what is shared value essay

What is Shared Value

Changing the Way Business is Done

Shared value is a concept described by Professor Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School and Mark Kramer, co-founder and a managing director of FSG, in their 2011 seminal Harvard Business Review article, Creating Shared Value . They define shared value as “policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates. Shared value creation focuses on identifying and expanding the connections between societal and economic progress.”

As companies strive to tackle the world’s most pressing social problems and advance equitable outcomes, we believe that shared value has an important role to play. In Centering Equity in Corporate Purpose we share the belief that shared value can be a powerful tool but only when applied intentionally as part of a comprehensive portfolio of complementary practices, including advocacy, corporate philanthropy, and policy or process changes that may represent a net cost to the company in order to build power within communities and effectively deliver more equitable outcomes for society as a whole.

Whether it is addressing protracted social issues, such as access to medicines, employment opportunities for self-determination, or improved agricultural techniques, or if it is targeting environmental opportunities, such as new uses for recycled plastics, zero deforestation practices, or renewable energy sources, shared value practices offer companies new ways to innovate, compete, and create a business environment that is sustainable. It also allows them to do so at scale while it significantly addresses social and environmental challenges. While the roles of government and civil society are critical in addressing societal issues, their resources are dwarfed when compared to those of the private sector. If private sector resources can be more effectively leveraged to simultaneously improve societal and business needs, the impact on our social and environmental challenges and opportunities could be significant and positively change the lives of many people on this planet.

Essential Reading

The Ecosystem of Shared Value

Where ESG Fails

Creating Shared Value

Privacy overview.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Creating Shared Value

• Michael E. Porter
• Mark R. Kramer

The capitalist system is under siege. In recent years business has been criticized as a major cause of social, environmental, and economic problems. Companies are widely thought to be prospering at the expense of their communities. Trust in business has fallen to new lows, leading government officials to set policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. Business is caught in a vicious circle.

A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated, narrow approach to value creation. Focused on optimizing short-term financial performance, they overlook the greatest unmet needs in the market as well as broader influences on their long-term success. Why else would companies ignore the well-being of their customers, the depletion of natural resources vital to their businesses, the viability of suppliers, and the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell?

It doesn’t have to be this way, say Porter, of Harvard Business School, and Kramer, the managing director of the social impact advisory firm FSG. Companies could bring business and society back together if they redefined their purpose as creating “shared value”—generating economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its challenges. A shared value approach reconnects company success with social progress.

Firms can do this in three distinct ways: by reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and building supportive industry clusters at the company’s locations. A number of companies known for their hard-nosed approach to business—including GE, Wal-Mart, Nestlé, Johnson & Johnson, and Unilever—have already embarked on important initiatives in these areas. Nestlé, for example, redesigned its coffee procurement processes, working intensively with small farmers in impoverished areas who were trapped in a cycle of low productivity, poor quality, and environmental degradation. Nestlé provided advice on farming practices; helped growers secure plant stock, fertilizers, and pesticides; and began directly paying them a premium for better beans. Higher yields and quality increased the growers’ incomes, the environmental impact of farms shrank, and Nestlé’s reliable supply of good coffee grew significantly. Shared value was created.

Shared value could reshape capitalism and its relationship to society. It could also drive the next wave of innovation and productivity growth in the global economy as it opens managers’ eyes to immense human needs that must be met, large new markets to be served, and the internal costs of social deficits—as well as the competitive advantages available from addressing them. But our understanding of shared value is still in its genesis. Attaining it will require managers to develop new skills and knowledge and governments to learn how to regulate in ways that enable shared value, rather than work against it.

How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth.

The capitalist system is under siege. In recent years business increasingly has been viewed as a major cause of social, environmental, and economic problems. Companies are widely perceived to be prospering at the expense of the broader community.

• Michael E. Porter is the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard Business School. He has served as an adviser to governments and campaigns around the world on the advancement of social policy and economic policy, including Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. His latest paper is  The Role of Business in Society . He is an academic adviser to the Leadership Now Project.
• Mark R. Kramer is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School. He is also a cofounder of the social impact consulting firm FSG and a partner at the impact investing hedge fund at Congruence Capital.

Partner Center

Creating Shared Value: Explained with Examples

Creating Shared Value (CSV) is a business concept first introduced in the Harvard Business Review article “ Strategy & Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility ” by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer. According to this concept, companies can achieve economic success in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its needs and challenges.

Creating Shared Value is a management strategy focused on companies creating measurable business value by identifying and addressing social problems that intersect with their business. The CSV model is an alternative to the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) because while CSR focuses on the mitigation of harm and being a good corporate citizen, CSV emphasizes the idea that businesses can enhance their competitiveness while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which they operate.

Shared Value Creation Framework

Creating Shared Value (CSV) is a strategic framework businesses use to generate economic value in a way that creates value for society. The concept, put forth by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer in 2011, revolves around the idea that the competitiveness of a company and the health of the communities around it are mutually dependent.

The framework essentially encourages businesses to solve societal issues directly related to their business, benefiting both the company and society. It is constructed around three key areas:

• Reconceiving products and markets:  Companies must innovate and improve their products, services, or overall business model to meet societal needs. This could involve developing healthier, more environmentally friendly products or more beneficial to the communities they operate within.
• Redefining productivity in the value chain:  Companies can increase their productivity by improving environmental, health, and safety impacts in their value chain. This can involve reducing waste, improving logistics, using resources more effectively, or improving employee welfare.
• Enabling local cluster development:  Companies do not operate in isolation but are part of a network or “cluster” of businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular field. By investing in the development of these clusters, businesses can improve their own productivity while also supporting local economies.

The key to this framework is that a business’s success and social progress are interconnected. A company can generate economic and societal value by focusing on the areas where these interests intersect. This is distinct from traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, often viewed as separate from a company’s core business operations. CSV is about integrating societal improvement into a company’s strategy and operations.

Examples of Creating Shared Value

Here are several examples of Creating Shared Value (CSV):

• Nestlé:  Nestlé has been one of the major advocates of the CSV approach. In their coffee supply chain, they recognized the societal problem of poor farming practices leading to unsustainable yields and low-quality coffee. Nestlé’s response was to provide support and training to coffee farmers (Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality Program). This increased the quality and productivity of the coffee farms, which in turn provided Nestlé with a better, more reliable product.
• Unilever:  Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan aims to decouple its growth from its environmental footprint while increasing its positive social impact. For example, the Lifebuoy soap brand launched a handwashing campaign in rural India, helping to combat diseases and improve health outcomes. This, in turn, increased demand for their products.
• Google:  Google’s products, such as Google Search, Google Maps, and YouTube, have created massive shared value by providing free access to information and educational content to millions of users globally. They have also enabled small businesses to reach larger audiences and compete on a larger scale.
• IBM:  IBM’s Corporate Service Corps sends teams of experts to emerging markets to work on societal problems, for example, improving water quality or transportation infrastructure. These engagements provide societal benefits and give IBM deeper insight into new markets.
• Novo Nordisk:  Novo Nordisk, a global healthcare company, has developed a “Blueprint for Change Program” to improve diabetes care within communities. The program targets issues such as early diagnosis and access to care, resulting in better societal health outcomes and an increased market for their products.
• Interface Inc.:  Interface, a carpet manufacturer, has invested in research to create carpet tiles from recycled materials, reducing their dependence on petroleum and lowering their environmental footprint. The company has also developed a program to source used fishing nets from local communities, providing income to these communities and supplying Interface with a source of recycled nylon for their carpets.

These examples underline how CSV encourages companies to solve societal issues related to their businesses, allowing both society and businesses to benefit. It goes beyond traditional CSR and philanthropy, embedding societal improvement into the core of business strategy and daily operations.

What types of businesses can focus on creating shared value?

Creating Shared Value (CSV) is a versatile concept that can be applied to businesses across virtually any industry or sector, from startups to large corporations, manufacturing to service industries, and for-profit companies to social enterprises. Here are a few examples:

• Manufacturing and Consumer Goods:  Businesses in this category can improve their supply chains for efficiency and sustainability, develop products that address societal needs, and adopt environmentally friendly production processes. Nestlé’s training programs for farmers and Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan are examples of CSV in these sectors.
• Technology and Software:  Tech companies can create shared value by developing products that improve access to information, boost education, or help small businesses thrive. Google’s free suite of tools, including Google Search, Google Maps, and Google Classroom, is an example of CSV in the tech sector.
• Financial Services:  Banks and financial institutions can create shared value by offering financial products and services tailored to underserved communities or small businesses. For example, providing microfinance loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries or developing financial literacy programs.
• Healthcare:  Healthcare companies can create shared value by improving access to medical treatments, promoting preventive care, or working to address public health crises. Novo Nordisk’s efforts to improve diabetes care exemplify CSV in the healthcare sector.
• Energy and Utilities:  Companies in this sector can create shared value by investing in renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, and developing affordable solutions for underprivileged communities.
• Agriculture and Food Production:  Companies can help small farmers improve their yields, develop more sustainable farming methods, and improve access to nutritious food. An example is Nestlé’s work with coffee farmers.
• Education and Training Providers:  These businesses can create shared value by making education more accessible, tailoring training programs to match workforce needs, and helping individuals gain valuable skills.

While CSV can be applied in any sector, the specific strategies and opportunities will depend on the company’s specific context, including its industry, size, geographic location, and core competencies.

