Дипломная работа: Социальная ответственность корпорации в современных условиях (на примере ОАО "Востокгазпром")

In the third part the researcher points out that corporate responsibility should be seen as a journey rather than a destination, and as society’s expectations of business continue to get more demanding, the sooner companies start out the better. In recent years much has been written about the subject and the business imperatives.

The aim of this paper is to provide a simple guide to understanding what the corporate social responsibility is and what benefits a companies can gain by realizing social programmes.

The object of this paper is big companies.

The subject of this paper is a corporate social responsibility of big companies.

CSR: main ideas and approaches

To start with it is necessary to mention that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a significant subject of public policy, in many countries as well as internationally. Considered by some to be “the business issue for the twenty-first century", CSR is assuming an increasing part of the larger debates over both globalization and sustainable development. There is no universally agreed definition of CSR. Differing perceptions of CSR have resulted in many misunderstandings and have created obstacles for trade unions in addressing the opportunities and challenges of CSR. Some trade unionists look upon CSR as a desirable goal, while others in the unions see in it a dangerous attempt to create a substitute for the traditional roles of both governments and trade unions. And, of course, many trade unionists regard CSR as just “PR" (public relations).

The fact of the matter is that CSR has a tangible dimension that cannot be ignored by trade unionists. It has spawned a new industry of consultants and enterprises offering CSR services to business. It has changed the industry of investment managers who organize funds and other investment vehicles as well as those enterprises that offer company information to investors. CSR is manifest in the newly created CSR departments found in numerous corporations, in “multi-stakeholder” initiatives involving non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (and sometimes trade union organizations), and in public-private partnerships linking business and governments.governments, intergovernmental organizations and regional institutions such as the European Union have developed work plans and have created special units to promote CSR. Business schools and universities have also created CSR departments and units. CSR is the subject of numerous books, articles, web sites and entire journals. Thousands of businesses have adopted codes of conduct, ethical principles and guidelines in the name of CSR.

Not to mention the fact affair, CSR is also the proliferation of increasingly elaborate reports by corporations on their social responsibility or their “sustainability performance". Part of this phenomenon is explained by an accounting industry that is positioning itself to sell assurance1 for non-financial reporting in the anticipation that companies will eventually be forced to provide such reports and to have them verified. Trade unionists cannot ignore the concept behind this phenomenon. As a concept, CSR has been used to counter or complement trade union objectives and is the subject of a debate over the relationship of business to society. The outcome of that debate will affect workers and their trade unions.

The term “corporate social responsibility” is not new, at least in academic literature, but the concept has evolved.

“Corporate responsibility involves a commitment by a company to manage its role in society - as producer, employer, marketer, customer and citizen - in a responsible and sustainable manner. That commitment can include a set of voluntary principles - over and above applicable legal requirements - that seek to ensure that the company has a positive impact on societies in which it operates. ” [70]

“Corporate social responsibility are actions which are above and beyond that required by law. ” [66]

“It is not about ‘doing good’, it is not even about being seen to be doing good, it is about recognizing a company’s responsibility to all its stakeholder groups and acting in their best interests." [69]

“Corporate social responsibility is the overall relationship of the corporation with all of its stakeholders. These include customers, employees, communities, owners/investors, government, suppliers and competitors. Through effective CSR practices, organizations will: achieve a balance between economic, environmental and social imperatives; address stakeholders’ expectations, demands, and influences; sustain shareholder value." [63]

CSR is a “concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis" [60].

Actually, among the most frequently recurring elements in the various definitions of CSR are its voluntary nature and its emphasis on management initiatives and on managing social impact, as well as the idea that companies have stakeholders whose interests must be taken into account.

Needless to say, sometimes questions about the meaning of “CSR” lead to discussion of whether it is, in fact, the right term to use. Some prefer “CR" (corporate responsibility) because they believe that the word “social" does not include “environmental". Others prefer “OR" (organizational responsibility) or “SR" (social responsibility) because they do not believe that business enterprises should be singled out or treated differently from other organizations or even governments. Still others prefer the term “corporate citizenship", with its implication that a company should be regarded as an individual, having both rights and responsibilities. In any event, the term “corporate social responsibility” is used more often than the other terms.

Obviously, the most controversial issue in the definition of CSR centres on the idea that it is about the voluntary activities of companies “above and beyond legal requirements”. The question is not whether companies should respect the law - some defend the voluntary nature of CSR by saying that it assumes compliance with law (“takes compliance as a starting point”). Although it is increasingly accepted that CSR is about voluntary activities, this has not ended the controversy over the voluntary nature of CSR. Two unresolved questions keep the controversy alive. The first concerns the adequacy and role of business regulation and the second is whether business should determine its social responsibilities where society has not incorporated its expectations of business into legally binding requirements. Some see CSR as an alternative to regulation, and some promoters of CSR want acceptance of its voluntary nature to translate into acceptance that voluntary initiatives are the sufficient and preferred means of addressing the social consequences of business activity.

It is popularly believed, if CSR is to be a voluntary concept, then it is important that it be distinguished from other concepts concerning the relationship between business and society. The term “corporate accountability” (at least in the English language) is now being used by some to refer to the obligations imposed on corporations by governments, and to the corporate governance framework established to hold management accountable. Thus, corporations are said to be “accountable” in a binding sense both to their shareholders and to the governments under whose laws they are created and must operate. There is little difference in English between the meanings of the words “accountability" and “responsibility" (a similarity that does not exist in some other languages). There is, however, a need for terms that can be used to distinguish between the regulatory and corporate governance idea in this use of the term “corporate accountability” on the one hand, and the voluntary activities idea most often meant by the term “corporate social responsibility” on the other. It is widely accepted that regulatory and corporate governance frameworks can shape corporate behavior more than CSR principles or initiatives. There is also growing recognition that these regulatory frameworks are inadequate.

According to this paper, distinguishing the voluntary from the binding is not the only important distinction. The voluntary nature of CSR is often interpreted by business to mean that, since CSR activities are not binding, they are always optional and therefore can be determined solely by business. Through the use of voluntary codes and other forms of private standard-setting, companies decide what they consider to be their responsibilities to society. Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in these self-definitions is that there must always be a “business case” - that is, a positive financial result from the responsible behaviour. Often, this private standard-setting has resulted in a redefining or reinterpreting downward by business of already established norms. Norms need not be binding to be applicable and the expectations of society with respect to the behaviour of business are manifest in non-binding instruments at the national and international level as well as in other forms of “soft law" and practices which may vary among cultures and societies. If CSR is only a voluntary concept, then there must be another concept that could be called “the social responsibilities of business". This would enable us to distinguish the CSR activities, which are optional, from the legitimate expectations of society which are always applicable, even where they are not binding.

As a matter of fact, it is in the nature of CSR to be a management concept - it really does not distinguish the company from its management and is, in the end, only about management decisions and systems that management should put in place to make and implement decisions. Understanding the social impact of a company involves understanding that the management of a company, on the one hand, and the company as a whole, on the other, are not the same thing. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan observed in July 2000 when describing the participants in the Global Compact, “Labour unions can mobilize the workforce - for after all, companies are not composed only of their executives."

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24