Academic paper
Creating shared value as a differentiation
strategy – the example of BASF in Brazil
Heiko Spitzeck and Sonia Chapman
Heiko Spitzeck is a
Professor in the Fundação
Dom Cabral, São Paulo,
Brazil. Sonia Chapman is
President of the Fundação
Espaço Eco, São Paulo,
Brazil.
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to create empirical evidence regarding shared value strategies recently
propagated by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors analyze a single case study of a collaboration between
BASF, André Maggi Group and Fundação Espaço Eco in Brazil. The objective is to evaluate whether the
applied strategy can be considered as a case of shared value creation.
Findings – The case study on the collaboration between BASF, FEE and the André Maggi Group does
qualify as a shared value strategy, more precisely as a case of redesigning productivity in the value
chain.
Research limitations/applications – This single case study creates some evidence for shared value
strategies; however, more research is needed to generalize the results.
Practical implications – The socio-eco-efficiency analysis offered by Fundação Espaço Eco creates a
differentiation strategy for BASF in Brazil. The work enables BASF’s clients to reduce negative impacts
while increasing their financial, social and environmental performance.
Originality/value – This paper is the first empirical verification of the shared value concept. It
demonstrates that shared value strategies do enhance financial as well as socio-environmental
performance and build stronger client relationships.
Keywords BASF, Fundação Espaço Eco, Sustainable development, Brazil, Shared value, Efficiency,
Organizational performance, Management strategy
Paper type Case study
Introduction
According to the UN multinational corporations have grown from 37,000 in 1990 to more than
60,000 in 2001 (Nelson, 2001). These businesses are dependent on a wide network of
affiliates, suppliers and distributors in order to effectively do business globally. Many of
these multinational corporations have been attacked for the social and environmental impact
their operations caused in different parts of the world (Sethi, 1994; Wheeler et al., 2002;
Zadek, 2004).
The authors wish to thank
Edson Cintra and João
Shimada at André Maggi Group
for their collaboration and
support. This study would
equally not have been possible
without the input of various
people at BASF and the
Fundação Espaço Eco.
DOI 10.1108/14720701211267838
Addressing these sustainability challenges companies typically move through stages of
learning (Zadek, 2004; Spitzeck, 2009; Maon et al., 2010) and are beginning to integrate
sustainability within their strategies (Grayson and Hodges, 2004; Porter and Kramer, 2006).
Most of them start from a risk point of view and few are starting to realize the potential
opportunities related to sustainability. Especially multinational enterprises have the potential
to ‘‘increase innovation, spur wealth creation, transfer technology, raise productivity, meet
basic needs, enhance living standards, and improve the quality of life for millions of people
around the world’’ (Nelson, 2006, p. 2). In the same line, but from a strategic perspective,
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012, pp. 499-513, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701
j
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
j
PAGE 499
Porter and Kramer argue for creating shared value which ‘‘involves creating economic value
in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges’’ (Porter
and Kramer, 2011, p. 64).
Creating shared value strategies is an emerging field in the intersection of development
studies (Sink, 1991; Nelson, 2006; Zhang et al., 2009), strategy (Porter, 1980; Prahalad and
Hart, 2002; Hart and Milstein, 2003; Porter and Kramer, 2011), stakeholder theory (Freeman,
1984; Freeman et al., 2004; Spitzeck and Hansen, 2010), innovation (Chesbrough, 2003;
Ayuso et al., 2006; Hansen et al., 2009; Florin and Schmidt, 2011) and measurable
triple-bottom-line results (Elkington, 1998; Jamali, 2006; Maltz et al., 2011). As with any
emerging field the current challenge lies in generating empirical observations to confirm,
contradict and refine the new theory.
This paper presents the collaboration between BASF, Fundação Espaço Eco (FEE) and
André Maggi Group in Brazil and analyses if a shared value approach can be found in
practice. In order to achieve this goal, we first conduct a literature review on shared value
strategies which serves to define key characteristics of the approach. Secondly, we
describe the research methodology, before analyzing the case in light of the characteristics
of a shared value strategy. Finally, we present the conclusions from the case study and
outline further avenues for research.
Shared value in the literature
The concept of shared value dates back to the 1980s to the definition of corporate culture
(Cadbury, 1983; Posner et al., 1985; Schein, 1985; Amsa, 1986; Deshpande and
Parasuraman, 1986; Stubbart, 1988; Chatman and Cha, 2003). Shared values were seen as
‘‘clearly articulated organizational values [which] make a significant difference in the lives of
employees, as well as in their organization’s performance’’ (Posner et al., 1985, p. 293). This
definition already entails an important aspect of shared values which are seen essential in
order to align employees with the corporate objective and purpose. This idea of alignment
was applied to other stakeholder relationships such as interactions between headquarters
and subsidiaries (Nohria and Goshal, 1994; Chu, 2001), actors along the supply chain (Lai,
2009), or customers (O’Driscoll et al., 2000; Thomas and Doak, 2000). The idea of aligning
actors by focusing on shared values, however, is not proprietary to management science
and also appears, for example, in public administration which prefers the term ‘‘public
value’’ (Smith, 2004; Jos, 2006).
