关于企业社会责任演化的留学管理dissertation

留学生管理dissertation

对于该篇研究本节试图对在相关领域现有文献综述采取适当的概述。它参考了一些现有的书籍、期刊和研究dissertation。它主要看企业社会责任形式化定义与它有关的各种问题。同时它也看管理的各种方法和在组织中相同成功方法和相关的问题。

企业社会责任（CSR）的演变：

企业社会责任（CSR）是一个领域，并不真的存在，也没有拥有非常悠久的历史，但它在近几年的发展非常迅速，特别是在大型企业中，由于各种原因不断地发展。由于它的重要性日益增加，各种专家和机构认为需要通过比较来定义它。例如，在2002年，根据建筑业环境论坛的观察，在过去的五年左右的时间里，社会责任已经成为企业一个非常重要的议程。大多数企业社会责任的定义包括以下部分或全部的内容，如员工的待遇、对当地社区的支持、对环境的影响、人权问题以及与利益相关者、消费者以及竞争对手的道德行为。

 

 

This section makes an attempt to take an appropriate overview of the existing literature in the relevant fields to this study. It has consulted several existing books, journals and research papers. It has basically looked at the formal definition of corporate social responsibility and various issues related to it. It also looks at various methods of management and implementation of the same in the organizations and related issues.

Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a field that does not really have a very long history but has evolved very rapidly in recent times and especially among the large and established corporations for various reasons. Due to its increasing importance, various experts and organizations have felt the need to define it comparatively. For example, in 2002, the Construction Industry Environmental Forum observed that over the last five years or so CSR has become a very strong agenda for the corporations. Most of the formal definitions of CSR cover some or all of the following ideas such as, treatment of the employees, support extended towards local communities, impact on the environment, human rights issues as well as ethical conduct with the stakeholders, consumers as well as competitors.

So, CSR is considered to be an “umbrella” term that incorporates various concepts of environmental sustainability, corporate ethics, ethical governance, efficient and cordial public relations, and analysis of stakeholders as well as relationship marketing. However Cannon (1994) mentions that the concept came up in UK during the industrial revolution itself in the nineteenth century where there was trend of philanthropic activities by the eminent businessmen as well as politicians and these efforts were directed towards people who were apparently not benefited by the industrial revolution. Although the nomenclature cam much later, this can be considered the beginning of CSR as it benefited the general people and also improved the image of the ones who facilitated the same. Increasing influence of some religious groups like the Quakers and Methodists also increased philanthropic activities in large scales. Cannon (1994) also mentions that “The rapid growth of Methodism during the eighteenth century created the ground for self introspection that saw the inequality among men and hence they work towards abolition of the same…”. Similarly, the Quakers also had a very profound influence on the British society and they were truly the predecessors of CSR because a lot of important British corporations of those times were founded by Quaker businessmen such as George and Richard Cadbury, the founders of eponymous chocolate brand. In fact that tradition still continues as we can see that Cadbury Schweppes won the “Most admired company” award by Management Today in the year 2004.#p#分页标题#e#

Various trends have come up in this field over the years and thus have improved the scope of corporate social responsibility in businesses. Moir (2001) opines that modern day businesses have a very wide ranging ethical as well as economic obligations to the society and hence defines CSR as, “… the continuing commitment by the businesses to operate ethically as well as to contribute to the economic development of the people while enhancing the quality of life the workers as well as their families and also that of the local communities and society in general”. According to The Business for Social Responsibility CSR is about achieving the commercial success in a manner that respect the ethical mores of the people, society as well as the environment (BSR, 2003). CIRIA (2004) elaborates this viewpoint as a commitment on part of the organization to integrate the socially responsible practices and principles and address the concerns of stakeholders in day to day operations but still making sure that it meets the legal and commercial requirements.

During the early 20th century, these practices were also spreading in the USA and other parts of the world. The concept of “business giving” was popular in the 1920’s in the US. As mentioned by Davis et al. (1980), “… demands for the participation of corporates in handling and solving social problems of the society were growing steadily during the early 20th century. The corporations were confused and frustrated as a result of this but they did not have a choice”. It was also observed that the creation of the “community chests” by the corporations offered a pratical means of dispensing donations to the charitable causes. Hilton and Gibbons (2002) also mention that, “… no one can deny the power of businesses in a society. They have their positives and negatives but they can never be ignored and hence an effort should be made to harness this power to tackle various social issues”. However the idea that that the businesses owe to the society is not universally accepted by everyone. Economist, Milton Friedman opines that the businesses exist to do business and anything else can not be considered mandatory. He feels that businesses are out there to make profits for them and their shareholders and it is not necessary for them to pursue social goals and nor are they qualified enough to do the same (Friedman, 1996). Bakan (2004) is even more rigid in this regard, “The legally defined mandate of the businesses is to pursue its own financial and economic goals relentlessly without any exceptions irrespective of any negative consequences towards the society and anyone else”. Barthorpe et al. (2004) opines that the relationship between the businesses and the society is becoming more complex day by day. It is not merely restricted to the basic aspects like paying taxes, creating employment and also providing services. They are now expected to take a proactive role in the society.

