Corporate Innovation Strategies. Nacer Gasmi
of positive externalities representing the polarity of virtue, therefore of general interest (Gasmi 2014). Societal strategies based on CSV therefore show the ideal facet of a company’s activities: innovating to meet a societal need (societal performance) while generating profit (financial performance) (Porter and Kramer 2011; Pfitzer et al. 2014; Kramer and Pfitzer 2017; etc.). If this process can lead to a competitive advantage for the company, and profit for society, then there is nothing to prevent a company from engaging in a social and environmental program that will have a positive impact on its corporate image. If this program can also lead to positive societal outcomes, and ultimately to employee and shareholder satisfaction, then it can be judged positively in moral terms (Deslandes 2012). If the demand for “societal” benefits is part of an attempt to take better account of the positive environmental and social impacts of the company’s activity, then a shared value is created with its stakeholders in the market and in the socio-political sphere (Porter and Kramer 2011). This shared value enables the company to establish relationships of trust with these stakeholders and to demonstrate the sincerity of its ethical commitment. The company then gains a competitive advantage resulting from the quality of its relationships with these stakeholders, which is the major competitive route in CSR (Quairel 2013). This advantage, which is linked to the voluntary integration of the company’s environmental and social issues into its global strategy, is part of a logic of anticipating the changing behavior of consumers, suppliers, investors, etc., and that of its employees, with regard to these issues. In this case, the advantage that the integration of CSV societal practices can bring is not limited to improving the company’s relations with its institutional stakeholders (hard power and soft power) and those of the market but also concerns its relations with its internal stakeholders.
Table 2.1. Summary of opportunities achieved through sustainable development practices (Laurent 2017)
| No poverty (1) | Zero hunger (2) | Good health and well-being (3) | |
| Quality education (4) | Gender equality (5) | Clean water and sanitation (6) | |
| Affordable and clean energy (7) | Decent work, economic growth (8) | Industry, innovation and infrastructure (9) | |
| Reduced inequalities (10) | Sustainable cities and communities (11) | Responsible consumption and production (12) | |
| Climate change (13) | Life below water (14) | Life on land (15) | |
| Peace, justice and strong institutions (16) | Partnerships for the goals (17) | ||
| 380 million jobs would be created by 2030 if these 17 global goals were achieved in four areas | |||
| Food: $2.3 trillion | cities: $3.7 trillion | Energy, materials: $4.3 trillion | Health and well-being: $1.8 trillion |
As a result, companies are increasingly expected to address the CSV issue and have a great deal of scope to improve the quality of life for the world’s poor. Despite powerful incentives, a unique capacity to foster large-scale societal change and enormous potential to develop inclusive growth with cost-effective societal strategies to address poverty and inequality (Kaplan et al. 2018), many companies are not fully exploiting this potential and should be aware of the various opportunities specific to their sectors. A study was conducted by Laurent (2017)11 on the state of the sustainable development issue, an opportunity that amounts to billions of dollars. The estimated value of the 60 business opportunities identified is $12.1 trillion per year by 2030. These opportunities would contribute to the achievement of the 17 UN global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the areas of food and agriculture, cities, energy and materials, and health and well-being (see Table 2.1).
To broaden the scope of possibilities, CSR managers should evaluate all the options offered by three areas to build a competitive societal mission strategy that will lead to a competitive advantage for the company (Bharadwaj and Rodriguez-Vilá 2018). The first is “a brand heritage study to identify the most important benefits the brand offers to help them identify the societal needs that the brand can meet”. For example, the Dove brand was not sold as a soap product, but as a beauty product. Putting beauty first is therefore at the heart of the brand’s value proposition. It is logical that the brand should focus on societal needs relating to the perception of beauty. The second area concerns “consumers and the difficulty of identifying in an exhaustive way the societal issues to which they are attuned”. The company needs to focus on the “cultural tensions” that affect consumers and relate to the brand’s heritage. These tensions may, for example, be “preserving the core of the brand attributes that have formed its identity to date, while reinforcing it with tangible societal attributes”. The brand then becomes relevant to consumers when it provides solutions to these tensions. The third area concerns “product or industry-related externalities”. This involves identifying the indirect costs incurred or benefit obtained by a third party (Gasmi and Grolleau 2003), arising from the production or use of the company’s branded products. A company can thus build an effective corporate mission strategy by choosing one of these areas. However, taking all three areas into account can offer real opportunities for CSV. There are two conditions for a successful CSV-based societal process. The first condition is to develop social and/or environmental innovations capable of capitalizing on the opportunities they will produce. The second is to turn a societal cause into a competitive advantage, so CSR project managers must fight against two types of obstacles which they may encounter. The first is the difficulty of changing goals after this societal mission has been chosen, because its success depends on the legitimacy of the company. Changing commitment, or delivering an inconsistent message, can be perceived by stakeholders in the socio-political sphere and the market as an incongruous act, because according to Tirole (2009), the company may be seen as an entity that seeks to buy “free” “social prestige” to show its generosity to these stakeholders. The second obstacle is associated with the appeal of the idea of “doing good”, which may distract CSR managers from the brand’s essential needs. Turning a societal cause into a competitive advantage always attracts criticism, which has both supporters and opponents. CSR managers must therefore assess whether the relevant stakeholders are willing to accept and support societal strategies based on CSV. Thus, depending on their expectations, there may be four potential situations. One is related to stakeholders who react negatively and do not support the company’s societal strategy. This attitude may be the source of three factors: a gap between the message communicated by the brand and that practiced by the company (Gasmi 2014), a politicization of the message and a mistrust of the company’s motivation. This is the case with companies in the food industry that are often criticized by consumers, parents, NGOs, etc., for their contribution, through some of their products, to the increase in the rate of obesity among children. The other three situations may, for example, concern the Nike group which, in the 1990s, developed a policy of outsourcing its production activities to low-cost countries, especially in Asia (Gasmi and Grolleau 2005). Thus, the first situation corresponds to the stakeholders who benefit from the outsourcing strategy and are relatively unconcerned about the ethical consequences, including consumers, shareholders, workers and outsourcing countries, as well as competitors. These stakeholders value the choice of outsourcing, putting ethical considerations on the back burner for the benefit of the company, allowing it to make private economic profit. The