This study aims at assessing CSV as asserted by Porter and Kramer(2011) as a strategic tool of CSR, and provides discussions on and strategic implementation approach for ‘shared value’ to the academia and industries. It analyzes the concepts and cases presented by Porter and Kramer(2011) and compares them with the other CSR core constructs such as stakeholder theory, blended value, sustainable value, triple bottom line and bottom of the pyramid. It also reviews CSV approaches by Korean and Western countries. The findings indicate that CSV shares the theoretical roots with the other core constructs in that all the theories and concepts point to the importance of strategic approach to creating shared value. To summarize the conclusions; 1) ‘Shared value’ concepts have been used in diverse disciplines as well as in business administration, not created by Porter and Kramer. 2) Their argument that conventional CSR approaches non-strategically to the social responsibility issues stems from their struggle to make their CSV appear new and creative construct. 3) CSV, however, is nothing but a type of strategic CSR and has roots in many other core concepts in the realm of CSR, especially a strategic CSR. 4) Nevertheless, Porter and Kramer have made a big contribution to the CSR literature and CSR practices by accelerating debate on strategic CSR, shared value, and other key concepts, tools and cases, and by clearly articulating the relationship between social issues and strategic goals of corporations with the strategic framework. 5) Many Korean corporations’ attachment to CSV is due to the overall failure of their quest for strategic success in CSR, after investing sizable amount of money in mostly philanthropic activities or social sponsorship, let alone, shared value creation. Few Korean corporations have reportedly garnered significant strategic benefits from CSR such as cost reduction and risk minimization, aquisition of competitive advantages, reputation and legitimacy, and synergistic win-win benefits. 6) To disappointment of many CSR staffs and managers in Korea, CSV does not guarantee a successful solution to the issues that CSR has failed to address. This study shows that CSV is a type of strategic CSR, especially inspired by the case of Nestle, nothing more, nothing less. Shared value approaches and concepts have been adopted broadly in the practice and CSR literature. What it takes for a success of CSV is no different than what it takes for a success of strategic CSR. What is important is how we implement the strategic CSR, not what we name it. It’s time to stop naming game. What’s worse, overemphasis on financial success aspect of CSV in communicating with stakeholders may threaten the corporations’ integrity towards social betterment. This study also provides some guides for implementation of CSV in practice.