企业社会绩效评价的利益相关者模式（Stakeholder model of corporate social performance evaluation）

1、企业社会绩效评价的利益相关者模式（Stakeholder model of corporate social performance evaluation）July 2002Seventh issue (total 172 issues)Chinese industrial economyChina Industrial EconomyJuny, 2002No.7public administrationStakeholder model of corporate social performance evaluationChen Weizheng, Wu Jihong, Ren Peiyu(

2、School of business administration, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu 610064)Abstract the comprehensive evaluation of domestic enterprises still stays in the stage of comprehensive financial evaluation, so the content of evaluation is emphasizedThe enterprise performance is neglected while the ent

3、erprise social performance is ignored. Since 1970s, western scholars have been making profitBased on the stakeholder theory, a variety of stakeholder models that evaluate corporate social performance are proposed to try to be more preciseEvaluating corporate social performance. This article will sum

4、marize and compare two representative enterprises social performance evaluation models abroad,On the basis of this, we try to find out the social performance evaluation model which is suitable for our national conditions.Comprehensive evaluation of enterprises; social performance evaluation; stakeho

5、lder modelCLC No.F270 document identification codeA article number1006-480X (2002) 07-When we carry out a comprehensive evaluation of enterprises, enterprises are often required to take into account both economic and social benefitsThe research on economic benefit evaluation has been mature, but the

6、 research on the evaluation of enterprise social benefit is basically blank. YesIn the index system, how to evaluate the enterprise social benefit method and model of the theory circle of our country almost no research, which in a certain extentWe have a comprehensive, systematic and fair assessment

7、 of the effectiveness of the business. In recent years, the research on enterprise evaluation abroad has been more and moreMedium to corporate social performance evaluation. This article will draw lessons from the foreign corporate social performance evaluation model, and try to take this as the bas

8、isDiscussion on enterprise social performance evaluation system suitable for Chinas national conditions.First, the research progress of the theory of corporate social performance evaluationEvaluation of Corporate Social Performance research abroad can be divided into theoretical circlesThere are two

9、 stages: early research is mainly about how businesses deal with social problems and bear social responsibility (Corporate, Social)Responsibility) two aspects to evaluate the social performance of enterprises. For example, the Royal Commission of inquiry of Canadian enterprises (1977) is concerned w

10、ith enterprisesThe empirical study of social performance in this study, Preston (Preston) that should be dealt with in accordance with four aspects of corporate social problemsLine evaluation: understanding, analysis and planning, policy formulation, implementation and implementation of the problem;

11、 Carol (Carroll, 1979) put the society facing the enterpriseThe problem is defined as sales service, environmental protection, employment discrimination and so on. From these three aspects, a three-dimensional evaluation model is establishedResponsiveness Social (Corporate) is defined as the process

12、 in which an enterprise performs social responsibility and solves social problemsConnecticut and Kou Kelan (Wartick, Cochran, 1985) the corporate social responsibility is defined as: economic responsibility, legal responsibility and moral responsibility, theHe believes that these four aspects should

13、 be collected data to evaluate social performance.With the increasing popularity of stakeholder theory, the theoretical community has reached a consensus that corporate social performance should be evaluated by stakeholders. benefitThe concept of stakeholder was first mentioned by Iil Ansoff (Igor,

14、Ansoff, 1965) in his book corporate strategy. stayePub 2002-06-20PROJECT this paper is one of the achievements of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, comprehensive evaluation of Chinese enterprises, methods and Applications (70171020).author Chen Weizheng, Professor, School of business

15、 administration, Sichuan University, Ph. D. supervisor, Wu Jihong, Graduate School of business administration, Sichuan UniversityProfessor, School of business administration, Sichuan University.57, Freeman (Freeman, 1984) after the strategic management - stakeholder approach published, stakeholders,

16、 stakeholder management.Terms such as theory and stakeholder theory have been widely used in many places, but few of them have the exact meaning. bridgeluxHoustton (Preston, 1995) clarified this by comparing the traditional input-output model (Figure 1) with the stakeholder model (Figure 2)The meani

17、ng of a series of terms.Figure 1 the traditional input-output model of the enterpriseFigure 2 enterprises in the stakeholder modelIn the input-output model, suppliers, investment institutions and employees are regarded as inputs, according to Adam Simys economic theory,After a long-term balance, the