Advantages of Creating Shared Value

Creating Shared Value (CSV) offers a variety of benefits to businesses and society. Here are some of the key advantages:

• Improved Reputation and Brand Image:  Businesses can improve their reputation and public image by directly addressing social and environmental issues, increasing customer loyalty, and attracting more consumers.
• Increased Competitiveness:  Companies that engage in CSV initiatives often innovate their products, services, or processes, which can improve their competitiveness. This can increase market share, customer retention, and overall business growth.
• Greater Employee Satisfaction and Retention:  Employees tend to be more engaged and satisfied when they know their work contributes to broader societal goals. This can improve employee morale, productivity, and retention.
• Stronger Community Relations:  Companies that invest in the local communities where they operate often experience better community relations, which can support their long-term business success.
• Risk Management:  Companies can proactively manage risks by addressing social and environmental challenges. For example, by investing in sustainable supply chains, a company can reduce the risk of supply disruptions due to environmental damage.
• Attract Investment:  Many investors increasingly consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in their investment decisions. Companies demonstrating they’re creating shared value may be more attractive to these investors.
• Access to New Markets:  CSV initiatives can help companies access new markets. For example, developing products or services that meet the needs of underserved populations can open up new customer segments.
• Sustainability:  CSV promotes more sustainable business practices. By aligning profit-making with social and environmental well-being, companies ensure their operations are more sustainable in the long term.

By focusing on CSV, companies can leverage their resources, expertise, and innovation capabilities to positively impact society while also boosting their own performance and sustainability.

Related Posts

Business Performance Analysis

Demand Based Pricing: Meaning | Examples | Types

B2B2C: Meaning | Examples | Business Model | Marketing

Inventory Management Techniques

How do you design the strategy of your PowerPoint?

The Art of Persuasion: Techniques for Influencing Buying Decisions

Organizational Culture: Defining | Improving | Examples

Organizational Restructuring: Meaning | Process | Examples

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

• Creating Shared Value
• CSV Explained
• Emerging Topics
• CSV in Practice
• Published CSV Cases
• The Three Levels of CSV
• Adding a Social Dimension to Strategy
• Redefining Capitalism
• The New Role for Government & NGOs

Creating Shared Value Explained

Creating shared value is a framework for creating economic value while simultaneously addressing societal needs and challenges. When businesses act as businesses —not as charitable donors—they can improve profitability while also improving environmental performance, public health and nutrition, affordable housing and financial security, and other key measures of societal wellbeing. Only business can create economic prosperity by meeting needs and making a profit, creating infinitely scalable and self-sustaining solutions .

Key Concepts

Csv is not csr, csv = social value + economic value, csv will drive innovation & growth.

The purpose of the corporation must be redefined as creating shared value, not just profit per se. This will drive the next wave of innovation and productivity growth in the global economy. It will also reshape capitalism and its relationship to society, and legitimize business again as a powerful force for positive change.

There are numerous ways in which addressing societal concerns can yield productivity benefits to a firm. Consider, for example, what happens when a firm invests in a wellness program. Society benefits because employee and their families become healthier, and the firm minimizes employee absences and lost productivity. The graphic depicts some areas where connections are strongest.

Social Needs & Economic Value Creation

How can companies create shared value opportunities?

Companies need to think differently about customers, products, and markets and put shared value at the core of their business.

The new competitive advantage: Creating Shared Value

Some of today’s most successful companies are aligning their strategic positioning with shared value principles.

The next evolution in capitalism

Shared value holds the key to unlocking the next wave of business innovation and growth. It will also reconnect company success and community success in ways that have been lost in an age of narrow management approaches, short-term thinking, and deepening divides among society’s institutions.

The new roles and relationships for government and NGOs

The focus on social impact unites the goals of companies, NGOs, and government. Shared value fosters new relationships between companies, philanthropists, NGOs, and government in addressing social issues.

The Lifebuoy Soap Story

Created by William Lever in 1894 to combat cholera in Victorian England, Lifebuoy is the world’s #1 selling germ protection soap—a win-win for Unilever and global health.

“Companies have overlooked opportunities to meet fundamental societal needs and misunderstood how societal harms and weaknesses affect value chains. Our field of vision has simply been too narrow.”

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• January – February 2011
• Harvard Business Review

Creating Shared Value

• Format: Print
• Find it at Harvard

About The Author

Michael E. Porter

More from the authors.

• August 2023
• Faculty Research

Vanderbilt: Transforming an Academic Health Care Delivery System, 2020

• 13 Jan 2023 - 14 Jan 2023

India’s Quest for Sustainable Growth in a New Global Reality:: The Need for a Region- and Sector-Driven Approach

• Vanderbilt: Transforming an Academic Health Care Delivery System, 2020  By: Michael E. Porter, Robert S. Kaplan, Mary L. Witkowski and David N. Bernstein
• India’s Quest for Sustainable Growth in a New Global Reality:: The Need for a Region- and Sector-Driven Approach  By: Christian H.M. Ketels and Michael E. Porter

• Creating Shared Value
• Share through your Linkedin Profile
• Share through your Facebook Profile
• Share through your Twitter Channel
• Share through email

Additional Resources

In 2011, trust in business was plummeting—businesses were perceived to be prospering at the expense of the broader community, and corporate social responsibility efforts were failing to effect real change. So when Harvard Business Review published Porter and Kramer’s article, “Creating Shared Value,” the piece sparked a global movement to redefine the role of business in society around a simple but powerful idea: a company’s success and social progress are interdependent. This article was the winner of the 2011 McKinsey Award.

Top Takeaways

• Creating shared value is the practice of creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges.
• There are 3 ways to create shared value: by reconceiving products and markets, by redefining productivity in the value chain, and by enabling local cluster development.
• Shared value is not corporate social responsibility or philanthropy—creating shared value is at the core of the business strategy.

Watch the Webinar

Download the webinar slides

Listen to the Podcast

How to Fix Capitalism

• Blog Fortune Ranks Top Companies Changing the World
• Report First, Make Money. Also, Do Good.

Related Resources

India’s green revolution 2.0: trends shaping india’s climate-tech sector.

As India grapples with the challenges associated with climate change, its climate-tech sector is playing a critical role in…

Business Models for Rural Fecal Sludge Management (FSM)

Over the last decade, basic sanitation coverage in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries has progressed significantly, especially…

The Role of the Corporate Changemaker – Strategy, Influence, and Impact

 In December 2023, FSG leaders John Harper and Chirlie Felix facilitated a workshop on the role of the corporate…

Sign Up to Download

You will also receive email updates on new ideas and resources from FSG.

" * " indicates required fields

Confirm Your Registration

Sign up for updates.

Get updates on new ideas and resources from FSG.

Privacy Overview

Stay up to date with all the latest from Shared Value Project by signing up to our eNewsletter

What is shared value, if purpose is the ‘why’, then shared value is the ‘how’..

In recent years, purpose has gained momentum in business. With societal issues on the rise, government and community resources are under pressure. And increasingly, consumers expect organisations to step in, and play a greater role in advancing social or environmental issues.

But, whilst companies understand the moral imperative in delivering value for all stakeholders, a huge opportunity exists in seeing the business imperative . This can be explained through a simple but powerful idea:

A company’s success and social progress are interdependent.

This is the key principle of shared value.

Tourism companies can’t thrive if a pandemic prevents us from travelling. Food suppliers can’t thrive if extreme weather events spoil farmers’ crops. And financial services can’t thrive amid financial hardship.

In this context, purpose has an important place within business strategy; and, when used to its full potential, it can reach beyond risk mitigation – or doing no harm – to actually create new value for business (and society).

Shared value is a framework designed to create business solutions to social and environmental problems. Put differently, it’s a means to deliver on your purpose, profitably . 

And that’s ok, if not important. As delivering on your purpose through the business itself can enhance the authenticity, sustainability and scalability of the impact you’re creating.

In practice . . .

Shared value harnesses the resources, skills and innovation of an organisation to target the issues that intersect with its business. As a differentiation strategy, it seeks to address these issues in a way the rest of the market is not.

The concept was introduced in 2011, by Harvard professors Michael Porter and Mark R. Kramer  in the Harvard Business Review article ‘ Creating Shared Value ,’ and has since been adopted by the global business community. Shared value policies and thinking can be adopted by Government and not-for-profits too; both of which can serve as valuable partners in delivering meaningful and sustainable change at scale.

There are three key ways that shared value is achieved:

• Reconceiving products and markets

Creating new products and services for existing or new markets which better serve societal needs

• Redefining productivity in the value chain

Accessing and using resources, energy, suppliers, logistics and employees differently, and more productively 

• Enabling local cluster development

Improving the local operating environment by supporting skill-development and capacity-building

The creation of both societal and business value is integral to shared value. 

Societal value comes from vastly improving the conditions in which we live; advancing health outcomes, education, employment, financial or digital inclusion, service access and participation and/or helping to reduce our impact on the environment.

Meanwhile, business value can range from increased revenue or market share to improved productivity, greater efficiency, reduced costs, improved quality, a more secure supply chain, or a more skilled or productive workforce.

“As one of the first regions to really understand the power and potential of shared value a decade ago, we need [Australia] to show the world what truly embracing shared value at a national level can look like”

• Professor Mark Kramer

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• SSM Popul Health
• v.9; 2019 Dec

Building the evidence on Making Health a Shared Value: Insights and considerations for research

May lynn tan.

a Center for Health and Community at the University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

David Vlahov

b Yale School of Nursing at Yale University, West Haven, CT, USA

M. Maria Glymour

c Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Laura M. Gottlieb

d Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Ellicott C. Matthay

Nancy e. adler.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)'s Culture of Health Action Framework guides a movement to improve health and advance health equity across the nation. Action Area One of the Framework, Making Health a Shared Value, highlights the role of individual and community factors in achieving a societal commitment to health and health equity, centered around three drivers: Mindset and Expectations, Sense of Community, and Civic Engagement. To stimulate research about how Action Area One and its drivers may impact health, Evidence for Action (E4A), a signature research funding program of RWJF, developed and released a national Call for Proposals (CFP). The process of formulating the CFP and reviewing proposals surfaced important challenges for research on creating and sustaining shared values to foster and maintain a Culture of Health. In this essay, we describe these considerations and provide examples from funded projects regarding how challenges can be addressed.