Porter and Kramer (2011, p. 66) define shared value as follows:
The concept of shared value can be defined as policies and operating practices that enhance
competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social
conditions in the communities in which it operates. [. . .] Value is defined as benefits relative to
costs, not just benefits alone.
This definition adopts a corporate perspective and applies the concept of shared values to
business and society interactions (Jones, 1983). The first to mention shared value in the
context of business and society was Sink (1991) focusing on local development:
Developing or increasing shared norms and values [. . .] are primary tasks of the policy
entrepreneur (Sink, 1991, p. 1179).
As in the definition of organizational culture, the alignment of different actors in the local
development context via shared values is expected to improve performance (Sink, 1991;
Nienhaus and Brauksiepe, 1997; Zhang et al., 2009) and helps to resolve conflicts (Mathur
et al., 2008; Morse and Mcnamara, 2009).
Porter and Kramer’s definition highlights two important aspects of shared value strategies
which are executed via policies and operating practices. First, they must create value for the
company by enhancing competitiveness, an important aspect already developed in
previous publications on strategy and sustainability (Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998; Hart
and Milstein, 2003; Porter and Kramer, 2006; Esty and Winston, 2009). Second, they must
j
j
PAGE 500 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012
create value for society by advancing social conditions in the communities in which the
company operates a point articulated by research on corporate social performance (Sethi,
1975; Wood, 1991; Clarkson, 1995; Logsdon and Yuthas, 1997) and corporate community
involvement (Lynn and Chess, 1994; Hess et al., 2002; Nelson, 2006). Porter and Kramer’s
definition, however, adds an important detail: the societal value is defined relative to costs.
This brings shared value close to a strategic philanthropy approach which is concerned with
the efficiency and effectiveness of social outcomes relative to investments (Porter and
Kramer, 2006). The key question here is how to have more societal impact per dollar spent
(Porter and Kramer, 2002; Kramer, 2005).
Another important point of shared value strategies is that they ‘‘will be data driven, clearly
linked to defined outcomes, well connected to the goals of all stakeholders, and tracked with
clear metrics’’ (Porter and Kramer, 2011, p. 76 - emphasis added). The importance of
operationalizing the creation of shared value via metrics and indicators has been
demonstrated in a case on the Halcrow Group (Pearce, 2008) as well as in recent
publications on strategic corporate responsibility (Werther and Chandler, 2005; Maltz et al.,
2011).
The following basic conditions of a shared value strategy can be summarized from the
discussion above:
B
Refer to corporate policies and/or operating practices.
B
Enhance the competitiveness of the firm.
B
Improve social conditions in the communities.
B
It becomes clear which strategic projects create most impact relative to investments.
B
Use clear metrics related to stakeholder demands.
Porter and Kramer (2011, p. 67) outline three distinct ways to create shared value: ‘‘by
reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and building
supportive industry clusters at the company’s locations’’. These three ways are explained in
more detail below, as their characteristics are important for data analysis.
Way 1: reconceiving products and markets
This approach has been described previously as ‘‘Business at the Bottom of the Pyramid’’
(Prahalad and Hart, 2002; Prahalad, 2005; Webb et al., 2010). Porter and Kramer define it as
‘‘satisfying unmet social needs’’ and ‘‘serving disadvantaged communities’’ (Porter and
Kramer, 2011, pp. 67-8). While this approach is not without critics especially considering the
enhancement of social conditions in communities (Karnani, 2007; Olsen and Boxenbaum,
2009) the basic argument rests on creating economies of scale for offering essential
products and services such as health, housing or credit at reasonable prices to
disadvantaged communities, thus fostering their inclusion within the formal economy.
Several cases exist demonstrating innovative approaches such as the Aravind Eye Hospital
in the area of health (Shah and Murty, 2004), Cemex’s programme ‘‘Patrimonio Hoy’’ in the
area of housing (Letelier et al., 2003), or the Grameen Bank in the area of finance (Yunus and
Jolis, 1999).
Way 2: redefining productivity in the value chain
Environmental management considerations have been applied to supply chain context
since the 1990s (Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al., 1995; Lewis, 1997). These early publications
already foresaw that once sustainability considerations become strategic they will include
supply chain considerations (Lewis, 1997). Today, sustainable supply chain issues include
carbon trading, waste treatment, resource consumption as well as sub-contracting
(Chaabane et al., 2011) and managing supply chains sustainably can create competitive
advantages (Reuter et al., 2010). Porter and Kramer’s second approach to shared value
strategies follows this tradition and consists of a holistic evaluation of value chain
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 501
productivity in terms of energy use, logistics, resource use, procurement, distribution,
location and employee productivity (Porter and Kramer, 2011, pp. 68-71).
