Some days ago Antonio Vives posted an entry in his blog with the title “Si no está roto, no lo arregles: Porter y Kramer sobre RSE”  (If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it: Porter and Kramer on CSR) commenting the article written by professors Michael Porter and Mark Kramer: “Creating Shared Value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth”  (published in the January-February 2011 issue of the Harvard Business Review). In this article, Porter and Kramer support a change of name for this function: “from CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) to CSV (Creating Shared Value). According to Vives, “Porter and Cramer’s ‘great idea’ is merely a change of abbreviation for CSR. The only thing they propose is a strategic concept of responsible practices. Nothing new, but potentially hindering the progress of our dear CSR, adding greater confusion of terms”.
Also some days ago one of the most active bloggers in CSR in the English language, Aman Singh, mentioned in her blog (Vault.com ) a post titled “Perhaps the definition is semantic”  (published by Jonathan Banco in The inspired Economist) which claimed that the problems related with CSR are no more than semantic debates.
These are only two examples of what is going on at this time. Ten or twelve years after the dramatic appearance of this corporate concept (CSR), can we still not agree on what to call it and what its contents are? For a long time we have advanced with considerable stubbornness, with little or no thought, towards the implementation of “social” programmes and projects.
This is why I believe it is time to say that CSR is in fact broken (or is starting to break) and that it must be fixed once and for all.
Read the full post in albertoandreu.com