Introduction

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)'s Culture of Health Action Framework, adopted in 2013, provides a blueprint for improving health across the nation. The Framework presents specific principles and priorities that are posited to create and reinforce social norms and institutional practices that support population health, well-being, and equity through complementary pathways. The Framework was informed by earlier research and stakeholder input on the social and structural factors required to improve population health in the United States ( Acosta et al., 2017 ; Trujillo & Plough, 2016 ). It is congruent with extensive prior and ongoing investments made by RWJF and others to reduce health disparities by addressing the root causes of poor health and health inequities ( Braveman and Egerter, 2008 , p. 80). New, innovative, cross-disciplinary research is now needed to advance the Framework's ambitious agenda of eliminating health disparities and improve the nation's collective well-being ( Plough, 2015 ).

The cornerstone of the Framework is Action Area One, Making Health a Shared Value, which underscores RWJF's vision that a Culture of Health requires a societal commitment to prioritize good health for individuals and groups, leading to the adoption of social systems and power structures that enable and sustain health equity ( Chandra et al., 2016 ). As defined by RWJF: “Health equity means that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. This requires removing obstacles to health such as poverty, discrimination, and their consequences, including powerlessness and lack of access to good jobs with fair pay, quality education and housing, safe environments, and health care ( What is Health Equity?, 2019 ).” Achieving health equity depends on confronting barriers that disproportionately impact certain groups and which are largely beyond the control of any one individual, thus necessitating collective effort and shared support across multiple sectors and classes, not just those negatively impacted. This reinforces the need for Making Health a Shared Value as a foundation and catalyst for other Action Areas in the Framework. Yet despite its perceived importance, there has been relatively little evidence established on how to make health a shared value, or on how that shared value might subsequently contribute to changes that improve population health.

The three drivers of Making Health a Shared Value – Mindset and Expectations, Sense of Community, and Civic Engagement – have been defined and described previously ( Chandra et al., 2016 ), including a detailed overview of their intertwined roles. Briefly, Mindset and Expectations refer to an established outlook in which both individual and collective health are valued and prioritized, and which drives people to act in ways that improve and protect their own health and the health of others. Sense of Community relates to how interconnected one feels with others in his or her community, and may strengthen individuals' commitment to shared goals. Civic Engagement represents people's active involvement to advocate for or implement positive changes to the community. In the Action Framework, these drivers are theorized to work interactively to move populations toward establishing health as a shared value. Moreover, the Making Health a Shared Value Action Area is not seen as an independent change agent but rather as linked with each of the other three Action Areas in the Framework – Fostering Cross-Sector Collaboration; Creating Healthier, More Equitable Communities; and Strengthening Integration of Health Services and Systems – through bi-directional pathways that create synergistic opportunities to advance population health and equity ( Chandra et al., 2017 ).

Evidence for Action (E4A), one of RWJF's signature research funding programs, supports research that informs the Framework's Action Areas through the study of policy, programs, or practices that have the potential to affect population health. In weighing proposals, we pay particular attention to rigorous design, intervention targets, health outcomes, and scale of likely impact ( Gottlieb et al., 2016 ). Specifically, we select projects for funding that meet criteria of rigor, actionability, relevance, ability to meaningfully contribute to the existing evidence base, inclusion of appropriate outcome measures, and feasibility.

With a goal of catalyzing research on how population health can be improved through the cultivation of shared values or through mechanisms related to any of the three drivers, E4A issued a special national Call for Proposals (CFP) specifically focused on Making Health a Shared Value. To inform the scope and parameters of this CFP, the E4A team first reviewed the existing evidence about relationships among the three drivers and health. We expanded a previous literature review on the topic ( Chandra et al., 2016 ) to include additional published studies, programmatic reports, and Grey Literature about interventions pertaining to the drivers. We also consulted with experts about important gaps in knowledge.

The process uncovered key considerations for research design and dissemination that both shaped the research aims of the CFP and guided the selection of projects for funding. These considerations relate to challenges of: 1) defining drivers within the context of a Culture of Health; 2) articulating potential mechanisms or theories of change; 3) aligning research with key links in long causal chains; 4) addressing methodological challenges to scientific rigor; and 5) translating findings into sustainable practice. In this essay, we describe these issues and provide examples of how some of the challenges can be overcome, based on research projects funded through the CFP.

Challenge 1: Defining drivers within the context of a Culture of Health.

In the Action Framework, drivers are defined broadly, which gives researchers and practitioners the flexibility to both conceptualize and measure them in different ways. For example, Sense of Community has previously been defined by scholars as an individual's sense of membership or emotional connection to a community or group ( McMillan and Chavis, 1986 ). Yet the Framework does not limit the driver to this definition; it can also encompass a number of related constructs, such as social support and social networks (referring to the quantity, quality and density of one's relationships ( House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988 )), social cohesion (a community-level measure of the attributes that allow groups to function, such as trust between and among community members ( Chuang, Chuang, & Yang, 2013 )), and social capital (norms and resources that exist among groups that facilitate interactions and transactions ( Lochner, Kawachi, & Kennedy, 1999 ; Szreter and Woolcock, 2004 )). The common thread tethering these different interpretations to the Action Framework is the idea that cultivating a connection to others is an integral component to developing and sustaining shared values.

At the same time, many related concepts that are conceptually distinct are commonly conflated in discussions or research on the Action Framework. The Mindset and Expectations driver is especially vulnerable to this, given that both “mindset” and “expectations” have broad uses both colloquially and within other academic disciplines. The Framework employs this driver to represent the idea of a shared set of values, norms, and priorities that support health and health equity. This shared outlook may be reflected in measures at the individual level, such as opinions about health equity policies, motivations to act toward a common interest, or perceived interconnectedness or interdependence; or they may be captured at a social level, such as in school climate, norms and values. However, despite these broad parameters, other interpretations of “mindset” do not directly relate to the Action Framework: for example, mindfulness (awareness of one's thoughts, feelings, and sensations), knowledge (e.g. about a particular topic), and one's mindset toward a specific personal behavior such as healthy eating or physical activity. These interpretations all engage similar-sounding terminology but relate more to individually-centered mentalities rather than a shared value system. Finally, while the original nomenclature for the driver uses the singular “mindset” ( Chandra et al., 2016 ) to capture the notion of a distinct, convergent viewpoint shared by many people, the plural “mindsets” can be used to convey that there may be multiple variations of a shared viewpoint, depending on context – all of which can actuate a Culture of Health.

In the context of RWJF's vision and research investments, investigators are encouraged to contemplate novel ways to frame and interpret drivers, but they should consider whether these interpretations still relate directly to a Culture of Health. The studies that were funded through the CFP present a diverse set of examples of how drivers may be conceptualized. In one study, Mindset and Expectations are represented by decision makers' intentions to support policies that benefit historically marginalized groups. Another study characterizes Mindset and Expectations about health as being situated on a spectrum that ranges from a “shame and blame” paradigm to a more refined socio-ecological understanding of the root causes of health disparities. In a third study, Mindset and Expectations are represented by the underlying values and beliefs about gun ownership and stewardship shared by diverse sub-cultures of the gun-owning population. The final study uses opinions about health interconnectedness (perceived interconnectedness and support for health) as an indicator of a community's Mindset and Expectations. Table 1 displays the full list of relevant drivers for each study and outcomes to which they correspond.

Studies funded through Evidence for Action's Making Health a Shared Value Call for Proposals.

Challenge 2: Articulating the potential mechanisms or theories of change.

Irrespective of how they may be defined in specific research contexts, RWJF considers the three drivers tied to Making Health a Shared Value to be interrelated ( Trujillo & Plough, 2016 ), without a strictly linear pathway through which population health outcomes are anticipated to change as a result of intervening on any single or combination of drivers. Rather, as a result of intervention, drivers may be activated and converge to produce a hypothetical springboard or “pivot point” that, in concert with one or more other Action Areas, spurs meaningful change in communities and systems. At the same time, a lack of specificity on the potential sequencing, directionality, and strength of factors leading to health outcomes limits the ability of practitioners and policymakers to intervene strategically. It also creates challenges for researchers and program evaluators to identify conditions and circumstances in which drivers of any of the Action Areas may or may not be part of a change mechanism. Therefore, new research should clarify (or disentangle) the multiple potential paths that lead to shared values and establish empirical evidence on the relative effectiveness of intervening on drivers in certain contexts compared to others.

To do this, theories of change must be clearly hypothesized at the outset of research, because they are not always obvious to an observer. For example, what is the mechanism for how shared norms are developed in a population? They might be created through grassroots, populist movements, whereby values, attitudes, and beliefs are cultivated at an individual level, aggregated across a large group of people, and consolidated through effective leadership – leading to a societal “pivot” in how an issue is treated. Experiences from the civil rights and environmental movements ( Chandra et al., 2016 ), along with democratic movements in other countries ( Gonçalves, 2014 ), help to illustrate these phenomena. An alternative pathway is that cultural norms and priorities are shaped less by individuals extemporaneously changing their views, and more through policies that regulate behaviors and practices at a societal level, to which Mindset and Expectations adapt over time. For example, after a ruling of the Supreme Court in favor of marriage equality, survey respondents indicated greater acceptance of gay marriage as a social norm, even when their personal beliefs remained unchanged ( Tankard and Paluck, 2017 ). This has implications for equity, because people may outwardly comply with perceived social norms, at least initially, even if they disagree. These contrasting theories on how population Mindset and Expectations may be shaped are not in direct conflict: effects of multiple pathways are likely playing out simultaneously. Likewise, there is no expectation that one single mechanism applies across drivers or among different groups and contexts. However, investigators aiming to demonstrate the impact that the drivers have on health in a specific setting – vis-à-vis direct interventions or other sources of variation – must first specify the pathway(s) they are using or testing as a basis for the research.