Way 3: building supportive industry clusters
The final approach to shared value strategies is creating clusters for local development
(Porter and Kramer, 2011, p. 72). Clusters have been analyzed in the past primarily as
industry clusters and were found to enhance innovation, competitiveness and knowledge
exchange (Arikan, 2009; Liela et al., 2010). Previous studies also support that shared values
help to align the activities of the actors within clusters (Tracy and Clark, 2003). Case studies
have further shown that collaboration and knowledge exchange on sustainability issues in
clusters improves environmental and social performance (Anh et al., 2011). These insights
are now applied to local development contexts which similarly depend on the interaction and
alignment of several players such as suppliers, service providers, educational institutions,
NGOs and local governments in order to attain to local development goals (Nelson, 2006;
Kania and Kramer, 2011).
This brief literature review demonstrates that the shared value approach propagated by
Porter and Kramer builds extensively on previous research and subsumes research in
bottom-of-the-pyramid markets, sustainable supply chains and industry clusters for local
development under the umbrella of shared value strategies.
Several publications are starting to reference to shared value strategies. To date follow-up
research is either of a theoretical nature (Selsky and Parker, 2010; Florin and Schmidt, 2011;
Maltz et al., 2011; O’Toole and Vogel, 2011) or demonstrates in a case study that shared
value strategies do indeed enhance competitiveness (Du et al., 2011). Several case studies
refer to shared value approaches but have been developed before the concept was
propagated by Porter and Kramer (Fowler and Heap, 1998; Pearce, 2008; Cordes, 2009).
Therefore, we could not identify any paper which aims to empirically test if shared value
strategies can be found in practice and if they apply one or more of the three ways described
by Porter and Kramer. This paper addresses this gap.
Research method
In order to verify the shared value concept we apply an in-depth case study (Eisenhardt,
1989; Yin, 2003) of a collaboration between BASF, André Maggi Group and Fundação
Espaço Eco in Brazil. The material analyses the socio-eco-efficiency analysis done at André
Maggi Group – a Brazilian multinational. The collaboration between André Maggi Group,
BASF and Fundação Espaço Eco consisted of a socio-eco-efficiency analysis of three
operational plants of the André Maggi Group. The objective is to evaluate if the company’s
strategy can be considered as a case of shared value creation (Porter and Kramer, 2011)
considering the basic conditions developed above as well as determining if one of the three
approaches of creating shared value has been applied. The case is analyzed by combining
various research methods such as semi-structured interviews from representatives (from
vice-presidents to operational staff) of all organizations involved (Miles and Huberman,
2005), participant observation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) by one of the co-authors, as well
as document analysis (internal documents, publicly available material as well as academic
publications of BASF staff) to triangulate data and verify the results presented (Jick, 1979).
Case background
In order to determine the creation of shared value it is important to understand the economic,
environmental and social development issues of the Brazilian business context as well as the
organizational characteristics of the organizations involved.
Brazil is a country of continental dimension, natural reserves and abundant energy
representing the fifth largest population and the sixth largest economy of the world. The
country holds the largest reserves of potable water as well as one-third of the globe’s
j
j
PAGE 502 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012
remaining tropical forests including its rich biodiversity. Natural resources back the country’s
recent growth as e.g. mayor part of the country’s exports are goods such as iron ore,
soybeans, and coffee. Accordingly agriculture and mining form important sectors within the
Brazilian economy.
With a GINI Index of 0.493 (Peduzzi, 2009), Brazil experiences extreme regional differences,
especially in social indicators such as health, infant mortality and nutrition (Portella, 2010). In
the rural North, only 32.1 percent are living e.g. with sanitation while 77.9 percent are in the
more urban Southeast (Castro, 2007). Although Brazil has signed most ILO treaties, child
labor is still a challenge, with 4.25 million children and teenagers from five to 17 years of age
working. Most of these underage workers are employed in the agricultural sector, are male
and from the north-eastern region (IBGE, 2009).
BASF Brazil
BASF is a leading global chemical company and its biggest business segments in Latin
America are agricultural products and nutrition as well as performance products and
coatings (each 32 percent of business in 2009) (Chapman, 2009). BASF’s Brazilian
agricultural business supports farmers and producers of agricultural commodities (soy,
corn) to increase productivity for exporting to a very competitive international market. BASF’s
clients are exposed to the sustainability challenges outlined above such as child labor and
deforestation of tropical rainforests to name just a few. BASF agribusiness itself is offering
commodities (chemicals) on a highly competitive and price-sensitive market.