18、se investors can only gain market average returns. Marx argued that businesses only created benefits for capitalists. Figure 2It shows that the stakeholders of enterprises include government, community and politics besides the traditional mode of customers, employees, investment institutions and sup

19、pliersGroup, trade association, etc. As long as there are legitimate interests in the enterprise, stakeholders will invest in the activities of enterprises to obtain income, but alsoThe interests of all types of stakeholders are equal, and none of these interests take precedence over other interests

20、.Since the beginning of 1980s, the western theorists have put forward various stakeholders evaluation for corporate social performanceThe most influential model is the external stakeholder evaluation model of American scholar Sonnenfeld (Jeffrey, Sonnenfeld, 1982)And Canadian scholar Clarkson (Clark

21、son, 1995) RDAP model.In contrast, domestic research in the evaluation of corporate social performance has not yet started, although Jiang Xirong, Ma Jing (2000) and others fromThe social angle of enterprise defines the social responsibility of the enterprise, but it does not put forward the model o

22、f evaluating the social performance of the enterpriseMethod。 Some research related to corporate social performance evaluation is as follows: for example, Liu Wenpeng (1998) proposed non-financial performance evaluation system;Zhao Wen (1995) embarks from the enterprise is the production organization

23、, and is the carrier of the production relations, thought that the enterprise appraisal should satisfy each different benefitThe requirements and expectations of Yi group; the index system of enterprise competitiveness proposed by the joint research group (1999) of Chinese enterprises has expanded t

24、o a certain extentThe scope of the subject of evaluation, but there is a lack of systematic theoretical basis and a comprehensive evaluation method, the evaluation of the relationship between enterprises and external interestsThe price is limited to the evaluation of the customer to the enterprise,

25、or to the evaluation of the external market and internal market. However, these studies are only in viewIt breaks through the traditional theory of enterprise financial evaluation, and doesnt make a thorough research on how to evaluate the social performance of enterprises.The above review is not di

26、fficult to see the gap between China and the West in the evaluation of corporate social performance, in order to narrow the theoretical research with foreign countriesTo study the social performance of Chinese enterprises, and to provide reference for the decision-making of the relevant government d

27、epartments. The following will focus on the introduction of Sonny Phil58 German external stakeholder evaluation model and Clarksons RDAP model.Two, the external stakeholder evaluation modelSonnenfeld believes that corporate social performance evaluation should be the enterprise in order to improve t

28、heir own management, especially stakeholder management outsideThe stakeholders should evaluate the social performance of their stakeholders and consider the social impact of stakeholder management(sensitivity) whether it is lawful to carry out production and management, whether it leads to serious p

29、ollution or not, is it appropriate to correctly treat minority employees?Dealing with community relations, dealing with customer issues correctly, etc. This will not only enable companies to understand their social performance in the same industryPosition, knowing what stakeholders the enterprise re

30、sources should be assigned to, and promoting the communication between managers and stakeholders.Sonnenfeld surveyed two parties from the external stakeholders of American forestry, from social responsibility and social sensitivityFace six forestry enterprises to evaluate social performance. The mar

31、ket and scale of these companies are roughly equal ($2 billion or more)Income and 2500 employees). He repeated interviews with 103 managers from the six companies to determine the content and targets of the survey. questionnaireStakeholders are required (including investment analysts, trade union le

32、aders, environmentalists, government regulators, federal regulators, lawmakers),Industry associations, officials, scholars, etc., make a comprehensive evaluation of the social responsibility and social sensitivity of these enterprises, and be sensitive to the society at the same timeThe seven dimens

33、ions of sex were evaluated respectively, with a scoring system of 5 points, 4-5 for good, 3 for general, and 1-2 for poorer. Social sensitivityThe seven dimensions of sex are: accessibility of the outsider (Accessibility, to, Outsiders); preparedness for public affairs(Preparedness, for, Public, Iss

34、ues); reliability and consistency in public activities (Reliability, or, Consistency, in)Public Actions) the credibility of corporate external statements (Credibility, of, Company, Statement) in the eyes of external criticsThe legitimacy (Perceived Legitimacy of Outside Critics), the degree of conce

35、rn about events in the outside world (Attentiveness toOutside Events), the public interests and business interests of the definition of Clarity of Company (the Interests from the PublicInterest). After the questionnaire was collected, a series of statistical analysis was carried out, and the results