One of the studies funded through the CFP helps to illustrate this concept. Researchers at Cornell University and Portland State University are evaluating the effects of values-based policy messaging strategies to promote funding and support for early childhood development programs, using an experimental design ( Table 1 ). Strategies will be developed for both the general public and state legislators using “policy narratives” and “inoculation messages” designed to cultivate a shared health mindset. Policy narratives are short stories that bring to life the outcomes or consequences of a particular program or policy for audiences that may not have otherwise relatable personal experiences. Inoculation messages expose audiences to weak forms of oppositional messages against a certain program or policy and help prepare decisionmakers to resist them. Here, the investigators’ proposed theory of change presumes that individuals can be induced to change their views through strategic messaging, and that when influential people (e.g., policymakers) adopt an equity-focused mindset and expectations, policies can change accordingly. Based on this proposed mechanism, the use of randomized control trials to test different types of messaging will establish whether there is a causal connection between messages and intent to act. The specification of a clear and reasonable theory of change provides a strong rationale for the selection of the intervention as well as each evaluative component of the project.

Challenge 3: Aligning research with key links in long causal chains.

Causal chains connecting social interventions to population health outcomes are lengthy and complex ( Braveman, Egerter, & Williams, 2011 ), especially when taking into consideration the multiple and iterative stages involved in cultivating Mindset and Expectations, Sense of Community, and Civic Engagement – all of which require substantial investments in trust- and capacity-building. It would be difficult for a single study to fully assess longer term health impacts of interventions – such as those acting on the drivers tied to Making Health a Shared Value – that have long latency periods. Recognizing these constraints, E4A established two key aims for funding through the CFP: 1. To test the effects of specific interventions on drivers to determine the extent to which drivers can be changed, and 2. To establish evidence of causal relationships between drivers and health outcomes [ Exhibit 1 ]. Investigators could choose to address either or both aims in a research project. Given the dearth of empirical evidence supporting the linkages between interventions and health outcomes, we considered it necessary to focus on key stages of change that could be examined within a shortened timeline (grant periods were up to 48 months). We acknowledge that establishing intermediary linkages is a necessary step toward the eventual goal of determining longer term health impacts, and that narrowing the scope of a study to focus on just one or two pivotal links in the causal chain allows researchers the opportunity to incrementally expand the empirical evidence supporting the role of this Action Area within the larger Framework.

Conceptual relationships among interventions, drivers, and health, and the specific links targeted by the Evidence for Action Making Health a Shared Value Call for Proposals (CFP).

Because the drivers tied to Making Health a Shared Value rely on interactions among people at the group or community level, environments in which people are naturally induced into group interchanges – such as schools – provide promising settings for conducting research on short-term change mechanisms. School-aged children and youth are also at a formative stage in their developmental process, and they tend to be highly suceptible to peer influence; making this a potentially important life stage for cultivating shared values. One project funded through the CFP, HAVOYCE, takes advantage of these conditions to learn how changes can be sparked within a school system to improve health ( Table 1 ). The HAVOYCE project is an arts-based program in San Francisco high schools that seeks to eliminate type 2 diabetes through a spoken word intervention both delivered by and targeting youth. This multi-component intervention includes partnerships, capacity-building workshops and mentorship to generate compelling, youth-focused content delivered through live performances and social media campaigns. Through a cluster randomized trial involving six public high schools, the research study will measure the extent to which the intervention changes youth engagement, civic action, and social norms – all of which are anticipated to be measurable within two academic years. Longer term outcomes of healthy behaviors, policy changes, and reductions in health disparities will also be assessed.

A third funded study deals with the public health problem of gun violence by focusing on a change mechanism to garner broader support for policies that prevent gun violence ( Table 1 ). In this study, investigators will define gun owner subgroups, identify their core values, and develop and frame public health messages that are consistent with values across subgroups. Communications approaches will then be evaluated through focus groups and a randomized controlled experiment to determine the effects of inclusive, targeted messaging on a national sample of gun owners’ views toward gun policy and their interest in civic engagement on gun violence prevention. Findings from this study will provide evidence of how to increase support for protective policies; and because the enactment of gun violence prevention policies is associated with population health ( Crifasi, Meyers, Vernick, & Webster, 2015 ; Díez et al., 2017 ), longer-term effects may be inferred without the need to wait for health outcomes to materialize in real time.

Challenge 4: Addressing methodological challenges to rigor.

In addition to the constraints of long timelines, research on shared values is subject to other methodological challenges that, while not unique to Making Health a Shared Value, require special consideration. These include ensuring that there are relevant community-level measures, designing studies that maximize support for causal inference, and calculating power based on the correct unit of analysis.

Since the emphasis on shared values implicitly calls for a focus on group or community-level – as opposed to individual – experiences, researchers must find ways to accurately assess group-level changes in drivers and health. With some distinct exceptions (e.g. collective efficacy, social capital, voting), there are few community-level validated measures that can indicate the extent to which Making Health a Shared Value drivers operate or change in groups or populations – making measurement a challenge for evaluating the impact of interventions targeting the drivers. For instance, there are no commonly used or validated measures for community levels of bias or discrimination, although researchers have devised indices by aggregating individual-level survey data – such as a community-level index of prejudice ( Lee, Muennig, Kawachi, & Hatzenbuehler, 2015 ). Of available broadly validated measures, not all have been validated for use among specific communities or populations that may interpret constructs or report experiences in different ways ( Enfield and Nathaniel, 2013 ; Makelarski et al., 2013 ).

The difficulty of randomizing social interventions has also been well acknowledged ( Kaufman, Kaufman, & Poole, 2003 ), and alternative quasi-experimental approaches may still not be able to overcome some challenges to causal inference. Communities and groups are not interchangeable; each one carries a distinct history that determines its composition, predisposition to health and well-being, and receptivity to change. This can complicate the process of trying to match communities on known characteristics or risk factors and introduce problems with confounding (by factors that influence both community values and health, such as self-selection of individuals into groups or communities), and contamination (because individuals travel between communities and mix with others) that can distort or attenuate the estimated effects of an intervention. Moreover, there can be heterogenous exposures of individuals within a group, neighborhood or community ( Sharkey and Faber, 2014 ), as well as differential effects that an intervention may have on subgroups. Estimating population mean effects without disaggregating by subgroup can mask some of these important outcomes on vulnerable populations, such as those less engaged in formal systems of surveillance or program participation. Finally, testing community-level interventions or responses to changes in drivers means that the community or “cluster,” not the individual, is the unit of analysis ( Donner, 1998 ). This has implications for power due to the limited number of communities that can feasibly be included in a study. In some cases, the handful of communities available to the researcher to serve as intervention and comparison communities forms a sample size that is too small to detect the effects of an intervention or of changes in drivers.

A variety of approaches may be considered to help overcome some of these challenges, such as stepped-wedge designs in which an intervention is introduced in stages across similar communities, so that temporal differences may be leveraged to isolate effects of the intervention; as well as observational studies of “natural experiments,” or exogenous changes in policies or programs that result in clear deliniations of those who are exposed and unexposed to an intervention or condition. Conversely, simulation or modeling studies – while potentially useful for generating hypotheses – often do not directly test the effects of interventions and are thus not prioritized by E4A, whose focus is on funding studies that establish evidence of impact.

The fourth study funded through the CFP ( Table 1 ) offers an example of a cluster-randomized design with a large sample size that may be used to study Making Health a Shared Value. Investigators in New Orleans are developing evidence on whether blight remediation activities, such as vacant lot greening and building improvements (e.g. trash removal; building repairs and repainting) change residents’ mindset about health interconnectedness, sense of community, and civic engagement, and ultimately reduce neighborhood, family, and youth violence. Three hundred vacant neighborhood lots were randomized to receive treatment and matched with lots in 300 comparison neighborhoods, with each lot representing a cluster of residents. This large sample of lots provides ample power to detect changes in outcomes, which are specified both at individual (feelings of health interconnectedness) and community levels (voting rates, community-level density of organizations, potential for collective efficacy). The nature of the built environment intervention, considering that residents are unlikely to move in droves between treatment and comparison neighborhoods during the study period, reduces the risk of mis-categorizing the exposed communities. Resident surveys and qualitative interviews and focus groups will provide information on differential impacts among certain groups or contexts. Ultimately, this study will determine the extent to which improvements on the built environment in disadvantaged neighborhoods can change how residents feel about health as a shared value, and it will be one of the first studies to also estimate causal relationships between drivers and population health outcomes.

Challenge 5: Translating findings into sustainable practice.

As the cornerstone of the framework for building a Culture of Health, in order to make progress toward this vision it is imperative that research on Making Health a Shared Value produces findings that are translatable to practice. To maximize the likelihood of translation, evidence may need to be developed within the context of actual programs and policies rather than under controlled “laboratory” conditions. This may be accomplished by engaging stakeholders at various stages of the process – from informing initial research questions, validating the constructs and measures to be used, providing input on intervention design and implementation, and interpreting and applying study results. Researchers must also give careful consideration to the sustainability of interventions being evaluated. There is little utility in demonstrating that a program or policy can change shared values without information about the feasibility of implementing or maintaining it at a large enough scale, and in a sustainable way, to impact population health.

Of the four studies funded through the CFP, all are taking place under real world conditions, with two in place-based contexts (urban high schools and neighborhoods) and the other two leveraging technology to virtually reach a national audience of stakeholders and decisionmakers (gun owners, the general public, and state government officials). Stakeholders in all projects have been or will be engaged in informing specific aspects of interventions to ensure appropriateness, including those aspects related to the formation of messaging, the delivery of services, and potential unanticipated effects. These projects reflect the principle that health cannot be established or sustained as a shared value without authentic engagement from those whose mindsets and actions are integral to the process.

