This Friday I read Pauline`s blog and came up with novel idea of the creating shared value. Rather than being driven by the external pressure, most entrepreneurs adopt CSV in pursuit of maximizing its own profit and expanding market share. In other words, CSV takes the societal benefit into consideration about modifying company`s cost structure and competitive ability. While Pauline disputed the efficiency of CSV over buyer bargaining leverage. I am inclined to emphasize the CSV`s merit for supply chain.

A traditional case is Nestlé, which well exemplify the core value of CSV at the standpoint of supplier power. Contributing to local economies by establishing manufactures, Nestle avoids collecting milk from the separated famers and further declines the internal economic loss occurred in the collection process and the transaction fee. “Conducting business in an environmentally responsible way that protects and preserves water”, Nestle ensured the ongoing quality of raw material namely water and milk and sustainability of its production environment. Nestle offers farmer formal training to provide them with a set of expected operating standards and key nutrition skills and knowledge. This could diminish the potential for unappropriated behavior leading to deteriorating raw material. Moreover, nestle seizes the initiative over volume of supplier to maintain the industry in sellers` market. ”Partnering with organizations to advance health, nutrition and water education, encouraging physical activity among children, youth and their families, protecting the environment and more.” Nestle enhance individual potential and well-being as well as the competitiveness and sustainability of the whole community. By doing all these above, Nestle achieve the ultimate goal to obtain more concentrative and qualified supplier to improve its supply chain.

Besides, I can`t exactly concur Pauline in her opinion about disruptive innovation of Muji. In my point of view, the Muji`s innovation can`t be attributed to disruptive innovation. It`s true that Muji uses recycled material to lower the variable cost, but Muji never enable “a new population of consumers at the bottom of a market access to its product that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill.” Actually, Muji`s product is more expensive than its counterpart and eliminates more consumers with poorer buyer power. (the above pciture show the bench sold by Muji is $ 110, the bench sold by IKEA is $69) What Muji is doing is to adhere “minimalist” practical principle to its product to differentiate itself from its flashy competitors which always accompany with too much trademarks and decorations. And Muji`s price strategy is always about maintaining the high price to uphold the PoD in consumers` mind. So , as far as I am concerned, It is just a sustaining innovation and perfectly avoid disruptive innovation.

word count:447

P., Tsai. (2016, October 30). A Different Perspective on Shared Values. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from https://blogs.ubc.ca/paulinetsai/2016/10/30/shared-value-a-different-perspective/

Creating Shared Value. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2016, from https://www.corporate.nestle.ca/en/creatingsharedvalue
Disruptive Innovation. (2012). Retrieved November 13, 2016, from http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/