AMS Sustainable Transformation Briefing Series, No.5
Prof. Dr Wayne Visser
Sustainable Transformation Lab Antwerp Management School The two questions I have been asked most since I began developing the theory of integrated value (IV) in 2014 are:
1.
How is this different to Michael Porter and Mark Kramer’s concept of shared value? (popularised in Harvard Business Review in 2011)
2.
And does this replace your CSR 2.0 model (popularised in my books The Age of Responsibility and CSR 2.0 in 2011 and 2014)?
In this article, I will try to make these differences clear. Unlike John Elkington’s recent management concept recall of the triple bottom line, I am not trying to retract or replace shared value and CSR 2.0, but rather to build on and complement their ideas.
Integrated Value vs. Shared Value
I have written elsewhere at length on Integrated Value (and the book version is in the pipeline), but for those not yet familiar with the concept, you can read a summary of Integrated Value: What it is, what it’s not and why it is important and get a sense of its essence from the diagram below. Here I will only distill the essential elements and compare these to Shared Value. A summary table is also included at the end of the section.
A Summary of Visser’s Integrated Value Model
DISRUPTION
RESILIENCE ECONOMY
SECURE
SATISFYING
SMART
INTEGRATED VALUE
SUSTAINABLE
CIRCULAR ECONOMY
DESTRUCTION
SHARED
ACCESS ECONOMY