RWJF's vision for Making Health a Shared Value calls for changes in how individuals and populations think about and value health, well-being, and equity, with the goal of creating widespread demand for conditions that support good health – not just for some, but for all. In order to achieve this, practitioners, policymakers, and members of society need evidence of what works to incrementally “drive” this Action Area forward. In soliciting and funding research to build this evidence, we identified unique challenges to conducting research in this area. We anticipate the projects chosen for funding through the CFP will make important contributions in terms of both what we know and how we generate that knowledge; yet there remain vast chasms that still need to be filled by additional empirical work. We encourage researchers and practitioners to collaborate on identifying new and novel research questions related to developing shared values. Future work ideally will address the research challenges described here and be designed to rigorously test specific mechanisms that align with a clear and actionable theory of change. Findings from this type of research will inform the refinement of the Action Framework by enabling RWJF to elaborate on the contexts and conditions under which Making Health a Shared Value drivers can be most effectively operationalized. Moreover, a better understanding of how to cultivate shared values may help us build bridges across social, cultural, and political divides, to improve health, well-being, and equity for all.

Financial disclosure

This work was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, United States (Grant 79137). Authors received no other external financial support for this work.

Conflicts of interest

Authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethics statement

Human participants were not involved in the development of this article, so no IRB approval was obtained.

• Acosta J.D., Whitley M.D., May L.W., Dubowitz T., Williams M.V., Chandra A. Vol. 6. Rand Health Q; 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568151/ (Stakeholder perspectives on a culture of health). 3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braveman P., Egerter S. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2008. Overcoming obstacles to health; p. 80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braveman P., Egerter S., Williams D.R. The social determinants of health: Coming of age. Annual Review of Public Health. 2011; 32 (1):381–398. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chandra A., Acosta J., Carman K.G. Building a national culture of health. Rand Health Q. 2017; 6 (2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568157/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chandra A., Miller C.E., Acosta J.D., Weilant S., Trujillo M., Plough A. Drivers of health as a shared value: Mindset, expectations, sense of community, and civic engagement. Health Affairs. 2016; 35 (11):1959–1963. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuang Y.-C., Chuang K.-Y., Yang T.-H. Social cohesion matters in health. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2013; 12 :87. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crifasi C.K., Meyers J.S., Vernick J.S., Webster D.W. Effects of changes in permit-to-purchase handgun laws in Connecticut and Missouri on suicide rates. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79 :43–49. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Díez C., Kurland R., Rothman E. State intimate partner violence–related firearm laws and intimate partner homicide rates in the United States, 1991 to 2015. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2017; 167 (8):536–543. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donner A. Some aspects of the design and analysis of cluster randomization trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series C: Applied Statistics. 1998; 47 (1):95–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Enfield R.P., Nathaniel K.C. Social capital: Its constructs and survey development. New Directions for Youth Development. 2013; 2013 (138):15–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonçalves S. The effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil. World Development. 2014; 53 :94–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottlieb L., Glymour M.M., Kersten E. Challenges to an integrated population health research agenda: Targets, scale, tradeoffs and timing. Social Science & Medicine. 2016; 150 :279–285. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House J.S., Umberson D., Landis K.R. Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology. 1988; 14 (1):293–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman J.S., Kaufman S., Poole C. Causal inference from randomized trials in social epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine. 2003; 57 (12):2397–2409. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee Y., Muennig P., Kawachi I., Hatzenbuehler M.L. Effects of racial prejudice on the health of communities: A multilevel survival analysis. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105 (11):2349–2355. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lochner K., Kawachi I., Kennedy B.P. Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health & Place. 1999; 5 (4):259–270. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Makelarski J.A., Lindau S.T., Fabbre V.D. Are your asset data as good as you think? Conducting a comprehensive census of built assets to improve urban population health. Journal of Urban Health. 2013; 90 (4):586–601. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMillan D.W., Chavis D.M. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology. 1986; 14 (1):6–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Plough A.L. Building a culture of health: A critical role for public health services and systems research. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105 (S2):S150–S152. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharkey P., Faber J.W. Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away from the dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annual Review of Sociology. 2014; 40 (1):559–579. [ Google Scholar ]
• Szreter S., Woolcock M. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004; 33 (4):650–667. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tankard M.E., Paluck E.L. The effect of a Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage on social norms and personal attitudes. Psychological Science. 2017; 28 (9):1334–1344. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trujillo M.D., Plough A. Building a culture of health: A new framework and measures for health and health care in America. Social Science & Medicine. 2016; 165 :206–213. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• What is health equity? RWJF. 2019. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2017/05/what-is-health-equity-.html Published. Accessed February 25.

• Cleaning for Coronavirus
• Get Your CMM Magazine Subscription
• Sign up for the CMM Newsletter

Business Sustainability Through Shared Value

Finding benefical ways to address the needs of people, profit and planet.

Our industry has continued to embrace “green” or “environmentally-friendly” products, but there is a lot more to what defines sustainability.

It is time to look beyond purely environmental factors and begin to understand other key aspects that drive sustainability improvements within the cleaning industry.

Business sustainability focuses on the balance and interdependence of three areas referred to as the three “Ps” of sustainability: People, planet and profit.

The balance between all three is sometimes referred to as the triple bottom line, where all are positive in order to be considered a “sustainable” business.

This article will address how people can benefit while businesses succeed as we maintain our environmental consciousness.

Addressing People

People are a significant contributor to sustainable development, and considering the impacts to human capital and communities is important to the overall success of any business.

One way that social issues are often addressed is through the concept of social justice.

Social justice is defined by the United Nations as “the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth.”

Candidly, I am not a proponent of this concept.

Who determines what is fair and compassionate?

What are the benefits to a business to distribute, or redistribute, the fruits of its economic growth?

From the perspective of a business owner, I think there is a far more productive viewpoint to consider — that of mutual benefit.

Common Desires

What is a common desire of all stakeholders in a business?

Employees, customers, owners, partners, vendors and regulators should all want to make a positive impact on our community through business growth.

Businesses have been suffering from a general lack of public trust and credibility for many years.

They are seen as seeking short-term gains and quarterly profits frequently at the expense of society at large.

This is an unfair view since most often businesses attempt to grow but merely manage to survive due to growing costs related to social, environmental and regulatory requirements.

The best way we can correct this misperception is to call attention to the immense value our industry provides to our customers, our shareholders and our communities.

Shared Value

Finding value that we can share is the key.

Shared value is implicitly more beneficial to stakeholders.

In shared value, businesses create economic growth in a way that must also create increasing value for society by addressing its needs and challenges.

Shared value creation focuses on identifying and expanding the connections between societal and economic progress.

Shared value places the responsibility for “doing good” on the side of business and managers.

Companies create measurable business value (again, this is economic value … or profit) by identifying and addressing social problems that affect their business.

The sustainability concept of shared value is based on the idea that both economic and social progress must be addressed using “value” principles.

Value is the relationship between benefits relative to costs, not just benefits alone.

Value creation is an idea that has long been recognized in business, where profit is easily understood as revenues earned from customers minus the costs.

However, businesses have rarely approached societal issues from the perspective of “value.”

Nostalgically we think back to the small town business running a tab for local customers, extending credit based on the good word of a neighbor or doctors making house calls.

In modern times, businesses have more often treated these societal or community issues as outside concerns, beyond their management or interest.

This has confused or hurt the connections between businesses and people.

The concept of shared value can be put to work as operating practices that increase the competitiveness of a company while at the same time advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates.

Shared value links the two entities; they are mutually dependent upon each other just as the triple bottom line connects people, planet and profit.

In society, thinking in value terms is less common than in business.

Social organizations and government agencies seem to see success in terms of the benefits achieved or the money expended.

If governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) begin to think more in value terms, their interest in collaborating with business will inevitably grow.

NGO’s such as CARE and Save the Children have helped companies in the cleaning industry develop new or expand the markets for the products they sell.

The shared value concept will leverage the power of market-based competition in addressing social problems rather than turning to the “the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth” of social justice.

Shared value is relatively new as a formal concept and was defined in the Harvard Business Review article “Creating Shared Value” (January/February 2011), by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer.

Creating Shared Value

The authors identified three ways in which shared value can be created.

It can first be done by re-conceiving products and markets.

This means that markets are evaluated in terms of unmet needs or social ills, businesses then develop profitable products or services that remedy these conditions.

Second, businesses redefine productivity in the value chain; businesses increase the productivity of the company or its suppliers by addressing the social and environmental constraints in its value chain.

Third, shared value is achieved with local cluster development.

By this, a company strengthens itself in important geographic regions in ways that contribute to the company’s growth and productivity.

Shared value is not about redistributing value created through philanthropy or about including stakeholders’ values in your corporate decisions.

Shared value instead focuses on the creation of meaningful economic and social value by your company that is greater than the costs to both your business and society.

Ultimately, value > benefits > cost.

President of BEAM Strategic Solutions

Mark Kozak is the president of BEAM Strategic Solutions, a consulting firm focused on helping companies with sustainability issues and product and process development. Kozak is a Cleaning Industry Management Standard (CIMS) ISSA Certification Expert (I.C.E.) and an adjunct professor for the Master of Business Administration (MBA) program at Benedictine University’s College of Business. Contact Kozak at [email protected] , and more information about the consulting and support services he offers can be found by visiting www.BEAMStrategic.com.

Also in Health and Safety

Facility Health and Infection Prevention Roundup

Lock in safety, think before you disinfect, be aware of vocs in cleaning products, sponsored in health and safety.

Safety: The Dirty Secret of the Cleaning & Maintenance Industries

Core concepts of disinfection, video: hand hygiene and understanding hand sanitizers, cmm webinar: enhancing facility image—beyond appearances, recent news.

Washing Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Down the Drain Failed to Stop Spread in Hospitals

Cdc quickens ability to respond to health threats, issa announces latest round of cims advanced by gbac certifications, new ruling aims to cut pfas from u.s. government custodial contracts.

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Studentshare
• What Shared Values Is

What Shared Values Is - Essay Example

• Subject: Literature
• Type: Essay
• Level: Masters
• Pages: 2 (500 words)
• Downloads: 2
• Author: oconnellbrain

Extract of sample "What Shared Values Is"

• Cited: 0 times
• Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF What Shared Values Is

Marketing: brands creating shared value, shared values and oliver twist, creating shared value (article summary), creating shared value, creating shared valued, market value of shares under/over valued methods of share valuationcalculation of share value, should education promote cultural identity or shared values, significant variance on the net asset value of the equity shares and the market share price.