In order to address sustainability challenges BASF Germany started already in the 1990s to
apply life-cycle assessments and developed an eco-efficiency tool in 1996. The tool
combines ecological life-cycle assessment with economic costs allowing the comparison
and optimization of different production methods and their impacts (Saling et al., 2002). In
contrast to other regions where this eco-efficiency tool is used by BASF internally, the tool is
applied in Brazil and Latin America by Fundação Espaço Eco – BASF’s legally independent
corporate foundation.
Fundação Espaço Eco (FEE) was created in 2005 by BASF Brazil in collaboration with GTZ
(Germany’s Technical Collaboration Agency) with the mission to ‘‘promote sustainable
development in society, by transferring know-how and technology, especially through the
implementation of solutions in eco-efficiency, environmental education and reforesting
focusing on the balance of social, environmental and economic aspects’’ (Fundação
Espaço Eco, 2011). FEE is a non-for-profit organization with an educational purpose to
transfer know-how in order to provoke transformations towards sustainable development. All
of its processes are ISO 9001 certified since 2009.
André Maggi Group
The André Maggi Group is a large agricultural conglomerate producing soy, cotton and corn
for the international markets. It is among the largest private soy producers worldwide and
recorded a gross income of 3,1 billion USD in 2010 (André Maggi Group, 2011, p. 82). The
company’s mission is to ‘‘contribute to agribusiness development, aggregating value,
respecting the environment and improving life in communities.’’ (André Maggi Group, 2011,
p. 193). The group obtained certifications such as ISO 14001, ProTerra, Roundtable of
Responsible Soy, International Sustainability & Carbon Certification and is member of the
Global Compact, the National Compact against Slave Labour, Business Contract for
Integrity and Against Corruption, Child-friendly company and the Millennium Development
Goals.
The collaboration between BASF, FEE and André Maggi Group started in 2008 with the
objective to validate and enhance the eco-efficiency analysis for an application in Brazilian
agriculture (André Maggi Group, 2011, p. 158). This following results section first explains
the social-eco-efficiency tool which has been applied to the main group farms of the André
Maggi Group for the harvests between 2005 and 2008. We then outline the impacts of using
this tool on the company’s competitiveness, its operating practices and the impacts
generated in the community. The tool and the impact of its use will tell if the basic conditions
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 503
of a shared value approach have been met. We then move to analyze if a particular
approach of creating shared value has been applied.
Results
The socio-eco-efficiency analysis consists of an evaluation of triple-bottom line indicators
along the life cycle of a specific product. The environmental impact assessment is oriented
by ISO 14040-14043 (Kicherer et al., 2007) and considers parameters such as raw material
consumption, energy use, waste generation, use of land, toxicity and the risk potential.
These parameters were compared for different production methods applied at the André
Maggi Group farms in order to determine their environmental impact (see Figure 1).
In a second step the costs are calculated such as the production cost of the products as well
as use and disposal costs during the whole life cycle (Kicherer et al., 2007; Da Silva, 2008).
This allows evaluating the eco-efficiency of alternatives by mapping environmental impacts
relative to cost (see Figure 2). In the following figure the upper right hand quadrant displays
alternatives with high eco-efficiency and the lower left-hand quadrant with low
eco-efficiency.
A similar process is applied to social indicators which were developed with considerations of
stakeholders ‘‘that might be affected during the life-cycle of the product’’ (Da Silva, 2008,
Figure 1 Determining the environmental impact
Figure 2 Determining eco-efficiency
j
j
PAGE 504 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012
p. 6). Stakeholder groups considered in this process are employees, the international
community, future generations, consumers as well as local communities. Indicators such as
working accidents, child labor, toxicity and others are considered in the calculation of the
social impact (see Figure 3).
These social indicators are aggregated just as the environmental indicators. In a final
process economic, environmental and social indicators are mapped in a cube (see Figure 4)
in which the lower front left corner represents low socio-eco-efficiency and the higher back
right corner high socio-eco-efficiency (Schmidt et al., 2004).
The first step of the validation consisted of customizing and ‘‘tropicalizing’’ the
environmental and indicators to Brazilian specifics as well as to the agricultural context.
This has been done by consulting local stakeholders:
A list of more than 200 environmental indicators has been reduced to approximate 20 by
consulting local stakeholders on relevance and the possibility to measure impacts in Brazil (FEE
Operations Manager).
The application of socio-eco efficiency analysis therefore demonstrates the use of clear
metrics related to stakeholder demands. The metrics allow to measure impacts relative to
investments as the following quotes demonstrate:
[The client] sees if this is economically interesting or not because the socio-eco-efficiency puts
the economic aspects together with socio-environmental considerations. It might be that a certain
action is not economically viable but at least it’s measurable.[. . .] The tool allows the comparison
of farms [. . .] and the transfer of best practices between farms (VP BASF).
We already had environmental certifications and monitored various indicators. In this project with
Fundação Espaço Ecos we saw the opportunity to make better use of our indicators (Operational
Manager André Maggi Group).
