Thus we are told that “The solution lies in the principle of shared value…” “The purpose of the corporation must be redefined…” “The starting point for creating…shared value is to identify all of the societal needs…” “(Government must) set clear and measurable goals…” Most of the verbs are what Gilbert Ryle called “achievement verbs” – they sound like action but they are really achievements – desirable outcomes. It is the reasonableness of these outcomes that blinds the reader to the absence of any theory of cause-and-effect. It’s all about “what” we need to achieve and the only answer to “How?” is by “thinking”. We end up going in a giant circle!

Hayek accused socialism of not understanding that societies have evolved and were not planned – he called it a “fatal conceit”. Doesn’t that same conceit – that we can ‘think’ our way through our problems – lurk in the concept of “shared value”?

Suppose commoditization, little innovation and slow organic growth are not the result of an “old, narrow view of capitalism” i.e. bad thinking, as Porter and Kramer suggest, but were features of a mature stage of an ecological process. Perhaps Patagonia and GE are at (almost) the opposite ends of the process. After Yvon Chouinard leaves the scene what is there to prevent Patagonia from becoming just like Welch’s GE in the pursuit of profit?

An ecological rather than a logical perspective on human nature and organizations changes all the questions. Or rather it adds another dimension. What are the processes whereby people and organizations are renewed? What are the contexts? What experiences and disciplines are important? In short – How do we act our ways into better ways of thinking?