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Morning Rundown: Israeli War Cabinet meets about Iran response, Trump's first criminal trial set to get underway, and 'Rust' armorer called jury 'idiots' after conviction

Marjorie Taylor Greene held Trump stock. Now that it's tanking, she won't say what happened to it.

A media company with ties to former President  Donald Trump  is off to a rocky start with share prices  tanking  and the company’s  value  diminishing by the day. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., doesn’t seem eager to discuss the struggling business, years after she purchased shares in a company that helped Trump’s business go public on the  Nasdaq .

Asked by CNBC and NBC News, Greene wouldn’t say what happened to her stock in Digital World Acquisition Corp., which, through a merger with Trump Media and Technology Group, recently started publicly trading as DJT. The share price is down at least 45% month to date.

Trump Media is the parent company of the former president’s social media app, Truth Social. Shareholders of DWAC voted to  approve  the merger with Trump Media in order to take the company public on March 22, with the company debuting on the Nasdaq on March 26. 

Greene is one of two members of Congress who disclosed buying shares in  Digital World Acquisition Corp . She and Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-Ind., each bought stock in the company in October 2021, according to financial disclosure reports, the same month the  company  announced it had completed a deal with Trump Media to merge the two entities, with the goal of the Trump business publicly trading on the stock market.

Greene bought shares of DWAC on Oct. 22, 2021, just days after the merger announcement, in an amount ranging from $15,000 to $50,000, according to her official congressional financial disclosure filings. The DWAC stock opened up  trading  that day at $118.80 and finished around $67.

Bucshon bought DWAC stock on Oct. 25, 2021, for anywhere between $1,000 and $15,000, according to a financial disclosure. DWAC’s stock  closed  the day at around $83. 

If either of the two lawmakers are still investors with DWAC now, they could have lost thousands — up to $32,500 in Greene’s case — according to Chris Josephs, the co-founder of stock trading app Autopilot. Josephs noted that Bucshon could have lost up to $8,900 with the stock price tanking.

A spokesman for Bucshon confirmed to CNBC and NBC News that the Indiana lawmaker still owns stock in the now-merged media company despite the dipping stock price. 

“Congressman Bucshon has taken no further action regarding his investment in DWAC since its initial purchase in October 2021, and he has fully complied with all disclosure requirements required under federal law related to that trade,” the spokesman said in a statement.

He did not return follow-up questions on why Bucshon continued to hold the stock, which closed at $32 on Thursday, marking a 54% drop in share price since the stock debuted on the Nasdaq in March. The company has also erased all of its gains since shares began trading under the DJT ticker at $70.90.

Bucshon’s most recent annual financial disclosure shows he entered 2023 with DWAC stock valued in the range of $1,001 to $15,000.

But Greene would not say what’s happened to her stock since her original purchase and her public disclosures have not shown that she sold DWAC or Trump media stock, according to documents archived by LegiStorm, raising questions among ethics lawyers about what happened to Greene’s stock.

When asked about the status of her DWAC stock, Greene spokesman Nick Dyer said in an e-mail that Greene “holds no stocks at this time as reflected in her financial disclosure.”

He did not return follow-up requests for comment about what happened to her shares in the company.

Greene also would not say when asked by NBC News on Wednesday what happened to her Trump Media stock. “This is a waste of time. I think you can read my reports and see what I own,” she said.

“Where is her stock at?” Richard Painter, a former George W. Bush White House ethics lawyer, said in a phone interview.

He and other ethics lawyers offered a few potential reasons why Greene wouldn’t have included the stock on her recent disclosures.

If she still owns DWAC stock and the estimated value of the asset went below $1,000, it would not be required to be disclosed, according to Campaign Legal Center general counsel Kedric Payne.

Another plausible scenario is Greene sold her stock recently. In that case, she wouldn’t have to disclose the sale for up to 45 days, according to Painter. She also could have lost the asset during her 2022 divorce proceedings with her then-husband, Painter said, noting that if the stock was given away through a divorce settlement, it may not be considered an asset transaction. Greene finalized her divorce in December 2022, according to  Business Insider.

“She’s got to explain what the heck happened,” Painter explained. 

Lawmakers aren’t prohibited from trading or holding individual stocks and other investments. But under the STOCK Act, members of Congress must report any trades within 45 days.

Some members of Congress and outside groups have long argued that members of Congress should not be allowed to trade stock while serving as elected officials. But legislation that would ban them from trading individual stocks has languished in Congress.

-- NBC News’ Scott Wong contributed to this story.

More from CNBC:

• JPMorgan Chase shares drop after bank gives disappointing guidance on 2024 interest income
• Ford prepares to resume F-150 Lightning shipments, drops prices on some models
• What to expect from bank earnings as high interest rates pressure small players

Trump Media Stock Has Dropped 50% Since It Began Trading, Cutting Value of Trump’s Stake by About $2.6 Billion

By Todd Spangler

Todd Spangler

NY Digital Editor

• Trump Media Stock Has Dropped 50% Since It Began Trading, Cutting Value of Trump’s Stake by About $2.6 Billion 3 days ago
• Roku Says 576,000 Streaming Accounts Compromised in Security Breach 3 days ago
• Four Paramount Global Board Members to Exit Amid Skydance M&A Talks 4 days ago

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group, the company majority-owned by Donald Trump that operates the Truth Social social media network, have fallen about 50% off their high since they started trading a little over two weeks ago.

TMTG stock closed at $32.59 per share Friday, rallying late in the day to close up 0.6% — but it’s down 50.7% from its peak closing price of $66.22 per share on March 27, the day after it first started trading on the Nasdaq exchange. The company’s market cap is now about $4.55 billion, down from an intraday peak of more than $9.5 billion on March 26, according to CNBC.

Popular on Variety

In an 8-K filing April 1 with the SEC, Trump Media disclosed full-year 2023 net sales of $4.13 million, an operating loss of $15.97 million and a net loss of $58.19 million.

Last week, IAC chairman Barry Diller said in an appearance on CNBC that Trump Media is a “scam” and that people buying stock in the company are “dopes.”

A Trump Media spokesperson told CNN , “Truth Social created a free-speech beachhead against Big Tech for a fraction of the start-up and operating costs that the legacy tech corporations incurred. We have no debt, more than $200 million in the bank, and the support of hundreds of thousands of retail investors who fervently believe in our mission.”

TMTG’s mission, per its description of itself, is “to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet and giving people their voices back. TMTG operates Truth Social, a social media platform established as a safe harbor for free expression amid increasingly harsh censorship by Big Tech corporations.”

More From Our Brands

Here’s everything you need to know about trump’s new york criminal trial, tony bennett’s rare rolexes, cartiers, and other watches are heading to auction, bryce harper bats away subpoena in under armour patent case, be tough on dirt but gentle on your body with the best soaps for sensitive skin, billy joel 100th concert special: how to stream the performance online, verify it's you, please log in.

Nestle Company Social Responsibility and Shared Value Essay

Company background, corporate social responsibility (csr) and creating shared value (csv), primary and secondary industries, differences between creating shared values and corporate social responsibility, benefits of adopting a creating shared value approach, how creating shared value contributes to corporate social responsibility, how the values of an organisation benefit stakeholders, limitations of corporate social responsibilities and creating shared values.

Nestle is the largest beverage and food company located in Switzerland. Its formation occurred as a merger between Anglo-Swiss Milk Company and Farine Lactee Henri Nestle in 1905 and has since then acquired other companies like Crosse and Blackwell (1950), Findus (1963), Libby’s (1971), Rowntree Mackintosh (1988) and Gerber (2007). It specialises in producing baby foods, coffee confectionery, snacks, pet foods, ice cream, bottled water and a variety of dairy products.

This is a multinational company that employs around 328,000 people in its 450 factories located in 86 nations. Its 2012 annual financial report shows that it had an enormous capital base (operating income about 14.44, revenue 92.18, profit 10.61, total assets 126.22 and total equity 62.20-figures in CHF billions).Its rivals include Uniliver, Cadbury, PepsiCo, Sara Lee, Kraft Foods and Dano.

Corporate social responsibility is a deliberate action taken by investors to ensure they participate in activities that promote positive development in the community around them. It involves the establishment of programmes that ensure a business pays back to the society through participation in community activities. This may include constructing schools, establishing sponsorship programmes, easing the implementation of environmental conservation policies and empowering local communities to safeguard their future.

Creating a shared value involves the implementation of policies that ensure businesses get quality raw materials and offer awareness and education programmes to their suppliers to help them get better rewards for their participation in promoting businesses. This includes issues like research on production activities to ensure producers use modern technology and improved seed and animal breeds to boost their harvests. CSR and CSV help organisations to create a good public image and avoid conflicts with local communities and authorities.

A primary industry is one that acquires raw materials from its natural habitats and processes them to produce finished goods that are ready for consumption. This includes processing and service industries. On the other hand, a secondary industry is one that uses the products of other businesses and converts them into finished goods for consumption. Nestle can be classified as a primary and secondary industry because it uses raw materials (cocoa berries) from farmers’ cooperative societies and processes them to produce cocoa, chocolate and other products. On the other hand, it is a primary industry because it uses milk from farmers to produce a variety of its products. It combines primary and secondary production processes to maximise its profits and reduce costs.

CSV differs with CSR in the following ways. First, CSV focuses on improving the value of products and services offered by a business. Nestle embraces this aspect by conducting research on seed breeds and quality and working with local organisations to help farmers to get high yields. This enables this company to get quality raw materials that improve the value and taste of its products. However, CSR focuses on ensuring that a business uses responsible approaches in its production processes. In addition, it includes the establishment of policies that compel an organisation to reward the local community because of its continued support.