This better use of indicators refers specifically to scenario planning:
Figure 3 Social impact indicators
social
profile
working
conditions
for
employees
local and
national
community
international
community
consumer
future
generation
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 505
Figure 4 The socio-eco-efficiency analysis
The tool provides numeric results, which help to understand things better and also allows us to
simulate [. . .] Simulations such as if we only plant soy what is the impact, if we plant cotton and
corn we have this impact [. . .] you can test.[. . .] You end up selecting the most eco-socio-efficient
approach (Operational Manager André Maggi Group).
If I have a cheaper alternative what would be the impact? He might conclude that current practice
is confirmed, but it adds some confidence to it (VP BASF).
The operational managers did not have a vision on how to contribute to sustainability and were
more thinking of policies to execute (Sustainability Manager André Maggi Group).
Socio-eco-efficiency analysis sets the company’s direction (André Maggi Group, 2011, p. 159).
These comments demonstrate that the tool had an educational influence on operating
practices as scenario planning is used more frequently in order to inform decisions. It
becomes clear that doing a socio-eco-efficiency analysis triggers a new way of triple-bottom
line thinking within management.
Among the factors that enhanced competitiveness were cost reductions, meeting emerging
export conditions and legal compliance issues:
The high fertilizer volume and grain shipment were key factors in socio-eco-efficiency results
(André Maggi Group, 2011, p. 160).
Recent certifications require including e.g. carbon indicators in a process of continuous
improvement (Operational Manager André Maggi Group).
All companies with a focus on the international market perceive the tightening of technical
barriers, which has to do with the reputation of Brazil abroad (VP BASF).
Legal compliance issues refer primarily to the Código Florestal (Law 4.771 enacted on 15
September 1965) and its amendments which puts limits to the commercial use of land by
requiring ‘‘legal reserves’’ of natural habitat:
Our clients need to do projects in this area [. . .] but they did not have access to a methodology or
tools which documents and structures projects using an analysis which finds international
approval (VP BASF).
Applying this methodology and the triple-bottom line thinking in practice also improves the
social conditions in the communities in which the André Maggi Group operates:
j
j
PAGE 506 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012
Inside the property, farms that invested most in training and family support improved their
socio-eco-efficiency. [. . .] The higher social impact owes to good employee working conditions
(André Maggi Group, 2011, p. 160).
So far results indicate that the case fulfills the basic conditions of a shared value strategy as
described by Porter and Kramer. Regarding the approach we could not identify any
redesign of products and markets as the André Maggi Group still exports agricultural
commodities to the international market. Nor could we find any evidence for building
supportive industry clusters in which several actors collaborate locally in order to enhance
local development. However, the case does qualify as a redefinition of productivity in the
value chain.
The socio-eco-efficiency analysis is based on a life-cycle analysis methodology and
considers the source of raw materials, transportation to the farms as well as distribution
channels (see Figure 5).
This methodology allows considering the economic, social and environmental impacts
within the supply chain:
If we export through the port of Santos or another, what is the impact. It permits to make forecasts
(Operational Manager André Maggi Group).
Farms don’t know if they are causing a positive or negative impact outside of their farm [. . .] They
are criticized because they manage sustainably within the farms [. . .] the study shows that 70
percent of sustainability issues arise outside of the farm, such as carbon emissions and work
accidents in logistics (VP BASF).
The production and shipping of a soybean acre on the Tucunaré farm is more socio-eco-efficient
mainly because of the waterway shipment model (André Maggi Group, 2011, p. 160).
Conclusion
The objective of this paper was to verify if shared value strategies can be found in practice.
The case study on the collaboration between BASF, FEE and the André Maggi Group does
qualify as a shared value strategy, more precisely as a case of redesigning productivity in
the value chain.
Implications for theory
Our paper thus makes an important contribution to theory by creating some empirical
evidence of the shared value concept in practice. Obviously, a single case study might be
able to contradict current theory (Popper, 1959) but is not sufficient to confirm an emerging
theory. Therefore more research is needed in order to confirm and potentially refine the
approach propagated by Porter and Kramer.
Figure 5 Life-cycle considerations from sourcing raw materials to final distribution
channels
I-1
I-2
Raw materials
Production
At
Farm
Level
Transport of RM
I-3
I-4
Transport to
Rotterdam
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 507
The concept of creating shared value entails the question of how value is created for different
stakeholder groups (Freeman, 1984; Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Adopting a corporate
perspective Porter and Kramer (2011) might underestimate the power of open discourse
with the different stakeholder groups in designing local development strategies and defining
relevant indicators (Renn et al., 1997; Spitzeck and Hansen, 2010). Future research could
shed more light on the question how stakeholders need to be engaged in the creation of
shared value strategies. Another avenue for research lies in the integration of the
socio-eco-efficiency analysis results in strategic management systems such as the
Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996).
