As a student of architecture and an enthusiastic critic of its industry, I have found that the practice of design offers a unique lens through which the greater deficiencies of our predominant economic framework can be understood. Architecture is taught as a service, whose entire purpose is to create free value for the world. Architects are responsible for designing structures that satisfy clients, that please the community, that meet municipal requirements, and that are kind to the planet. However, when looking at the bottom line, architects are only hired by and compensated for by the client. While the client is a consumer of the architect’s services, the end-user of architecture is the population of individuals who visit its site, inhabit it, and surround it. Yet, the architect’s client only demands and compensates for what most reduces their costs, and what most explicitly adds to their value. The client does not observe an explicit increase in profits by pleasing the community, designing beyond municipal requirements, or building sustainably. So the client does not compensate the architect for such considerations, and the architect does not design for them.
Design is defined as the act of creating change for the sake of achieving a better state of conditions from before. Various fields of design pursue different scopes of what they hope to alter, from a personal commission chair for a single individual to a building for the community of an entire metropolitan. The value of design increases in proportion to the designer’s consideration of the interests involved in changing those conditions, and with an increase in consideration for those stakeholders comes an increase in design value. This principle holds at any scale of design, and in any context. Yet with the extreme growth of civilization resulting from the adoption of a capitalist economy, the value of design itself has been called into question. Manfredo Tafuri captured this phenomenon as the economy’s abandoned need for intellectual work, work whose productivity is not tangibly seen, but whose benefit is invaluable to the progress of civilization.1 Architects no longer design for the economical, political, social, and ecological interests of civilization. Architects no longer design to render a service that may benefit all of those who participate in the built environment. If the field of architecture, whose entire purpose is defined by the creation of shared value, cannot sustain those efforts within the modern economy, then what hope is there for anyone else to?
Michael Edwards and Gita Sen first argued that society could only change through any one of, or a combination of, society’s morals, institutions, or subjective thinking.2 And it was the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, who understood that the efficiency and fairness of a capitalist economy depend on the moral, institutional, and subjective foundations of its society. Although the U.S. economy is gradually recovering from the shock of its recent recession, the very occurrence of that shock and the nature of our recovery from it have revealed the scale to which those foundations have eroded. Income inequality, environmental abuse, and fiscal irresponsibility are all the result of a capitalist economy that is no longer just or effective. While we need political policy and social action to resolve the complexity of these issues, it is the current structure of capitalism that enabled their existence. In a world where business practices and financial strength drive the bulk of the decisions to shape civilization, the economy is the primary determinant of what progress may be achieved.
Today’s capitalism constitutes of two sectors that split the functions of a nation’s economy: the private and the pub- lic. Within the private sector, individuals are employed by corporations to generate profits for the business, which in turn provides income to its employees. In the public sector, government – a body of elected officials and staff – works for the benefit of its population, who in turn pays for government services through taxes and votes. The private sector arose to create the means for any individual to form a living for him or her self while the public sector emerged to fill in the gaps left by it. It used to be imagined that these two sectors formulated the sum of what our economy was capable of. But a new sector has in recent years emerged in response to the gaps left by both the private and public sectors. This third sector, the social sector, takes it upon itself to operate without the logistical limitations of government or the financial shackles of private business. Operating instead in between those two poles of the spectrum, the social sector materializes as organizations that primarily serve a local population or need. It sustains itself within the competitive environment of capital- ism not through constitutional legitimization, nor through fiscal advantages, but simply through a commitment to creating good in the world for little to nothing in return.
However, the emergence of this new sector has not been enough to redefine the roles of either other. It has not been enough to change the function of capitalism. Capitalism is depicted today as an evil. It robs the poor of money, re- wards the wealthy with power, creates social divides, and corrupts nations’ governance. Capitalism has become a cultural phenomenon, pervading throughout all people’s daily lives, shaping every decision one makes. It is the manifestation of the desire for money above all else. According to Smith’s original writings on the matter, capitalism was intended to be a framework for allowing everyone to be free to pursue his or her own self-interests. Doing so is in human nature, after all. Anything that prevents or limits an individual’s pursuit of what they desire is immediately recognized as an infringement upon their freedoms. And what people pursue more than anything else, as has been true throughout the entire his- tory of their existence, is what benefits them. In a free market capitalist economy, that which benefits oneself most is money. Everything in today’s capitalist world is translated into money, at the expense of morals, values, and humanity. One will never do something if it comes at too high a monetary cost, and one will do anything if it promises any amount of monetary return. But capitalism has since its inception been aware of its role in indulging humanity’s greed - it depends on it.
