Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.

By Michael E. Porter, M. Kramer. Harvard Business Review, 2006

6,292 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Business and International Management, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9a7bfc2eb2a3c30cc03d9e0460e0955820a5c541

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Business and International Management

1. Ans Kolk
2. Benjamin J. Warnick
3. Jeffery S. McMullen
4. J. Moon
5. Dima Jamali
6. Carmen Stoian
7. M. Gilman
8. Daniel Arenas

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. Carmen Stoian
2. M. Gilman
3. Benjamin J. Warnick
4. Mike W. Peng
5. Jeffery S. McMullen
6. Alexander Newman
7. I. Lourenço
8. Andreas Georg Scherer

Citations in the corpus

• Corporate social responsibility reporting in the cruise tourism industry: a performance evaluation using a new institutional theory based model (2016, background): “Porter and Kramer (2006) pointed out that in many sectors, approaches to CSR appear to be fragmented and disconnected from organizational strategy, and organizations are failing to recognize CSR as a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage, and not just an additional cost.”
• The Heterogeneity of Socially Responsible Investment (2009, background): “, 2004) and that activist organisations have become more aggressive and effective in exerting pressure (Porter and Kramer, 2006).”
• An empirical examination of the relationship between business strategy and socially responsible supply chain management (2013, positive): “…literature, we draw on the work of Burke and Logsdon (1996), Dentchev (2004), McWilliams and Siegel (2001), Van De Ven and Jeurissen (2005) and Porter and Kramer (2006, 2011), who argue: first, that social responsibility and social initiatives can be a source of competitive and first-mover…”
• Corporate responsibility: Reflections on context and consequences (2009, background): “Porter and Kramer (2006) and Halme and Laurila (2008) for instance argue that philanthropy type CR is less beneficial than strategically oriented CR types such as CR Integration or CR Innovation4 – paradoxically also for society, although it has been traditionally considered that philanthropy is…”
• The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment and the moderating role of collectivism and masculinity: evidence from China (2014, background): “The instrumental perspective explores how organizations might effectively utilize CSR practices to benefit their organization (McWilliams and Siegel 2001; Porter and Kramer 2006).”