Implications for practice
The socio-eco-efficiency analysis offered by FEE creates a differentiation strategy to BASF in
Brazil. The work enables BASF clients to reduce negative impacts while increasing their
financial, social and environmental performance. This created closer and long-term
relationships with clients as BASF is delivering more than just economic value. According to
BASF’s VP:
The client values a lot. [. . .] The relationship you create differs a lot from a purely commercial
relationship.
The collaboration between BASF and FEE thus helps to transform transactional into relational
client relationships.
The André Maggi Group collected valuable information of applying the socio-eco-efficiency
analysis to its operations in Brazil. However, more research and analysis needs to be done in
order to allow an international roll-out of this methodology.
The socio-eco-efficiency analysis applied by FEE also addresses an important point
mentioned by Porter and Kramer (2011, p. 77):
[. . .] few managers have the understanding of social and environmental issues required to move
beyond today’s CSR approaches, and few social sector leaders have the managerial training and
entrepreneurial mind-set needed to design and implement shared value models.
The work of FEE creates this understanding and mindset by offering a tool which enables
clients to make more sustainable decisions, impacting positively on their triple-bottom-line
performance indicators as well as addressing the sustainability challenges of the Brazilian
society.
References
Amsa, P. (1986), ‘‘Organizational culture and work group behaviour: an empirical study’’, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 347-62.
André Maggi Group (2011), Sustainability Report 2010, André Maggi Group, Rondonópolis.
Anh, P.T., My Dieu, T.T., Mol, A.P.J. and Bush, S.R. (2011), ‘‘Towards eco-agro industrical clusters in
aquatic production: the case of shrimp processing industry in Vietnam’’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 19 Nos 17/18, pp. 2107-18.
Arikan, A.T. (2009), ‘‘Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters’’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 658-76.
Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M.A. and Ricart, J.E. (2006), ‘‘Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new
ideas: a dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation’’, Corporate Governance, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 475-90.
BASF (2011), ‘‘What is the SEEBalance?’’, BASF, Friedrichshafen, available at: www.basf.com/group/
corporate/en/sustainability/eco-efficiency-analysis/seebalance (accessed December 14, 2011).
Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Van Beek, P. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (1995), ‘‘Towards eco-agro
industrical clusters in aquatic production: the case of shrimp processing industry in Vietnam’’, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 229-43.
j
j
PAGE 508 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012
Cadbury, A. (1983), ‘‘Cadbury Schweppes: more than chocolate and tonic’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 134-44.
Castro, J.A. (2007), Primeiras Análises do IPEA 2007, Instituto de Pesquisa Económica Aplicada,
Brasilia.
Chaabane, A., Radmudhin, A. and Paquet, M. (2011), ‘‘Designing supply chains with sustainability
considerations’’, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 727-41.
Chapman, S. (2009), Dialogue for Sustainability, São Paulo.
Chatman, J.A. and Cha, S. (2003), ‘‘Leading by leveraging culture’’, California Management Review,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 20-34.
Chesbrough, H. (2003), ‘‘The era of open innovation’’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 35-41.
Chu, W. (2001), ‘‘Contingency organizations and shared values: multiple logics in managing
diversification’’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 83-99.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), ‘‘A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social
performance’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Cordes, S. (2009), ‘‘Integrating a not-for-profit partnership with a commercial brand: a case study’’,
Journal of Sponsorship, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 157-63.
Da Silva, L.V. (2008), ‘‘Life cycle assessment and its use in BASF: integrating economic, environmental
and social concerns’’, The IMRE Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Deshpande, R. and Parasuraman, A. (1986), ‘‘Linking corporate culture to strategic planning’’, Business
Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 28-38.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), ‘‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence
and implications’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2011), ‘‘Corporate social responsibility and competitive
advantage: overcoming the trust barrier’’, Management Science, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 1528-45.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Building theories from case study research’’, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks – The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, New
Society Publishers, Oxford.
Esty, D.C. and Winston, A.S. (2009), Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy
to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Florin, J. and Schmidt, E. (2011), ‘‘Creating shared value in the hybrid venture arena: a business model
innovation perspective’’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 165-97.
Fowler, P. and Heap, S. (1998), ‘‘Learning from the Marine Stewardship Council: a business-NGO
partnership for sustainable marine fisheries’’, Greener Management International, No. 24, pp. 77-91.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.
Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. and Parmar, B. (2004), ‘‘Stakeholder and ‘The corporate objective
revisited’’’, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 364-9.
Fundação Espaço Eco (2011), Institutional presentation, Fundação Espaço Eco, São Paulo.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL.
Grayson, D. and Hodges, A. (2004), Corporate Social Opportunity, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Hansen, E.G., Große-Dunker, F. and Reichwald, R. (2009), ‘‘Sustainability Innovation Cube – a
framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations’’, International Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 683-713.