As mentioned by Armitstead (2005), the businesses must take CSR more seriously nowadays as opposed to the earlier times. The corporate responsibility is not merely a feel-good exercise but it is also a strategic as well as financial strategy to the businesses. The rapidly expanding multinationals are seeking global trading opportunities in the twenty-first century. They are entering new markets where they have to establish their credibility unlike their traditional home markets. In this case CSR can be one of the best methods to earn credibility of the people. Similarly, it is also necessary to consider the changing scenario in terms of technology. In the modern times people have a lot of ease in transmitting information. Anything negative about a company can also spread like wildfire through the internet. That is why any irresponsible behaviour like causing damage to the environment can be fatal for any company and hence CSR has become very important in this regard. In recent times, we have seen that several major organizations who behave very responsible in their home markets, such as Coke and Shell, have faced various allegations of unethical conduct in the overseas markets thus creating uncomfortable questions and also hurting the business to some extent (Christian Aid, 2004). However, there are contradictions towards such reports and both sides must be examined.

CSR has also been noticed by the governments. In the year 2005 the UK government launched the “International strategic framework into corporate social responsibility”. This initiative intends to formalize the overall objectives, priorities as well as the main ways of the government approaching to CSR. It basically intends to “contribute to the current policy debate as well as development of effective action at an international level” (Societyandbusiness, 2005).

组织中的混合社会企业责任——Incorporating CSR in the organization: The advent of CSR consultants inUK

According to the Turnbull Report (1999) and some later reviews have impacted the UK corporations in a very significant manner regarding their approach to the social, ethical as well as environmental risks in the context of modern business environment. It has been noted that in the beginning of the 21st century only the top 100 listed companies at the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) were obliged to provide information regarding various ethical issues such as environmental performances and its social impacts. These CSR activities generally do not fall under any important legislation by the governments but with time some aspects of CSR became compulsory for all the 3200 FTSE listed companies in UK from 2005 with the arrival of the Operating and Financial Review (OFR). Nevertheless after some considerations that was revoked and now the companies are only required to publish a regular Business Review every year. Traditionally the annual by the companies concentrate of financial aspects, profits, losses and cash flows but the OFR listed companies are now obliged to make certain disclosures of non-financial nature. It has been suggested that the non-financial information have now become a very critical factor in analyzing the levels of risk arising from a company's accounts and they can also affect the stock market valuation. It was also noted that the OFR must include the details of the company regarding its environmental performance, state and issues of the employees issues, relationships with stakeholders such as suppliers, consumers and local communities and also some other factors such as market positioning, consumer profiles as well as product development processes.

At present CSR is not bound by any kind of statutory requirements and it is implemented by the firms more or less voluntarily without any legal requirements. But it has to be noted that even if CSR is not compulsory there are several other legislative compulsions which make CSR necessary (Armitstead, 2005). For example in most societies there are regulations regarding environmental pollution or racial discrimination or health and safety of workers. In order to be on the safer side, it is better for the companies to implement the CSR principles. It is also noted that if the process is made extremely bureaucratic it can bring about unwanted results by suppressing innovation and creativity in CSR implementation. That is why the present framework of putting the onus on the company seems to have worked fine so far as it allows them to come up with schemes based on their own strengths and interests.

Several consultancies have also been established in the UK to exploit the increasing demands of CSR. The growing importance of performance measurement as well as accountability has necessitated certain CSR reporting mechanisms in the companies. For example, the “London Benchmarking Group” came up in 1994 in order to promote the corporate community relationships. They have created a strong framework that measures, records and manages various corporate community interactions for the 92 corporate members (London Benchmarking Group, 2005). In 1998 the Business in the Community (BITC) came up with the “Corporate Responsibility Index” taht enables the organisations to manage measure as well as report responsible business practices (Armitstead, 2005).

