Page 37 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

32 2. Sustainability, sustainable development, and business sustainability

prosperity for both subjects. The theory suggests economic value creation by creating societal
value through three different strategies. These are:

(i) rethinking products and markets based on society’s needs and societal benefits;
(ii) transforming the value chain through efficiency measures and stakeholder relationship
management; and
(iii) investing in local cluster development in order to strengthen business partnerships and
the link between business and society (Porter and Kramer, 2011).
Nevertheless, this theory is partly criticized by Crane et al. (2014) who affirm that, though it
represents a step forward involving stakeholders as value beneficiaries, corporate self-
interest is not discussed and stakeholders would always come after business profit. As an
alternative, they propose the adoption of multistakeholder processes as a true social perspec-
tive, where business is but one stakeholder among others, in order actually to walk toward the
common good of society. The importance of cooperating in partnership with external stake-
holders is also supported by Pfitzer et al. (2013) and Zimmermann et al. (2014) at all the pro-
cess stages for firms willing to create shared value for business and society. In fact, companies
with an insufficient comprehension of societal needs can rely on other actors in order to gain
insight on their social purpose. Moreover, they can share innovation risks through the use of
incubators and activating partnerships (Zimmermann, et al., 2014) and hybrid innovative
business structures. Similarly, monitoring and assessment need an external view in order
to catch the shared value of the enterprise (Pfitzer et al., 2013).
However, Porter and Kramer (2011) were not the first ones to focus on a broader interpre-
tation of value creation. In fact, in their answer to Crane et al. (2014), they acknowledge the
contribution of Emerson (2003 as cited by Dyllick and Muff, 2015) and his “blended value”
concept, inviting businesses to seek profit, social, and environmental goals at the same time.
Nevertheless, Porter and his colleague take the distance from this theory affirming that it is
not meant to solve societal problems like theirs is designed for (Porter and Kramer, 2014).
In accordance with the multifaceted interpretation of CSR aiming at shared value creation
and willing to highlight the distance taken from an instrumental use of the concept, some
companies recently started to use “corporate sustainability” instead. The United Nations
Global Compact, a voluntary initiative for business sustainability, based on corporate CEOs
committed to bring about sustainability principles and UN goals (About the UN Global
Compact, n.d.), defines it as the business way of contributing to sustainable development
global challenges. It constitutes in moving their means and skills for economic, social, envi-
ronmental, and ethical value creation, both for business and for society in the long term. This
implies the incorporation of sustainability principles into core business strategies, acknowl-
edging business transformative power (UNGC, 2013).
The presented critiques to instrumental CSR mainly propose a continuous business com-
mitment to the outside by delivering positive value. Interestingly, Moneva et al. (2006), while
agreeing on the reductionism of CSR as a set of initiatives inside the organization, points out
its distance from sustainable development. In fact, the latter has a normative intention leading
to deep global systemic changes, whereas the former acts within the status quo.

2.3.2.3 Eco-efficiency
According to McDonough and Braungart (1998), the concept of eco-efficiency, though not
with this name, can be dated back to Henry Ford and his efforts to achieve resource