Hart, S. and Milstein, M. (2003), ‘‘Creating sustainable value’’, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 56-67.
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 509
Hess, D., Rogovsky, N. and Dunfee, T.W. (2002), ‘‘The next wave of corporate community involvement:
corporate social initiatives’’, California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 110-25.
IBGE (2009), Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicı́lios – 2009, IBGE, Rio de Janeiro.
Jamali, D. (2006), ‘‘Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective’’,
Business Process Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 809-21.
Jick, T.D. (1979), ‘‘Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action’’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 602-11.
Jones, T.M. (1983), ‘‘An integrating framework for research in business and society: a step towards the
elusive paradigm?’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 559-64.
Jos, P.H. (2006), ‘‘Social contract theory: implications for professional ethics’’, American Review of
Public Administration, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 139-55.
Kania, J. and Kramer, M.R. (2011), ‘‘Collective impact’’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter,
pp. 36-41.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Karnani, A. (2007), ‘‘The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: how the private sector can
alleviate poverty’’, California Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 90-111.
Kicherer, A., Schaltegger, S., Tschochohei, H. and Ferreira Pozo, B. (2007), ‘‘Eco-efficiency: combining
life cycle assessment and life cycle costs via normalization’’, International Journal of Life-cycle
Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 537-43.
Kramer, M.R. (2005), Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship,
Foundation Strategy Group and Skoll Foundation, San Francisco, CA.
Lai, C.-S. (2009), ‘‘The use of influence strategies in interdependent relationship: the moderating role of
shared norms and values’’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 426-32.
Letelier, M.F., Flores, F. and Spinosa, C. (2003), ‘‘Developing productive customers in emerging
markets’’, California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 77-103.
Lewis, G.J. (1997), ‘‘A cybernetic view of environmental management: the implications for business
organizations’’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 264-75.
Liela, E., Zeibote, Z. and Stale, L. (2010), ‘‘Business clusters for improving competitiveness and
innovation of enterprises – experience of Latvia’’, Journal of Business Management, No. 3, pp. 57-71.
Logsdon, J.M. and Yuthas, K. (1997), ‘‘Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and
organizational moral development’’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 Nos 12/13, pp. 1213-26.
Lynn, F.M. and Chess, C. (1994), ‘‘Community advisory panels within the chemical industry: antecedents
and issues’’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 92-9.
Maltz, E., Thompson, F. and Ringold, D.J. (2011), ‘‘Assessing and maximizing corporate social
initiatives: a strategic view of corporate social responsibility’’, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 344-52.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V. (2010), ‘‘Organizational stages and cultural phases: a critical
review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development’’, International Journal
of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
Mathur, V.N., Price, A.D.F. and Austin, S. (2008), ‘‘Conceptualizing stakeholder engagement in the
context of sustainability and its assessment’’, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 601-9.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (2005), Qualitative Data Analysis – An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morse, S. and Mcnamara, N. (2009), ‘‘The universal common good: faith-based partnerships and
sustainable development’’, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-48.
j
j
PAGE 510 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012
Nelson, J. (2001), Building Partnerships: Cooperation between the United Nations and the Private
Sector, Department of Public Information, United Nations, New York, NY.
Nelson, J. (2006), ‘‘Leveraging the development impact of business in the fight against global poverty’’,
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 22, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Nienhaus, V. and Brauksiepe, R. (1997), ‘‘Explaining the success of community and informal
economies’’, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1422-39.
Nohria, N. and Goshal, S. (1994), ‘‘Differentiated fit and shared values: alternatives for managing
headquarters-subsidiary relations’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 491-502.
O’Driscoll, A., Carson, D. and Gilmore, A. (2000), ‘‘Developing marketing competence and managing in
networks: a strategic perspective’’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 183-96.
O’Toole, J. and Vogel, D. (2011), ‘‘Two and a half cheers for conscious capitalism’’, California
Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 60-76.
Olsen, M. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009), ‘‘Bottom-of-the-pyramid: organizational barriers to
implementation’’, California Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 100-25.
Pearce, O. (2008), ‘‘Holistic assessment of sustainability and its application at halcrow’’, Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 30, Summer, pp. 37-65.
Peduzzi, P. (2009), ‘‘Desigualdade e pobreza continuaram caindo no Brasil mesmo com crise, revela
Ipea’’, available at: www.administradores.com.br/informe-se/informativo/desigualdade-e-pobrezacontinuaram-caindo-no-brasil-mesmo-com-crise-revela-ipea/24992/ (accessed January 13, 2011).
Popper, K.R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Portella, K. (2010), ‘‘Brasil chega a PIB per capita de US$ 10 mil em 2010. E agora?’’, available at: http://
economia.ig.com.br/brasil þ chega þ a þ pib þ per þ capita þ de þ us þ 10 þ mil þ em þ 2010 þ
e þ agora/n1237730753533.html (accessed January 13, 2011).