An example of CSR is the establishment of various sponsorship programmes that encourage the children of cocoa farmers go to school to safeguard their future. Secondly, CSV involves the establishment of long term projects that enables businesses to work with local communities in ensuring the products of an organisation benefits it and the society. An example of this includes the establishment of research centres to help farmers to know and use high yielding seeds. On the other hand, CSR focuses on establishing programmes or participating in activities that help local communities to improve their lives and become responsible in the society.

Examples of Nestle’s CSR include the establishment of programs like school sponsorships to eliminate child labour and paying farmers reasonable amounts of money to alleviate poverty. Thirdly, CSV concentrates on the activities of a business and its publics while CSR involves participation in issues that may not be related to a company like sports, environmental conservation and social activism. For instance, Nestle’s CSV aims at creating value for its products and farmers by investing in research, water supply and nutrition. Its CSR includes the construction of schools near cocoa farmers to motivate their children to stop migrating to urban centres to look for jobs and instead attend schools to benefit them in the future.

Nestle is striving to ensure its CSV approach satisfies its needs and those of its consumers and suppliers. The following advantages will be realised when this company continues to invest in a suitable CSV. First, investing in research will allow this company to have a steady supply of quality cocoa. This will increase farmers’ production by about 50%-200%; therefore, they will grow more and sustain a reliable high income. The research and development centre established in Abidjan conducts studies on how to produce high yielding and disease resistant crops. This will guarantee a steady supply of raw materials for nestle and at the same time guarantee a safe financial future for farmers.

Secondly, it has invested in training farmers to know and embrace proper crop management skills. This will make sure their harvests are of high quality and enable the company to produce cheap and healthy products. Investing in pest management training ensures the efforts of farmers are not frustrated by poor yields due to infections. In addition, the creation of awareness of children’s rights will reduce instances of child labour and equip children and parents will relevant skills that will help them to do what is appropriate for their ages. This ensures Nestle will have farmers in the future that will continue to supply raw materials for its production processes.

Improving social conditions through partnership with the World Cocoa Foundation to construct schools and repair old ones in the cocoa growing regions will help the local communities to benefit from the profits generated by this company. This effort is important in supporting cocoa farmers to educate their children and ensure their future is bright. The welfare of cocoa farmers will be improved and they will work hard to make sure this company has a steady supply of raw materials. It is necessary to explain that farmers will be discouraged from investing in cocoa farming or other economic activities if they have difficulties providing basic needs for their families.

Nestle’s decision to pay premiums for its cocoa beans when they are certified by the Fairtrade and UTZ improves the quality of its products and this means that farmers get good pays on their harvests. In addition, its membership in the Fair Labour Association helps its activities to be assessed independently and openly. This promotes the public image of Nestle and attracts investors and customers.

CSV enables businesses to improve the welfare of their suppliers. Nestle has well established ways of ensuring cocoa farmers do not waste time transporting their produces to farmers cooperative societies. This gives them time to concentrate on other activities and rest. This is part of its corporate social responsibilities that help farmers to work without inconveniences. In addition, this company has invested in constructing new and repairing old schools to enable children get quality education. This is part of its social responsibility of ensuring that farmers’ children have a bright future. Moreover, investing in research helps this company to get raw materials of high quality.

This means that farmers will benefit from increased yields and have adequate money for their needs. This is a creating shared value approach that guarantees both farmers and Nestle benefit from high quality products. In addition, it leads to corporate social responsibility by ensuring farmers earn decent income from selling their products to Nestle. Lastly, Nestle has established mechanisms of making sure that farmers do not use their children as farm labourers. This CSV leads to CSR because it ensures this company is committed to eliminate child labour amongst cocoa farmers by encouraging local communities to take their children to schools and sponsoring those that want to pursue higher learning.

Values of organisations should benefit stakeholders so that they can appreciate their presence and help them to improve their performance. Nestle is committed to ensuring that farmers get value for their sweat. It has invested heavily in research and partnered with several local and international organisations to ensure the quality of seedlings given to farmers will boost their production. In addition, the introductions of pest and disease resistant cocoa seedlings will ensure the future of farmers is guaranteed.

It is necessary to explain that farmers will get high yields and good profits on their investments when Nestle introduces new varieties of cocoa plants. In addition, consumers will get products of high quality when Nestle gets raw materials that have been produced through appropriate farming methods. Therefore, consumers will enjoy the products of this company and continue benefiting from their nutritional values. Lastly, the local community and government will benefit from the construction of new schools and repair of old ones and this means that the future of farmers’ children will be secured.

The greatest disadvantage of CSR is that it diverts the attention of businesses from generating profits to providing social infrastructure to local communities. This makes organisations to focus on activities that may affect their production and sales. For instance, Nestle is participating in education programns and this is different from its area of specialisation. Moreover, it focuses on farmers’ families instead of concentrating on their roles in supplying raw materials to the company.

In addition, not all organisations participate in corporate social responsibilities and this means that others may take advantage of weak companies and edge them from markets. For instance, other companies that produce drinking chocolate, soft drinks, chocolate bars and other related items will take advantage of Nestles involvement in CSR and develop propaganda to deform its public image. Thirdly, CSV and CSR are matters of public relations and most of them do not have positive impacts on local communities or even the management of an organisation.

The lives of cocoa farmers in Abidjan have remained poor despite the efforts of Nestle to improve their livelihoods. Moreover, there has not been a significant improvement in Nestle’s performance after it established its CSV and CSR programmes. Furthermore, the process of offering social support to local communities may make businesses to indulge in illegal activities like corruption, bribery and discrimination that may interfere with their operations and affect the lives of consumers. For instance, it is not easy to decide which schools to repair or where to build new ones because all communities would want to have improved learning institutions.

Therefore, farmers may not properly perceive the intentions of this company if it does not give them first priorities over those from other regions. Lastly, CSR and CSV force businesses to incur additional expenses and does not offer long term benefits to farmers. Nestle may be forced to recruit additional staff that is required to fulfill CSR jobs that were not in its initial plans. These expenses are usually reflected in increased prices of commodities. Therefore, consumers are forced to spend more money on buying products yet their qualities and quantities remain poor. Moreover, farmers do not get reasonable compensations even if companies register improved sales and this makes Nestle’s CSR and CSV inappropriate ways of rewarding farmers.

Nestle has a rich history of participating in community development though its expansive CSR programmes. In addition, it has been reecognised as an active investment that considers its need to generate profits and improve the lives of its suppliers. This company has not achieved its targets and this may not be easy due to increased competition, political influence and rigidity of local communities. Its involvement in CSR and CSV should be evaluated to ensure this company does not divert its focus by participating and incurring unnecessary expenses on profitable activities. The local communities should make use of the opportunities offered by this company to ensure their children are educated and farmers get good pays for their produces.

Differences between CSR and CSV

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 24). Nestle Company Social Responsibility and Shared Value. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nestle-company-social-responsibility-and-shared-value/

"Nestle Company Social Responsibility and Shared Value." IvyPanda , 24 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/nestle-company-social-responsibility-and-shared-value/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Nestle Company Social Responsibility and Shared Value'. 24 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Nestle Company Social Responsibility and Shared Value." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nestle-company-social-responsibility-and-shared-value/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nestle Company Social Responsibility and Shared Value." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nestle-company-social-responsibility-and-shared-value/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nestle Company Social Responsibility and Shared Value." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nestle-company-social-responsibility-and-shared-value/.

• Business Advice for Chipping Stoneford Vets
• The Chipping Stoneford Vets Practice's Strategy
• Creating Shared Value: Business and Society
• Health Benefits of Cocoa
• World Cocoa Market: Past and Present
• ISURVEY, Dub Interviewer, Voxco Online Software
• Enterprise Service Bus Overview
• Cocoa Production and Its Environmental Performance
• Microsoft Excel 2019 Experience
• Nestlé Company and Child Labour Exploitation
• Khalifa Fund's Innovations and Improvements
• Weight Watchers International Inc.'s Competition
• The Massachusetts Restaurant Appliances Company Management
• Saudi Marco Organization's Year of Service Program
• The Scholarships Office's Lack of Transparency

• International

Iran launches barrage of strikes toward Israel

By Tori B. Powell , Sophie Tanno, Emma Tucker , Kaanita Iyer , Paul LeBlanc and Adrienne Vogt , Jerome Taylor and James Legge, CNN

Biden tells Netanyahu tonight was a win, nothing of "value" hit in Israel, US official says 

From CNN's MJ Lee

Israel should consider tonight a win because the current US assessment is that Iran’s attacks had been largely unsuccessful and demonstrated Israel’s superior military capability, President Joe Biden told Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in their phone call, a senior administration official told CNN.

The US’s assessment tonight was that almost all of the drones and missiles – including more than 100 ballistic missiles -- launched by Iran had been knocked out of the sky. No cruise missile made impact, the official said, and nothing of “value” was hit. 

Bolton: 'Passivity at this point for Israel would be a big mistake'

From CNN's Heather Chen

John Bolton, the former US national security adviser and ambassador to the UN, said “passivity at this point for Israel would be a big mistake,” warning of more attacks. 

“This is not time to play academic games and message and signal. This is a question of power,” Bolton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. "If they came from a different location containing nuclear warheads, Israel might not be so lucky.”

A known Iran policy hawk, Bolton served in senior national security positions during the Trump and Bush administrations. A neoconservative, Bolton has in the past advocated war with Iran and a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.

In 2022, he was the target of an alleged assassination attempt orchestrated by a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

He has warned against underestimating Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran has said is for peaceful purposes only.

“I think we have enough experience with faulty intelligence by now, not to be so sure, not to know how much of Iran’s uranium enrichment program is really being conducted under a mountain in North Korea,” Bolton said.

If Tehran sent “a wire transfer to Pyongyang,” it would give the North Koreans “enough time to put a couple of warheads on an airplane and fly them to Tehran. (But) if you take away their nuclear capability, that would be a dramatic hit to the regime, maybe enough to topple it.”