THE ORIGINAL VISION
The original, formal concept of capitalism emerged from Smith’s writings in the late 1700s.3 His vision was for a method of maximizing the productivity of individuals, organizations, and nations, and through that, the wellbeing of all. He understood that human nature is one of pursuing self-interest above all else. People will indulge their desires one way or another, and no form of economic structure could reasonably limit that instinct. Instead of attempting to cage human nature, capitalism was meant to celebrate it. It was Smith’s theory that people, particularly those aiming to participate in a society of production, benefit the public good far more effectively when their only aim is to benefit themselves.4 The economy envisioned by Smith places its entire faith in the individual; it empowers the individuals to shape for themselves the life, the community, and the nation that they desire. If everyone in society were free to lead their lives this way, the result would be a natural equilibrium of everyone’s interests being satisfied to the maximum extent that society would allow, ultimately producing a society that would be better off than if individual’s interests and reach were otherwise limited.
Even so, Smith was the first to admit that some level of regulation would be needed to limit the freedoms of markets, which would otherwise create anti-competitive conditions and employ destructive methods.5 However, to truly maintain equilibrium, Smith believed that people would only be able to pursue the full capacity of their self-interest as long as it did not come at the expense of another’s.6 This was not a mandate to be enforced by government, but an inherent quality of human behavior that Smith believed would naturally maintain order in an environment of constant competition. When Smith originally conceived the modern form of capitalism, he had already been teaching and writing about philosophy.7 It was through this work that Smith came to his own understanding of the nature of human behavior and social interactions. Empathy, he discovered, was the most essential and the most powerful of human qualities, which has been responsible for most of civilization’s progress since its inception. Smith believed that humanity’s value of empathy would create a natural equilibrium of individuals’ interests in capitalism. An understanding of humans is essential when formulating an armature to organize the efforts of all mankind, and Smith’s early career allowed him to fuse together ideologies of politics, morality, jurisprudence, and economics into such a structure. This armature, which today bears the form of most of the planet’s economy, must balance freedom with fairness, control with limitation, and incentive with punishment.
The capitalism envisioned by Smith could never function without the virtue of human empathy. Empathy tells people what they should and should not do. It allows them to understand what others feel as though they feel it themselves. At the scale of individuals, if someone feels badly, seeing so makes oneself feel badly. At the level of society, if one does something bad, others will recognize it. They will sympathize with the party that was harmed, and demand repercussions for the party that inflicted it. These repercussions need not be criminal ones; they exist at every scale of decisions people make. Taking the last piece of cake when no one else has had any would make one feel guilty, but if someone were to arrive and see that no cake was left for them, they would no longer hold the one who finished the cake in high regard. And if others were to learn of that individual’s selfish act, they would likely never offer them a baked good again. The same thought applies to deeds of good. Benefiting another will attract favor- able sentiments from those who know of the act, as well as a potential reward from the benefactor in proportion to the kindness that they sense has been extended them. Empathy converts the self-interest of others into one’s own self-interest and prevents one from seeking one’s own self-interest at the expense of another’s. Smith depended on that fact in speculating the potential for a new capitalist economy.
Capitalism remains the most efficient, the most productive, and arguably the fairest economic system by theory. In practice as well, it has thrived more than communist, socialist, and anarchist structures. What Smith originally conceived as capitalism is, therefore, the ideal armature with which to move civilization forward. A new one may yet be imagined, but in theory capitalism ought to maximize all of society’s needs. Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear now that simply introducing its concepts into society has not been enough to ensure its being carried out appropriately. Capitalism today is not just, it is not efficient, but it should be. The task then becomes to determine how we arrive at that ideal. How do we realize that which Smith envisioned in his theories? The social sector has begun on this path by emphasizing empathy as the central motivation for their growth. But the economy will never thrive if all corporations shift their goals from profit maximizing to maximizing empathy. Yet empathy must still somehow be present to some extent in every business’s - every human being’s - considerations. How can that essential human virtue and economic stabilizer be introduced into an economy that is supposedly responsible for the greatest threat to its existence?