Porter, M. and Kramer, M.R. (2011), ‘‘The big idea: creating shared value’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 89 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-77.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2002), ‘‘The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy’’, Harvard
Business Review, December, pp. 3-14.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), ‘‘Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Posner, B.Z., Kouzes, J.M. and Schmidt, W.H. (1985), ‘‘Shared values make a difference: an empirical
test of corporate culture’’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 293-309.
Prahalad, C.K. (2005), The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Wharton School Publishing,
Philadelphia, PA.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hart, S. (2002), ‘‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’’, strategy þ business,
Vol. 26, pp. 2-14.
Renn, O., Blättel-Mink, B. and Kastenholz, H. (1997), ‘‘Discursive methods in environmental decision
making’’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 218-31.
Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010), ‘‘Sustainable global supplier management:
the role of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive advantage’’, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 45-63.
Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Dittrich-Krämer, B., Wittlinger, R., Zombik, W., Schmidt, I., Schrott, W. and
Schmidt, S. (2002), ‘‘Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method’’, International Journal of Life-cycle
Assessment, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 203-18.
Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 511
Schmidt, I., Saling, P., Reuter, W., Meurer, M., Kicherer, A. and Gensch, C.-O. (2004), ‘‘SEEbalance –
managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio-eco-efficiency analysis by BASF’’,
Greener Management International, Vol. 45, Spring, pp. 79-94.
Selsky, J.W. and Parker, B. (2010), ‘‘Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: prospective
sensemaking devices for social benefit’’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Sethi, P.S. (1975), ‘‘Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework’’, California
Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 58-64.
Sethi, P.S. (1994), Multinational Corporations and the Impact of Public Advocacy on Corporate Strategy,
Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.
Shah, J. and Murty, L.S. (2004), ‘‘Compassionate, high quality health care at low cost: the Aravind
model’’, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 31-43.
Sharma, S. and Vredenburg, H. (1998), ‘‘Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the
development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 729-53.
Sink, D.W. (1991), ‘‘Transorganizational development in urban policy coalitions’’, Human Relations,
Vol. 44 No. 11, pp. 1179-95.
Smith, R.F.I. (2004), ‘‘Focusing on public value: something new and something old’’, Australian Journal
of Public Administration, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 68-79.
Spitzeck, H. (2009), ‘‘Organizational moral learning: what, if anything, do corporations learn from NGO
critique?’’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 157-73.
Spitzeck, H. and Hansen, E. (2010), ‘‘Stakeholder governance – how do stakeholders influence
corporate decision-making?’’, Corporate Governance, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 378-91.
Stubbart, C.I. (1988), ‘‘Power and shared values in the corporate culture’’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 333-6.
Thomas, A. and Doak, R. (2000), ‘‘The development of shared values: impact on employee behaviour
and on customer perception of service’’, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 17-31.
Tracy, P. and Clark, G.L. (2003), ‘‘Alliances, networks and competitive strategy: rethinking clusters of
innovation’’, Growth & Change, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Webb, J.W., Kistruck, G.M., Ireland, R.D. and Ketchen, D.J. (2010), ‘‘The entrepreneurship process in
the base of the pyramid markets: the case of multinational enterprise/nongovernment organization
alliances’’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-81.
Werther, W.B. and Chandler, D. (2005), Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility – Stakeholder in a
Global Environment, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wheeler, D., Fabig, H. and Boele, R. (2002), ‘‘Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms
in the extractive sector: lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni’’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 297-318.
Wood, D.J. (1991), ‘‘Corporate social performance revisited’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 691-718.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yunus, M. and Jolis, A. (1999), Banker to the Poor: Micro-lending and the Battle against World Poverty,
PublicAffairs Books, New York, NY.
Zadek, S. (2004), ‘‘The path to corporate responsibility’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 12,
pp. 125-32.
Zhang, Z., Wan, D., Jia, M. and Gu, L. (2009), ‘‘Prior ties, shared values and cooperation in
public-private partnerships’’, Management & Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 353-74.
j
j
PAGE 512 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012
About the authors
Heiko Spitzeck is a Professor at Fundação Dom Cabral in Brazil. From 2008 to 2010 he was a
Lecturer at Cranfield University’s Doughty Centre for Corporate Responsibility in the UK.
Between 2004 and 2006 he served as Director for oikos International, a student-driven NGO
for sustainable management and economics. Heiko was educated in Germany, Spain and
Switzerland. He received his PhD from the University of St Gallen (Switzerland). Heiko
Spitzeck is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Sonia Chapman started to work for BASF in 1995 and has held various positions within the
company from being Regional Controller and later Manager for Agricultural Products, and is
now President of BASF’s Fundação Espaço Eco in Brazil. Sonia holds a degree in business
administration and previously worked as an external auditor for Price Waterhouse.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
j
j
VOL. 12 NO. 4 2012 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PAGE 513