Peter Gomez

More than ever, firms need to know how they impact on society, our values and our ways of living. In a world of high uncertainty, it is necessary to develop a sense of what really makes an organization valueable to the people. In research, the notion of Public Value addresses this type of value creation. It is about a firm's contribution to the common good as perceived by the people.

Carroll shaped the corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse into a four-dimensional pyramid framework, which was later adapted to corporate citizenship and sustainability approaches. The four layers of the pyramid— structured from foundation to apex as economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic (or discretionary) responsibilities—drew considerable managerial attention. An important criticism of the economic foundation of the Carroll pyramid concerns the identification and ordering of the four dimensions, which are inadequately justified theoretically. The authors of this article propose an alternative approach that builds on the public value concept, which integrates a microfoundation of psychological research into basic human needs. Drawing on their Swiss Dialogue process, the authors argue that a four-dimensional pyramid does have heuristic value for managers. The advantage of this alternative pyramid logic is that it may be contingently adapted to different cultural contexts, because it allows adaptive internal reordering.

Some companies are pursuing initiatives that aim to synergistically create value both for the company and society. But these initiatives follow a different development process than traditional corporate products. Based on in-depth case studies of four leading global corporations from different industries (BMW, Nestlé, P&G, and Vanke), the researchers from the Center for Organizational Excellence (CORE) identify distinct organizational solutions and best practices to support such initiatives in different stages of the new business development process.

Media and communities provide the focal point for this issue. We can find here many ways in which media researchers can define the term ?communities? and articles included in this issue reflect the definitions of this. Needles to say that all of them find the concept of communities highly important within media management