53462cee172ded630b1cb682ca-tion,health care,and equal opportunity are essential to a productive workforce.Safe products and working con-ditions not only attract customers but lower the internal costs of accidents.Ef?cient utilization of land,water,en-ergy,and other natural resources makes business more productive.Good government,the rule of law,and prop-erty rights are essential for ef?ciency and innovation. Strong regulatory standards protect both consumers and competitive companies from exploitation.Ultimately, a healthy society creates expanding demand for business, as more human needs are met and aspirations grow.Any business that pursues its ends at the expense of the soci-ety in which it operates will ?nd its success to be illusory and ultimately temporary.

At the same time,a healthy society needs successful companies.No social program can rival the business sec-tor when it comes to creating the jobs,wealth,and in-novation that improve standards of living and social con-ditions over time.If governments,NGOs,and other participants in civil society weaken the ability of business to operate productively,they may win battles but will lose the war,as corporate and regional competitiveness fade,wages stagnate,jobs disappear,and the wealth that pays taxes and supports nonpro?t contributions evaporates.

Leaders in both business and civil society have focused too much on the friction between them and not enough on the points of intersection.The mutual dependence of corporations and society implies that both business deci-sions and social policies must follow the principle of shared value.That is,choices must bene?t both sides.If ei-ther a business or a society pursues policies that bene?t its interests at the expense of the other,it will ?nd itself on a dangerous path.A temporary gain to one will under-mine the long-term prosperity of both.1

To put these broad principles into practice,a company must integrate a social perspective into the core frame-works it already uses to understand competition and guide its business strategy.

Identifying the points of intersection.The interde-pendence between a company and society takes two forms.First,a company impinges upon society through its operations in the normal course of business: These are inside-out linkages.

Virtually every activity in a company’s value chain touches on the communities in which the ?rm operates, creating either positive or negative social consequences. (For an example of this process,see the exhibit “Looking Inside Out: Mapping the Social Impact of the Value Chain.”) While companies are increasingly aware of the social impact of their activities (such as hiring practices, emissions,and waste disposal),these impacts can be more subtle and variable than many managers realize.For one thing,they depend on location.The same manufacturing operation will have very different social consequences in China than in the United States.

A company’s impact on society also changes over time, as social standards evolve and science progresses.As-

december 20065

Strategy and Society

6harvard business review | 53462cee172ded630b1cb682

december 20067

8harvard business review | 53462cee172ded630b1cb682

december 20069

10harvard business review | 53462cee172ded630b1cb682

december 200611

12harvard business review | 53462cee172ded630b1cb682

tion.Doing these things requires a far different approach to both CSR and philanthropy than the one prevalent 53462cee172ded630b1cb682panies must shift from a fragmented,defen-sive posture to an integrated,af?rmative approach.The focus must move away from an emphasis on image to an emphasis on substance.

The current preoccupation with measuring stakeholder satisfaction has it backwards.What needs to be measured is social impact.Operating managers must understand the importance of the outside-in in?uence of competitive context,while people with responsibility for CSR initia-tives must have a granular understanding of every activity in the value chain.Value chain and competitive-context investments in CSR need to be incorporated into the per-formance measures of managers with P&L responsibility. These transformations require more than a broadening of job de?nition; they require overcoming a number of long-standing prejudices.Many operating managers have developed an ingrained us-versus-them mind-set that re-sponds defensively to the discussion of any social issue, just as many NGOs view askance the pursuit of social value for pro?t.These attitudes must change if compa-nies want to leverage the social dimension of corporate strategy.

Strategy is always about making choices,and success in corporate social responsibility is no different.It is about choosing which social issues to focus on.The short-term performance pressures companies face rule out indiscrim-inate investments in social value creation.They suggest, instead,that creating shared value should be viewed like research and development,as a long-term investment in a company’s future competitiveness.The billions of dol-lars already being spent on CSR and corporate philan-thropy would generate far more bene?t to both business and society if consistently invested using the principles we have outlined.

While responsive CSR depends on being a good corpo-rate citizen and addressing every social harm the busi-ness creates,strategic CSR is far more 53462cee172ded630b1cb682pa-nies are called on to address hundreds of social issues,but only a few represent opportunities to make a real differ-ence to society or to confer a competitive advantage.Or-ganizations that make the right choices and build fo-cused,proactive,and integrated social initiatives in concert with their core strategies will increasingly dis-tance themselves from the pack.

The Moral Purpose of Business

B y providing jobs,investing capital,purchasing

goods,and doing business every day,corpora-

tions have a profound and positive in?uence on society.The most important thing a corporation can do for society,and for any community,is contribute to a pros-perous 53462cee172ded630b1cb682ernments and NGOs often forget this basic truth.When developing countries distort rules and incentives for business,for example,they penalize productive companies.Such countries are doomed to poverty,low wages,and selling off their natural resources. Corporations have the know-how and resources to change this state of affairs,not only in the developing world but also in economically disadvantaged communities in ad-vanced economies.

This cannot excuse businesses that seek short-term pro?ts deceptively or shirk the social and environmental consequences of their actions.But CSR should not be only about what businesses have done that is wrong–impor-tant as that is.Nor should it be only about making phil-anthropic contributions to local charities,lending a hand in time of disaster,or providing relief to society’s needy–worthy though these contributions may be.Efforts to ?nd shared value in operating practices and in the social di-mensions of competitive context have the potential not only to foster economic and social development but to change the way companies and society think about each other.NGOs,governments,and companies must stop thinking in terms of “corporate social responsibility”and start thinking in terms of “corporate social integration.”Perceiving social responsibility as building shared value rather than as damage control or as a PR campaign will re-quire dramatically different thinking in business.We are convinced,however,that CSR will become increasingly important to competitive success.

Corporations are not responsible for all the world’s problems,nor do they have the resources to solve them all.Each company can identify the particular set of soci-etal problems that it is best equipped to help resolve and from which it can gain the greatest competitive bene?t. Addressing social issues by creating shared value will lead to self-sustaining solutions that do not depend on private or government subsidies.When a well-run business ap-plies its vast resources,expertise,and management tal-ent to problems that it understands and in which it has a stake,it can have a greater impact on social good than any other institution or philanthropic organization.

1.An early discussion of the idea of CSR as an opportunity rather than a cost can be found in David Grayson and Adrian Hodges,Corporate Social Opportu-nity(Greenleaf,2004).

2.For a more complete discussion of the importance of competitive context and the diamond model,see Michael E.Porter and Mark R.Kramer,“The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy,”HBR December 2002.See also Michael Porter’s book The Competitive Advantage of Nations(The Free Press,1990) and his article “Locations,Clusters,and Company Strategy,”in The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography,edited by Gordon L.Clark,Maryann P.Feldman,and Meric S.Gertler (Oxford University Press,2000). Reprint R0612D

december 200613

Strategy and Society

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/4kul.html