Beyond CSI: A Simple Introduction to Creating Shared Value

Opinion Article by Jackson Tshabalala

Some Contextual Background

I have just had a two-week stint in Europe, which encompassed a few days at the UNESCO Digital Learning Week. Prior to that, the month of August was spent criss-crossing the length and breadth of our country rolling out the Women in STEM programme with a corporate funder. Concentrating on practical transformation through fair access strategies and the restoration of hope and dignity where people feel left behind, this is the crux of my work, which is mostly focused on underserved communities. 

As you would expect, the discussions in Paris centred around artificial intelligence. My question in those forums was simple: “What happens to the learners in more than sixty percent of schools that have no computer labs or internet in a growing digital economy?” These discussions are often predicated on an already digitally connected world, where everyone has access to the internet and an enabling device. I was tasked with identifying and listening in for the solutions, there were some notable ones including work on AI Unplugged. Still, I felt the tension of being an outsider. “Do they care? Does this add value to them? Am I asking for a handout?” I realised I was not. From business leaders to social activists to conflicted technologists … I was inviting them to see opportunities that serve society and improve returns. That is at the heart of shared value.

Shared Value and Why it matters to Strategy

The concept of shared value entered the mainstream in 2011 in a Harvard Business Review article by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer. They argued that companies can create economic value by tackling social problems that sit close to their core business. It sought challenge the view of corporate responsibility as a public relations and compliance exercise. Philanthropy and compliance had grown but the social problems that shape markets and costs were still largely untouched by core strategy. The call was to move beyond just cheques and reporting and to design for mutual advantage.

Three practical routes the authors outlined included:

  • Reconceive products and markets to meet real unmet needs;
  • Redefine productivity in the value chain by removing social and environmental waste; 
  • Build supportive local clusters so suppliers, skills pipelines and public services become more capable over time.

None of these sits in a slide deck called CSI. It belongs in product, operations and ecosystem building. It asks leaders to pair a business metric with a social outcome and to fund the work from operating budgets, not only from a small CSI line.

Why this goes beyond traditional CSI:

  • CSI has real value but is often a small budget with short cycles and soft reporting.
  • It rarely changes the unit economics of the core business.
  • Shared value asks leaders to choose a social constraint that already affects growth, costs or risk and to design a solution people will use because it makes life better.
  • Prove it with paired metrics and scale only when both lines move.

What this means for NGO leaders:

  • Come as collaborators, not as grant seekers.
  • Frame your offer around a constraint the business already feels.
  • Show the pathway from your intervention to a business result and a community result.
  • Put numbers next to point two & three above and speak the language of cost, risk and growth as well as dignity, access and learning.

What this means for business leaders:

  • Make shared value part of the executive strategy.
  • Put product and operations leaders at the table with partners and communities
  • Fund pilots from operating budgets
  • Tie incentives to one social outcome and one business outcome and report them together

Why it matters

Shared value matters because it changes the posture of partnership. Professionals in the social impact space do not come in as supplicants but as collaborators. Instead of asking for a slice of a CSI budget, it helps position social impact organisations as solving constraints that already hurt business economics, skills gaps, last mile access, and trust and adoption. When those are fixed, the community lifts and business breathe better.

This is not a theory for boardroom presentation slideshows. It shows up in real people’s lives. In 2018 a grade 10 learner was introduced to our unplugged coding game. He didn’t know about software development and had never coded before. Our project changed the game for him, quite literally. Curiosity turned into practice. Marks improved. A door opened to study computing sciences. Today he works as a developer abroad. Multiply that story and you get lower hiring risk, better productivity, stronger local markets and a more resilient social fabric. This is not charity. It is a better way to compete that leaves communities better than it found them.

How does this look like in real life?

A major Insurance Company in South Africa shows the idea in practice through a programme called Vitality, which rewards members for healthy choices. Members earn points for everyday actions. Walking. Gym. Health checks. Points unlock meaningful rewards and can improve premiums. The rewards keep people engaged. Health improves. Claims fall. The company shares part of the savings with members. The risk pool gets stronger. That is the loop.

Business impact for Insurance Company above:

  • Lower claims costs per member over time as engaged members are more active and screen earlier, which reduces the frequency and severity of claims.
  • Higher retention and product “stickiness”, since members value the rewards and stay with the product longer, which improves lifetime value and reduces reacquisition costs.
  • More resilient margins and growth options, as the Vitality engine supports new products and partnerships while keeping risk stable.

Societal Impact:

  • People move more, do screenings and build lasting habits that reduce disease risk
  • Lower mortality among highly engaged members over long periods, with fewer severe events and earlier interventions.
  • Less strain on the health system and more productive households that save money and time.

How can Shared Value be created?

  1. Name the shared constraint
    Choose one social problem that already holds back growth or raises costs for the company. If fixing it will not change your profit and loss, choose a different problem.
  2. Design with users
    Go where the constraint shows up. Co-design useful change with the people who live it. In schools without labs that means unplugged tools, teacher training, and a clear path from first touch to ongoing practice.
  3. Pair two metrics
    Pick one business metric and one social outcome that should move together. Report them side by side on your main dashboard, not in a separate CSI deck. For example, sales via micro retailers with the average monthly income those retailers earn.
  4. Build the enabling circle
    Bring partners who control key levers. Schools, local government, universities and community groups. Keep the model light on infrastructure and heavy on capability so it can move across regions.
  5. Commit and iterate
    Pilot in one place. Learn fast. If both metrics move, scale. If not, fix the design or stop. This is strategy, not charity, so the numbers must speak.

Guardrails

  • Shared value does not excuse weak ethics.
  • If a core product harms people, working around it will not fix the contradiction.
  • Be clear about trade-offs and limits and publish your method.
  • Invite independent evaluation and listen to communities even when it is uncomfortable.
  • Do not shift costs onto suppliers or the public.
  • Design for dignity and stay patient because real behaviour change takes time and trust.

Some thoughtful critiques exist. Crane and colleagues argue that shared value can repackage older ideas and gloss over real trade-offs. Karnani warns that the promise of doing well by doing good does not always hold and that some issues require regulation and rights based approaches rather than business incentives alone. Evidence can be patchy and self-reported, so measurement and accountability matter. Please remember that this thought piece is just an introduction. In the coming months we will explore these critiques in more depth and share practical ways to handle trade-offs, strengthen evidence and build governance that keeps both the business and the community at the centre.

To the CEOs, funders and NPO leaders reading this. Pick one stubborn constraint that already touches your economics. Sit with the people who live it. Build the smallest useful solution together. Choose one social metric and one business metric and report them side by side. Bring partners who hold key levers. If both lines move, keep going. If they do not, fix the design and try again. This is not a plea for a once off grant. It is an invitation to build something that compounds. Profit and progress, together.

HMI is a Think Tank of The House Mazibuko Foundation NPC which is a Non Profit Organisation that is funded through generous donations. Please kindly click the below button to be a part of our movement.

Donate