| |
“The Competitive Advantage of Corporate
Philanthropy”
Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer
Harvard Business Review,
December 2002
When it comes to philanthropy, executives increasingly see themselves as caught
between critics demanding ever higher levels of "corporate social
responsibility" and investors applying pressure to maximize short-term
profits. Increasingly, philanthropy is used as a form of public relations or
advertising, promoting a company's image through high-profile sponsorships. But
there is a more truly strategic way to think about philanthropy. Corporations
can use their charitable efforts to improve their competitive context--the
quality of the business environment in the locations where they operate. Using
philanthropy to enhance competitive context aligns social and economic goals and
improves a company's long-term business prospects. Addressing context enables a
company not only to give money but also leverage its capabilities and
relationships in support of charitable causes. Taking this new direction
requires fundamental changes in the way companies approach their contribution
programs. Adopting a context-focused approach requires a far more disciplined
approach than is prevalent today. But it can make a company's philanthropic
activities far more effective.
Order
article reprint at Harvard Business Online
|
|
 |
|
The
Pluses in Corporate Philanthropy
Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer
Boston Globe, January 13, 2003
The
Tax Cut That Could Pay Dividends
Michael E. Porter
The Financial Times, January 13, 2003
"Michael
Porter's Big Ideas"
Keith H. Hammonds
Fast Company, March 2001.
The worlds most famous business-school professor is fed up with CEOs who claim that the world changes too fast for their companies to have a long-term strategy. If you want to make a difference as a leader, youve got to make time for strategy.
|
|
| |
"From Competitive Advantage to Corporate
Strategy"
On Competition,
Chapter 5
Michael E. Porter
Corporate strategy is what makes the corporate whole add up to more than the sum
of its business parts. The track record of corporate strategies had been
dismal. A study of the diversification records of 33 large U.S. companies
from 1950 to 1986 shows that diversification--whether through acquisition, joint
venture, or start-up--generally has not brought the competitive advantages or
profitability expected. Portfolio management, restructuring, transferring
skills, and sharing activities are four concepts of corporate strategy that
companies most commonly use. Portfolio management no longer works very well in
the United States because of its highly developed capital market. Restructuring
is merely a stopgap measure that will not build shareholder value over the long
term because it usually produces an unwieldy conglomerate. Companies have the
best chance of being successful at diversification if they capitalize on the
existing relationships between business units by having them transfer skills and
share activities.
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|