Empathy has become altogether irrelevant at the scale of business operations today. A lack of transparency means that no one will know of the decisions that are made at the expense of others. Knowing that no one else will ever be conscious of those decisions, businesses are free to abandon any concern for the damage that their actions cause. A lack of enforced regulation means that even if businesses know that others can see the wrong in their actions, corporations are reassured that nothing will come of it. A lack of different success measures means that businesses will never define their self-interests as anything other than their short-term profits. These deficiencies, which are the result of a confluence of political, social, and economic forces, eliminate the need for empathy in those who have the largest stake in capitalism (see Exhibit A). The loss of empathy in capitalism signifies the loss of empathy in other spheres of life as well. In the language Edwards and Sen used to describe social order, this shift represents a collapse of society’s subjective being.8 The way that people belonging to a capitalist society currently understand themselves, and by consequence understand others, does not strongly enough reflect the morals that society has deemed appropriate for itself. Additionally, the institutions that were created to support the mechanisms of society in the absence of morals and subjective influence have not fulfilled their role of enforcing just practices. Although one cannot claim that empathy is any less present now than before, capitalism was conceived as a function of that value. It is only now that capitalism has increased in such scale that its absence is beginning to become apparent.
Although the lack of enforced transparency and alternative success measures has caused significant harm to society, the lack of purpose is responsible for preventing economies from becoming the significant forces of innovation, productivity, and progress that they were meant to be. It was noted previously that capitalism has driven people to express their self-interest exclusively by the amount of money that they accumulate. The rise of consumerism signified the rising need for wealth, and the corruption of federal practices its rising influence. Therefore, it must come as no surprise that most hold personal wealth dearest. But never before has humanity limited its self-interest to wealth so narrowly as now. Purpose allows for individuals to earn their returns through different measures, inspired by the desire to affect significant, positive change. Such a desire often overtakes an individual’s demand for pecuniary returns. The recovery of the U.S. economy has not brought about political reform, social resolutions, or improved environmental impact because the economy’s rise is not driven by purpose. Without purpose, there will always be a limit to the progress that world economies alone can achieve.
While increased regulation and more credible transparency in the business sector may address the problems arising from the absence of empathy, they are only capable of resolving capitalism’s symptoms rather than its true malaise. Society’s morals already know how to define the benefits and necessity of embodying empathy, and although its institutions must be reformed to some extent, that can only happen after the root problem has been corrected. Society requires a complete shift of the subjective to transcend this economy’s failures. Removing empathy from Smith’s formula caused any merit that his vision had to collapse; introducing empathy into the economy, moving it beyond the fringes and throughout its entirety, will bring the practice of capitalism as close to the theory as can be - the theory of an ideal.
Before continuing, one stipulation must be made so as to contain all of the reasoning that follows within one lens. The corporations of the ideal capitalism must maintain a single bottom line, that of net profits, so as to achieve the maximum benefits capitalism is capable of while sacrificing as little of its potential as possible. Smith’s ideal was for everyone, individually, to be granted the freedom to pursue his or her self-interest. Companies must be allowed to do the same. For free markets to function at their full capacity, the end goal of each participant must remain profit maximization. The aim of the following arguments will be to show that how companies, and individuals, arrive at maximizing that figure must include different methods from those of the present - methods that demand empathy. That it is in their self-interest to feel empathy. It is up to the individual to decide for him or herself whether money is truly what is most important to their self-interest. The logic of maximizing that value at any cost, however, may no longer persist. Capitalism must evolve from that thinking to realize that it is a paradox; that profit cannot be maximized when it comes at the cost of another.
