For my second book I took a look at a number of young entrepreneurs - what they are made of, what trends are they working on, etc. In this presentation I discuss what I learned from them and how these learnings could (and should) be applied to traditional businesses as well (in order to attract and retain young innovative talent).
Of course it's better to have the narratives along, so don't hesitate to get in touch if you'd want this presented 'live' at one of your events...
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Corporate Shared Value as a capitalist act?
Do corporations have a social responsibility? In a time where a Wallmart has the same number of employees then there are citizens in the capital of Europe, one could easily argue that they do. Some companies are as big in terms of revenue as some European countries (a comparison that is a bit flawed, I admit).
But why should they take social responsibility? In capitalistic terms, companies exist to make profit, not to 'do good'. According to Michael Porter in the interview here under, they should do so as a capitalist reflex. Fair enough, some forms of social responsibilities can lead to tremendous -and profitable- innovations. Furthermore, the scale at which multinational firms operate can enable small, local initiatives to be leveraged globally, and profitably.
In short, according to Porter, if we want to make companies behave in a more responsible way, we should show them where the profit is -or they should find out themselves. No sense of 'moral duty' in our capitalistic system. It's a bit a sore thought, according to me. There should be other reasons for companies to have a social consciousness... Risk aversion, image building, raising attractiveness to younger employees, ... OK, indirectly these relate to maximizing profits as well, but they're surely softer arguments to 'do good', and I see plenty of evidence for these motivations in the companies I work with... Perhaps it's even the capitalist logic itself that is slightly changing, but perhaps that's wishful thinking...
But why should they take social responsibility? In capitalistic terms, companies exist to make profit, not to 'do good'. According to Michael Porter in the interview here under, they should do so as a capitalist reflex. Fair enough, some forms of social responsibilities can lead to tremendous -and profitable- innovations. Furthermore, the scale at which multinational firms operate can enable small, local initiatives to be leveraged globally, and profitably.
In short, according to Porter, if we want to make companies behave in a more responsible way, we should show them where the profit is -or they should find out themselves. No sense of 'moral duty' in our capitalistic system. It's a bit a sore thought, according to me. There should be other reasons for companies to have a social consciousness... Risk aversion, image building, raising attractiveness to younger employees, ... OK, indirectly these relate to maximizing profits as well, but they're surely softer arguments to 'do good', and I see plenty of evidence for these motivations in the companies I work with... Perhaps it's even the capitalist logic itself that is slightly changing, but perhaps that's wishful thinking...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)