On the other hand, the Corporate Citizenship Company has come up with a computer program “Corporate Economic, Social & Environmental Reporter (CeseR)” that can be used for collecting, analysing as well as reporting corporate performance in an array of fields that are not included in the conventional Management Information Systems (CCC, 2003). This software collects information on the company performances in 30 different areas including investors, government policies, employee condition, environmental issues, consumers, local communities and business partners etc. Cerin (2002) opines that it is very important to appreciate the recent developments in Corporate Environmental Reporting by the consultancy firms and they profit from the uncertainties in the market due to confusing reporting standards. It has been noted that while the standards vary, there is a possibility of unethical practices. Cases like Enron as shown that the accounting firms can collude to disastrous results and that is why the interest in ethical accounting is increasing.

In the year 2000 the Good Corporation came up in order to provide organisations by coming up with a new verification framework that allowed the firms to measure their behaviour in terms of socially responsibility (GoodCorporation, 2005). In the year 2004 the CSR Academy was launched in order to spread awareness of CSR and to promote learning as well as training through utilization of the CSR Competency Framework in the organizations (CSR Academy, 2005). They advocate the implementation of prescriptive and compulsory reporting requirements by the governments as they can limit existing flexibility as well as creativity and also discourage the firms from implementing innovative community friendly schemes due to extremely rigid regulations and accountability needs. Some experts opined that CSR should not be seen as philanthropic activity but a principal activity for the business and they should be based on sound business logic rather than any kind of selfless altruism (DTI, 2002). So, the onus of implementing CSR initiatives mostly rests on the corporations. There must be cooperation among the businesses and the communities if there has to be a well performing CSR system.

As mentioned by Welford (1998), “The ultimate goal of any CSR must be to achieve a stage where the company can develop sustainably”. In this regard the main idea is that a trade-off is possible between sustainable development and economic growth. Economic growth in general expands industries and increases pollution and in the process it also depletes earth's resources at a very rapid pace. Industries also pollute the air and water through various chemical wastes and emissions which is a cause of concern but at the same time such activities are inevitable for our day to day life. The main dilemma here is being faced by the environmentally conscious organisations because a lot of such operations are inevitable (Armitstead, 2005). For example the use of petroleum or coal is necessary to generate power which ultimately runs the factories. So, even if they want to be more responsible towards the environment they cannot shut down their own business. That is why a lot of these businesses are nowadays trying to develop new technologies and mechanisms that reduce harmful emissions and uses environment friendly and sustainable resources. Ultimately these strategies will probably have a better impact on the world but as of now they are still in the development mode and we will have to wait for some time before we can see perfectly sustainable solutions to present day alternatives.

Considering all the pros and cons of CSR, CIRIA (2005) opined that it is very important to understand the importance of sustainability but this issue is likely to change over a period of time and hence there needs to be a process of identifying as well as prioritising them continuously. They suggest various factors in this regard that can impact the same. They include changes in societal norms, values of the stakeholders and inherent risks, changing regulatory system, improvements in corporate sustainability performance, rapidly evolving science and technology, ever changing industry best practice, impact of media and non-profit organisations and changing company culture and strategies.#p#分页标题#e#

组织实施社会企业责任——Implementing corporate social responsibility in the organizations:

As opined by Barthorpe et al. (2004), in general the UK industry has been criticized more often than not for being inconsiderate towards the environmental issues and the aspects relevant to the society. A recent survey has also shown that almost a third of the companies do not do any analysis of their social performance (Spring, 2003) although it has been seen that the trend has marginally improved over the last couple of decades. The main issue here is that the CSR has been there for a long time and formally a lot of companies have their frameworks for CSR in place (Lenssen et al., 2007). But they lack the motivation to implement the same. They have measures aimed at providing financial donations, various sponsorships, training as well as disaster relief facilities. But most of them are shown by the people who had strong religious affiliations and it was done as a part of religious or spiritual duty by them. But not every industrialist has similar bents and the profit seeking businessmen are unlikely to be interested in the same. So this fragmented nature of the industry helps in illustrating why there is an inconsistent level of social responsibility. It has been noted that despite the sincere effort of many players, CSR is still taken as a very casual manner by most of the businesses (Spring, 2003).

探讨企业社会责任的影响——Exploring the impact of CSR:

In recent times the experts have explored the environment related corporate practices that have been used as CSR tools and have tried to decide whether CSR has worked as a mere regulative framework or an enhancer of legitimacy or both. In the regulative framework mode, the success depends on the changes that are induced in the company-specific rules as well as practices. This CSR mode is basically problem-driven which is directed at bringing about a change in the corporate practices (Sahlin-Andersson, 2006). As opposed to this the success of CSR initiatives as a general management trend relates to its ability to improve the image of the firm as a legitimate, modern as well as ethical entity. This mode is motivated by the supply of various CSR instruments. The extents up to which the CSR instruments can affect the environmental as well as social concerns are not necessarily crucial to its success (Bonn and Fisher, 2005). As a result to this difference of assessment it is difficult to decide the success of CSR initiatives but it can be said that they are generally used to enhance the public image of the firms which helps in boosting their sales too.