Aaron Hurst asserted in his recent publication that we are now entering a new phase of the economy in the evolution from agricultural to industrial, informational, and now purposeful.9 Purpose, signifying a desire for action that creates change beyond the self-interest of oneself. It was only with the Information Economy that individuals gained control over their capital accumulation. Anyone had the ability to gain economic prosperity simply by training and exercising their mind. Roles were more differentiated, personal responsibility more important, and individual agency more present. Purpose allows anyone to transcend the pecuniary boundaries of their position however, or the purely tangible duties of their role. Purpose grants agency to every individual on a scale that is not dependent on one’s position in a hierarchy, but simply on one’s capacity for empathy. It transforms one’s self-interest from just that which benefits oneself in monetary form, to that which benefits one in pecuniary and non-pecuniary forms by considering that which benefits others. While the lack of empathy arguably caused purpose’s failure to prevail in today’s economy, one must stimulate the presence of purpose to create a need for empathy. Empathy is both a byproduct of the purpose-seeking process, and a necessity for even beginning to define one’s purpose.
Beyond the benefit that individual agency has for society, it is equally important to any company that hopes to maximize the morale and productivity of its employees. Regardless of whether purpose is truly a trend that means the formation of a new economic paradigm, or if it is just another phase of outcry that each generation cycles through, it is in the self-interest of businesses to pursue profits that are motivated by purpose. In business, purpose defines the mission toward which all of a firm’s labor, capital, and resources are coordinated. The coordination of those assets formulates the firm’s strategy, which qualifies how the firm will generate its profits. A company without purpose will never survive in capitalism. A company whose only goal is the generation of profits will never maximize its profits. A company with purpose, however, will grow in the long term, maximize its profits, and benefit of all its stakeholders. When a business is born, it is born out of necessity, in response to a consumer demand that is unfulfilled by the market. Businesses choose for themselves to fulfill that need, because consumers will in turn reward them for it. When a business dedicates itself to that cause, employees are able to sense the meaning in their work because it is in the service of others, and consumers experience the added value. There is, therefore, no company with the capacity for long-term growth that does not have a purpose for driving that growth, or a collective of stakeholders who would reward them more for the pursuit of that purpose. The maximization of profits thus demands a strategy that takes into account all stakeholders, as well as an extended future horizon, for the creation of shared value rather than purely one’s own value (see Exhibit E).
Within the very definition of purpose lies the need to create shared value, value for oneself through the creation of value for others. To achieve shared value, organizations must think in terms of all stakeholders congruously, and in terms of a long-term strategy as opposed short-term goals. The responsibility of a company to its stakeholders has always been a fundamental concept of business. Businesses emerge to serve a consumer need. At a small enough scale, experienced by every organization during their inception at least, a business’s only goal is to do society a favor and hope that they can get compensated for it. When that model of business succeeds enough to fuel drastic growth, the organization experiences a shift from servants of society to consumers of it. It is at that point of inflection that companies are no longer bound by limit of their scale to their stakeholders. One may believe that corporations, even when prioritizing profits above all else, arrive at their profit maximizing strategies by considering the needs of their customers and satisfying them to their fullest. But with the increased pressure from investors as firms increase their presence in the market, those profits are sought after less often to advance products and services that may better serve customers, and more often to serve the short-term needs of shareholders.10 In a free market, those needs may often be arrived at - more easily and more profitably - by means that contradict the needs of other stakeholders. The result is “commoditization, price competition, little true innovation, slow organic growth, and no clear competitive advantage.”11 Clearly this has not hurt the margins of businesses; they still operate under this model without any sign of slowing. But it does limit their margins. The difference being that strategy which is not proportionally dedicated to each of one’s stakeholders is not sustainable over time. In the long-term, shareholder profit maximization is not a strategy, but a consequence of it. In the long-term, stakeholders shape the growth of a business. And if companies do not create enough value for those stakeholders, they will not allow those companies to survive. When a company forms a strategy that maximizes its long-term growth, it requires itself to consider how it can best serve each of its stakeholders (see Exhibit F). The argument is then no longer one of ethics, but one which businesses are already fluent in: that of profit maximization. It is in the self-interest of businesses to pursue stakeholders’ interest when they take into account long-term profits in addition to, or even in place of, short-term profits. Often, that is just what businesses want. Yet today’s stakeholders in too many cases do not allow them to do so.
