How improved understanding of what constitutes “value” may lead to better underpinning of corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Purpose The aim of this conceptual paper, predicated on a hermeneutic literature review, is to improve understanding of the nature of value continues to be extensively studied with its ability to create competitive advantage. Understanding what constitutes value improves corporate social responsibility (CSR) comprehension, including managerial CSR values. This paper aligns with studies into value and/or CSR, whether hermeneutic or otherwise. Design/methodology/approach This study provides a reflexively critical understanding of the value literature. It focuses on the “identifying” stage of a hermeneutic circle (identifying central terms, core journals and seminal authors). A hermeneutic helix is proposed to better reflect the need of constant re-interpretation of the relevant literature. Findings Themes include value location (value in exchange, value in use, value in meaning and value in context); architecture (pathways, constellations and networks); creation versus determination; and value types. Research limitations/implications This paper neither seeks to define value nor delve into the overarching value discourses. It does, however, refer to the antecedents for these areas. As a hermeneutic literature review, it lacks empirical testing. Practical implications CSR practices are strongly influenced by personal values. Hence, CSR practitioners must identify the processes involved and differentiate between the sought value and value types. Social implications The paper could engender better understanding gaps between stakeholder attitudes and practices, i.e. consumers self-identifying as “green” may not engage in ecologically sound practices. As discussed herein, the value sought by university students influences where (and what) to study. Originality/value Outdated notions such as value propositions are widely used; value may be proposed; however, only stakeholders can take value. What constitutes value is under-represented in the CSR literature. Hence, terms such as value and values (i.e. value types) are incorrectly used interchangeably.