Israeli military says more than 55 rockets fired from Lebanon to Israel over past hour

More than 55 rockets have been fired from Lebanon to Israel over the past hour, according to the Israeli military's spokesperson.

This comes after about 40 rockets were fired at Israel from southern Lebanon on Friday, according to the Israel Defense Forces. Hezbollah militants said they had fired the rockets at Israeli artillery positions in response to recent Israeli attacks and in support of Palestinian people in Gaza.

Remember: Since the start of the Hamas-Israel war on October 7, Israel's flare-up with Hezbollah has intensified on Lebanon’s southern border with Israel.

Hezbollah — a Lebanese armed group backed by Iran — has its main area of operations there. Hezbollah has frequently fired missiles into Israel since October 7 and Israel has responded with its own fire, including airstrikes. Israel has ordered the evacuation of communities along the Lebanese border.

Iran's attack on Israel lasted about five hours, US officials say

From CNN’s Oren Liebermann

The wave of strikes launched from Iran towards Israel appears to have subsided, two US officials said. The attacks lasted approximately five hours.

Early Sunday morning in Israel, the country’s Home Front Command canceled its request for citizens to remain near shelters, an indication that the Israeli military believes the immediate threat of incoming attack has passed.

The US, along with Israel, monitored the barrage of drone and missile attacks that began Saturday night and continued into early Sunday morning. The number of launches appeared to fall during Sunday's early hours, the officials said.

US forces throughout the region were positioned to provide defensive support to Israel ahead of the attack, and the US intended to intercept as many of the launches as it could. US forces intercepted a number of drones intended for Israel as part of a coordinated defensive effort, and Washington remains vigilant for the potential of more activity.

However, even as the number of Iranian drone and missile launches has fallen, Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon fired a barrage of rockets at northern Israel early Sunday morning.

No reports of injuries directly through Iranian strikes, according to Israel’s emergency service

From CNN’s Benjamin Brown in London

There have been no reports of injuries suffered directly through Iranian strikes, according to Israel’s emergency service.

However, the Magen David Adom (MDA) emergency service said it was called to treat a total of 31 people who suffered minor injuries while making their way to shelters and who suffered panic attacks during the drone and missile attacks.

Earlier, MDA said it had taken a 7-year-old girl to hospital who had suffered a severe head injury due to shrapnel from an interceptor missile that was launched to intercept an Iranian projectile. 

Sirens sound in Golan Heights after 25 projectiles fired from Lebanon, Israeli military says

From CNN's Tamar Michaelis in Jerusalem and Benjamin Brown in London

Sirens have sounded in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as around 25 projectiles were fired from Lebanon, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

The IDF said sirens sounded in the settlements of Ortal and Sha'al early Sunday. That came after Iran attacked Israel with drones, cruise and ballistic missiles.

It did not specify the type of projectiles fired, or whether they were intercepted.

Earlier Sunday, a barrage of at least 10 rockets was fired from Lebanon towards Israel, an Israeli military spokesperson told CNN.

Sirens sounded in the Upper Galilee region of northern Israel due to the rocket fire, the IDF said in a statement.

On Friday, around 40 rockets were fired at Israel from southern Lebanon, according to the IDF. Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah militants said they had fired the rockets at Israeli artillery positions in response to recent Israeli attacks and in support of Palestinian people in Gaza.

Canada "unequivocally condemns" Iran's attack on Israel, PM Trudeau says

From CNN's Paula Newton

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Saturday that the country stands with Israel following Iran's attack, which he said demonstrates "the Iranian regime’s disregard for peace and stability in the region."

“Canada unequivocally condemns Iran’s airborne attacks against Israel," Trudeau said in a statement. "We stand with Israel. After supporting Hamas’ brutal October 7 attack, the Iranian regime’s latest actions will further destabilize the region and make lasting peace more difficult."

"We support Israel’s right to defend itself and its people from these attacks," Trudeau added.

Trudeau also said he is "receiving regular updates" from national security and defense officials, and remains "in contact with allies" as Canada continues to monitor the situation "closely."

Biden spoke by phone with Netanyahu

From CNN’s Philip Wang

US President Joe Biden spoke by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the White House. A readout will follow.

US defense secretary asks Israeli counterpart to notify US ahead of any potential response to Iranian attack

From CNN's Oren Liebermann

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has asked his Israeli counterpart, Minister Yoav Gallant, to notify the US ahead of any potential response to the Iranian attack, according to a US official.

The two spoke on Saturday evening, hours after Iran had launched its massive barrage of drones and missiles at Israel.

According to an Israeli readout of the call, Gallant briefed Austin about Israel’s defense operations so far and stressed that Israel is ready for any further attacks.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

NPR in Turmoil After It Is Accused of Liberal Bias

An essay from an editor at the broadcaster has generated a firestorm of criticism about the network on social media, especially among conservatives.

By Benjamin Mullin and Katie Robertson

NPR is facing both internal tumult and a fusillade of attacks by prominent conservatives this week after a senior editor publicly claimed the broadcaster had allowed liberal bias to affect its coverage, risking its trust with audiences.

Uri Berliner, a senior business editor who has worked at NPR for 25 years, wrote in an essay published Tuesday by The Free Press, a popular Substack publication, that “people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.”

Mr. Berliner, a Peabody Award-winning journalist, castigated NPR for what he said was a litany of journalistic missteps around coverage of several major news events, including the origins of Covid-19 and the war in Gaza. He also said the internal culture at NPR had placed race and identity as “paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace.”

Mr. Berliner’s essay has ignited a firestorm of criticism of NPR on social media, especially among conservatives who have long accused the network of political bias in its reporting. Former President Donald J. Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to argue that NPR’s government funding should be rescinded, an argument he has made in the past.

NPR has forcefully pushed back on Mr. Berliner’s accusations and the criticism.

“We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories,” Edith Chapin, the organization’s editor in chief, said in an email to staff on Tuesday. “We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world.” Some other NPR journalists also criticized the essay publicly, including Eric Deggans, its TV critic, who faulted Mr. Berliner for not giving NPR an opportunity to comment on the piece.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Berliner expressed no regrets about publishing the essay, saying he loved NPR and hoped to make it better by airing criticisms that have gone unheeded by leaders for years. He called NPR a “national trust” that people rely on for fair reporting and superb storytelling.

“I decided to go out and publish it in hopes that something would change, and that we get a broader conversation going about how the news is covered,” Mr. Berliner said.

He said he had not been disciplined by managers, though he said he had received a note from his supervisor reminding him that NPR requires employees to clear speaking appearances and media requests with standards and media relations. He said he didn’t run his remarks to The New York Times by network spokespeople.

When the hosts of NPR’s biggest shows, including “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” convened on Wednesday afternoon for a long-scheduled meet-and-greet with the network’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher , conversation soon turned to Mr. Berliner’s essay, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting. During the lunch, Ms. Chapin told the hosts that she didn’t want Mr. Berliner to become a “martyr,” the people said.

Mr. Berliner’s essay also sent critical Slack messages whizzing through some of the same employee affinity groups focused on racial and sexual identity that he cited in his essay. In one group, several staff members disputed Mr. Berliner’s points about a lack of ideological diversity and said efforts to recruit more people of color would make NPR’s journalism better.

On Wednesday, staff members from “Morning Edition” convened to discuss the fallout from Mr. Berliner’s essay. During the meeting, an NPR producer took issue with Mr. Berliner’s argument for why NPR’s listenership has fallen off, describing a variety of factors that have contributed to the change.

Mr. Berliner’s remarks prompted vehement pushback from several news executives. Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor of standards and practices, said in an interview that he rejected all of Mr. Berliner’s claims of unfairness, adding that his remarks would probably make it harder for NPR journalists to do their jobs.

“The next time one of our people calls up a Republican congressman or something and tries to get an answer from them, they may well say, ‘Oh, I read these stories, you guys aren’t fair, so I’m not going to talk to you,’” Mr. Cavin said.

Some journalists have defended Mr. Berliner’s essay. Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR’s former ombudsman, said Mr. Berliner was “not wrong” on social media. Chuck Holmes, a former managing editor at NPR, called Mr. Berliner’s essay “brave” on Facebook.

Mr. Berliner’s criticism was the latest salvo within NPR, which is no stranger to internal division. In October, Mr. Berliner took part in a lengthy debate over whether NPR should defer to language proposed by the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association while covering the conflict in Gaza.

“We don’t need to rely on an advocacy group’s guidance,” Mr. Berliner wrote, according to a copy of the email exchange viewed by The Times. “Our job is to seek out the facts and report them.” The debate didn’t change NPR’s language guidance, which is made by editors who weren’t part of the discussion. And in a statement on Thursday, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association said it is a professional association for journalists, not a political advocacy group.

Mr. Berliner’s public criticism has highlighted broader concerns within NPR about the public broadcaster’s mission amid continued financial struggles. Last year, NPR cut 10 percent of its staff and canceled four podcasts, including the popular “Invisibilia,” as it tried to make up for a $30 million budget shortfall. Listeners have drifted away from traditional radio to podcasts, and the advertising market has been unsteady.

In his essay, Mr. Berliner laid some of the blame at the feet of NPR’s former chief executive, John Lansing, who said he was retiring at the end of last year after four years in the role. He was replaced by Ms. Maher, who started on March 25.

During a meeting with employees in her first week, Ms. Maher was asked what she thought about decisions to give a platform to political figures like Ronna McDaniel, the former Republican Party chair whose position as a political analyst at NBC News became untenable after an on-air revolt from hosts who criticized her efforts to undermine the 2020 election.

“I think that this conversation has been one that does not have an easy answer,” Ms. Maher responded.

Benjamin Mullin reports on the major companies behind news and entertainment. Contact Ben securely on Signal at +1 530-961-3223 or email at [email protected] . More about Benjamin Mullin

Katie Robertson covers the media industry for The Times. Email:  [email protected]   More about Katie Robertson