The success criteria used in deciding the success of CSR depends on the assumption of the company employees as rule-following actors. So the CSR instruments must be induced with changes in the rule systems in order to alter the corporate practices (March and Olsen, 1989). The main focus nowadays regarding environmental issues is on carbon emissions as well as the innovations regarding low-carbon products. The changes in the relevant corporate regulations, norms as well as conventions including various reporting procedures are considered as the changes in the corporate rules (Spring, 2003). Various changes in the action patterns are directly related to the emission levels of the industries and even the product portfolios have seen a lot of changes in recent times. Even though the level of changes in actual practices will depend heavily on the level of changes in rule systems, altering the rules is not a guarantee that the practices are bound to change. If rules conflict with other corporations’ rules or if they are not achievable technically or are not communicated in a proper manner to the concerned persons, they can fail to guide action (Brunsson, 1993, March and Olsen, 1989).

Regarding the management trend of CSR, the assessment of real success depends on the company’s ability to perceive the adoption of the right instruments that can contribute in improving the legitimacy of the firm (Spring, 2003). This is in fact a very crude means to do it but it is a very important process that can also impact the self impact of the organization in the long run. To explain the success of the CSR trends the complexity and dynamics of the company’s internal and external factors are studied by the experts (Bonn and Fisher, 2005). In this case, it is also necessary to study the environments in which the companies operate. Here it should be noted that the countries of origin, the global industry and the global CSR practise have a significant impact on the issue. These factors embody CSR as well as climate-change related external pressure nowadays but is has to be seen that depending on the type and track record of the firm they might not be affected at all (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, Hoffmann, 2001). Also, in some environments there is only a mild pressure towards similarity in the instrument adherence while the corporations are not expected to align the practices to the actual instruments (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). The environments marked by complexity, uncertainty as well as contrasting demands, exert significant pressure on the firms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In these kinds of environments the CSR trend emerges as a management style. The stronger institutionalised environments, which also show remarkable cultural unity and a set of comparatively stable expectations, are also more likely to promote the CSR initiatives as regulative modes that actually shape company practices (Colyvas and Powell, 2006). In this case the CSR instruments must be directed towards various social problems. If the environmental issues are considered as the most pressing issue, the CSR instruments are also directed towards enhancing the company’s ability to reduce emissions as well as to introduce low-carbon products.
 

All these perspectives basically rely on the basic assumption that CSR method adopted by the company reflects the external environment in which it operates. The company also emphasizes on the participation in the global CSR community and hence they prefer to adapt the style CSR prevailing out there in the industry and the country of operation normally has a significant impact in this (Kakabadse and Kakabadse, 2007). Due to the influences of different types of environments, both types of CSR modes can also be present at the same time. The external pressure exerted towards the companies can also be mediated through various strategic or cultural factors (Christensen and L?greid, 2000). Various researches in CSR have basically focused on corporate strategy approach (Galbreath, 2006, Margolis and Walsh, 2003). But relatively the emphasis on shareholders has been varied.

Overall, it can be said that the CSR has been a tricky affair for the companies. It is something that in most cases does not attract them. But at the same time, they cannot ignore it as it is a very important issue that is taken seriously by the consumers, stakeholder and more lately by the regulatory authorities including the government (Bonn and Fisher, 2005). There are certain business people who are genuinely interested in social welfare and philanthropy. It is these people who make CSR a success in most cases. Because of their inherent intent they are able to bring about all of their motivations in the process and that is why they succeed (Christensen and R?vik, 2002, March and Olsen, 1989). But if these measures are taken out of compulsion, they are most likely to fail or limit the project to an effort to barely legitimize the businesses to the masses. CSR becomes a mere marketing tool at the hand of such players and this should generally be avoided. It should also be seen that the cultural differences play a significant role in this regard and it is the social and country culture that must be carefully observed before coming up with any CSR initiatives (March and Olsen, 1989). The consultancy organizations have made a lot of effort in offering assistance and helping in assessment and reporting in this regard. But it should be seen that there is always a possibility of these firms colluding to provide fraudulent information regarding the CSR achievements which must be avoided at any cost. In fact the regulatory authorities have also become more serious in this regard nowadays.