Given the scale to which the strength and quantity of companies in the economy have grown, it must also be expected that the role of shareholders has increased with the increased amount of funding that such growth necessitates. The financial sector’s leverage has additionally expanded as more of the population invests on the stock market, and as companies depend more on their investments. In a sense, these shareholders, particularly the upper tier, become employers of companies that are required by law to only make decisions which increase shareholders’ returns.12 The shareholder’s interests then become the dominant interests of the company, replacing even its own self-interest, which is normally dependent on each of its stakeholders. The numbers investors see reported in companies’ financial statements, which are required at least each quarter by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), presently defines the interests of the shareholder. Maximizing these numbers often comes at the expense of long-term value that reaches all other stakeholders, as it encourages the mentality of short-term growth at any cost.13 Even if part of that long-term value could benefit the shareholder, the ease of liquidity in financial markets signifies that there is little to no opportunity cost in such sacrifices. Firms therefore cannot maximize their long-term profits if it is at the cost of their short-term figures, because the stock market will immediately react to any quarterly volatility, thus limiting how much the firm can grow. Value suddenly never reaches the firm’s other stakeholders, but instead comes at the expense of their potential payoff. Firms then never have the opportunity to pursue the purpose for which they originated. As a result, they no longer have a need for empathy as an implicit regulator of their actions, or as a value-identifying capability. The only way to allow for firms to pursue their true self-interest, to create shared value, to fulfill their purpose, and to feel empathy is to change shareholders’ expectations of a business’s capacity for value, so that their interests align with that of their investments. Shareholders must see that benefiting society benefits companies, and therefore benefits them. Short-term financial statements must depict how investments for the long-term elevate shareholders’ bottom line, how they contribute to a long-term pay-off that is greater than the sum of short-term maximization.
Income statements already include the inputs and outputs produced in a given period in terms of their monetary worth. But shareholders should not observe an investment for a long-term strategy that reduces revenue, or increases costs in the immediate period as a detriment to the company. These are investments in shared value that will augment the company’s value in the future, and it should be reflected in the present. Even in the short-term, shared value may be captured by measures of impact beyond the company’s operations (see Exhibit C). For every input transformed into an output, there is an outcome that is composed of the effect it has on stakeholders, and an impact that is the value created or destroyed by the outcome.14 These factors capture the contributions a company makes beyond itself in the interest of pursuing its purpose. Currently, such impacts are viewed in economics as ‘externalities’ to a company’s primary operations. There already exist regulations for enforcing industries to absorb the cost of negative externalities they produce, such as the effects of pollution, but there is not yet a system for allowing industries to be rewarded for their positive externalities, because they do not cause problems that must be taken responsibility for. Companies must themselves internalize the benefits of positive externalities for shareholders to understand their full value. These impacts on stakeholders contribute to a company’s potential growth and extend the bottom line to include societal and environmental value in its worth. Balance sheets need to reflect this value (see Exhibit D). If a company’s assets are defined only as those resources that they have paid for, then it is implied that they are only responsible for themselves. A business is responsible to its shareholders, meaning that shareholders may determine what a business should be responsible for. If shareholders perceive shared-value as a benefit to the bottom line, then they must holder businesses responsible for their laborers, their consumers, and their environment.
B-Lab is a recent non-profit organization with the aim of using “the power of business to solve social and environmental problems,” has already led to the formation of a fourth sector in the economy, the “grey sector.”15 A new entity of corporations, B-Corps, composes the fourth sector. It defines the grey area between the for-profit private sector and the non-profit social sector. B-Lab has already been in the process of enacting new policy in the U.S. to allow for such companies to define their primary responsibilities as both profit generation and the pursuit of a chosen mission. The legislation requires companies to define their purpose, it creates a new infrastructure through which companies may be held accountable, and it incentivizes transparency by requiring the disclosure of non-financial performance reports. Their hope is to generate an aggregation of companies with similar desires for shared value creation, but who never had a unifying language before. The network effect of such aggregation would raise consumers’ understanding of better business practices, and stimulate their demand for it. Additionally, B-Lab is leading efforts to create different measures of success through the formation of new impact investing standards, so as to improve investors’ perception of socially and environmentally oriented businesses. Unlike the social sector, the grey sector has created a new model of business practice through a simultaneous top-down and bottom-up approach that aims to legitimize and spread its impact as much as possible (see Exhibit G). However, their impact remains limited to those identifying with the B-Corp title. In order to reform capitalism, a solution must be realized that can change the behavior of all sectors in the economy, and the private sector in particular.
To change the private sector, to create shared-value, purpose, and empathy at its core, its present mechanisms must be left intact. For-profit companies must be allowed to continue operating with the same freedoms in order for them to willingly adopt a new form of thinking. Such a fundamental alteration to the very source of business practice, the individual’s mind, must be incentivized rather than enforced. The 10-Q, publicly traded companies’ required quarterly report, represents a defining instrument of the private sector’s decision-making practices. It is not a business strategy, a regulation, or a new legislation. The 10-Q presents the facts about a business’s decisions and their consequences at the most frequent of required reporting intervals. It is a tool for investors to measure a company’s worth as an indication of the returns they may expect. Although more research is needed to determine the few essential and universal measures of social, environmental, and governance value that any company may adopt and all can agree on, there remains an opportunity to expand the population’s understanding of how businesses truly maximize their self-interest. Financial statements must display the role that a company’s stakeholders have to the process of profit maximization. In addition to increasing a company’s value proposition, adding shared value metrics to public reports would allow shareholders to make ethical judgments for themselves about the impact that potential investments have, as opposed to attempting to quantify morality for them.
In the future of capitalism, shareholders retain the same role of oversight and equity-bearing that they hold now, and businesses will continue to operate with the goal of maximizing their bottom line, but individuals will not be able to fulfill their self-interests at the deliberate expense of others. Limiting such irresponsibility can only be possible if shareholders and corporate executives see the benefit that shared value creation has for their own interests. Only then will corporations be free to pursue their intended purposes to the fullest and create returns that benefit the planet, society, and themselves. The social sector brought to light the need for reform in addressing capitalism’s failings from theory to practice. The grey sector showed that it is possible to move in a direction where for-profit entities pursue external value, with firms that simultaneously possess the goals of maximizing returns and fulfilling an organizational purpose. Now it is time to apply what has been learned to capitalism at large. To truly actuate reform, it must benefit all and cannot come at any one’s expense. Erasing the current private sector or limiting its impact would only be hypocritical to Smith’s original wishes, as well as to society’s current demands. Corporate Social Responsibility efforts are the closest manifestation of the desire for a more cognizant capitalism, but it is not enough to cause entire industries to change.16 Individuals must see the value of empathy to allow economies, societies, and governments to truly alter and advance. Through the powerful force of human desire and one’s freedom to meet it, empathy will naturally breed throughout the economy. It will become a necessary variable in achieving success, rather than an obstacle to it (see Exhibit H).
1. Tafuri, Manfredo. Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1976. Print.↩
2. Edwards, Michael, and Gita Sen. “NGOs, Social Change and the Transformation of Human Relationships: A 21st-Century Civic Agenda.” Third World Quarterly 21.4 (2000): 605-16. Web.↩
3. Formaini, Robert L. Economic Insights. Rep. 1st ed. Vol. 7. Dallas, Texas: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2002. Print.↩
4. Smith, Adam, and Andrew S. Skinner. The Wealth of Nations. London: Penguin, 2003. Print.↩
6. Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Print.↩
7. Robert, Economic Insights.↩
8. Edwards and Sen, “NGOs, Social Change and the Transformation of Human Relationships: A 21st-Century Civic Agenda.”↩
9. Hurst, Aaron. The Purpose Economy: How Your Desire for Impact, Personal Growth and Community Is Changing the World: Elevated, 2014. Print.↩
10. Barton, Dominic, and Mark Wiseman. “Where Boards Fall Short.” Harvard Business Review Jan. 2015: pag. Web.↩
11. Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. “Creating Shared Value.” Harvard Business Review Jan. 2011: Web.↩
12. Andreé, Rae. “Assessing the Accountability of the Benefit Corporation” Journal of Business Ethics 110.1 (2012): 133-50. Web.↩
13. Barton, Dominic, and Mark Wiseman. “Focusing Capital on the Long Term.” Harvard Business Review Jan. 2014: Web.↩
14. Lawlor, Elis, Eva Neitzert, and Jeremy Nicholls. Measuring Value: A Guide to Social Return on Investment. Rep. 2nd ed. London, UK: New Economics Foundation, 2008. Print.↩
15. “About B Lab.” Powered by B Lab - Benefit Corporation. B Lab, Web. 29 Apr. 2015.↩
16. Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. “Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review Jan. 2011: Web.↩