36、 were as follows.Comprehensive evaluation of social responsibility and social sensitivity of 1 stakeholders in six enterprisesCorporate social sensitivityheightCorporate Social ResponsibilityPacific timber company (3.88,4.26), New York Paper Co (3.26,3.21), central Paper Co (3.36,3.13), American For

37、estry Corporation (3.10,3.22)Paper Co (3.11,3.30) Northwest Forestry Corporation (2.53,3.08)Note: the first number in parentheses refers to the average score of responsibility, and the second is the average score of sensitivity.Figure 3 summary of corporate social performanceFigure 3 shows that thre

38、e enterprises (Pacific timber, New York paper, central paper) higher than the industry average. All in all, these sixThere are no significant differences in stakeholder evaluations, but the highest and lowest evaluations are available for two firms, Pacific timber and northwest SenThere are signific

39、ant differences in forests (t=7.05, df=71, p0.001). Similarly, scores for Pacific wood were significantly higher than those in northwestern forests (in the community)The sensitivities are also two extremes, t=5.88, df=71, p0.001).Statistical analysis shows that the evaluation results of different st

40、akeholders are significantly different (f=3.62, df=71, p0.001). In order to avoidTo avoid the effects of different stakeholder preferences on the overall evaluation results, SONY field was grouped according to the category of interest related groupsStatistic analysis.Figure 4 shows the level of frie

41、ndliness of interest groups in the industry in descending order: industry associations, officials, investment institutions, and placesRegulators, academics, journalists, federal regulators, and environmentalists. Interest groups are often more friendly to the industryForestry has a wide range of int

42、erest links, while interest groups that are less friendly to the industry are often associated with these companies onlyThere is less specific benefit connection.59 Figure 4 evaluation of the social responsibility of six enterprises by different interest groups2, stakeholders evaluate the seven dime

43、nsions of social sensitivityFigure 5. Stakeholder evaluations of seven dimensions of social sensitivity of six firmsFigure 5 shows the industrys accessibility to outsiders (4.70), readiness for public issues (4.66), reliability, andContinuity (4.62), etc., are better manifested in the degree of conc

44、ern for public issues (4.21), the clarity of interest (4.13), and external speechThe credibility (4.12), the external critics in the eyes of legitimacy (3.74) and other aspects of performance is slightly worse.Sonnenfeld also found that these evaluations of external stakeholders were not consistent

45、with the corporate managers evaluation of the companys social performance,None of the companies rated their peers social performance rankings as the same as those of the stakeholders. As a result, insiders andThere are significant differences in the understanding and evaluation of corporate social p

46、erformance.Through the above analysis, we can draw the following conclusions: first, different stakeholder groups have different social performance evaluation for the same industry.In essence, stakeholders in the industry with greater interest are more friendly to the industry, whereas in the indust

47、ry there are only less stakeholdersNot very friendly to the industry. Two, the evaluation of enterprise social sensitivity can be divided into different dimensions. Three is the business manager to this enterpriseThere are great differences between the evaluation of social performance and the evalua

48、tion of external stakeholders.Three, RDAP modeClarkson believes that the enterprise is not a government or charity, only need to deal with the issue of stakeholders, there is no need to deal with social problems.Moreover, it is difficult to accurately define the exact meaning of corporate social res

49、ponsibility, social sensitivity, and the difference between social responsibility and social issues,60, therefore, the evaluation model of corporate social performance should not be based on the concept, but should be built on the framework of the enterprise stakeholder management frameworkVertical

50、evaluation model.He believes that stakeholder refers to the enterprise in the past, present, future activities with or demand ownership, equity, rights and so onIndividuals or groups. He divided stakeholders into key stakeholders (Primary, Stakeholders) and minor stakeholders(Secondary, Stakeholders

51、). The primary stakeholders are stakeholders who cant function normally without them.The typical major stakeholders include shareholders, investment institutions, workers, customers, suppliers and government. Secondary stakeholders refer toGroups that influence an enterprise and can be affected by a

52、n enterprise, but they do not interfere in the affairs of an enterprise. By this definition, a typical secondary interestThese include media, social groups, national organizations, religious organizations and non-profit organizations.After a long period of empirical research, Clarkson summed up the

53、typical enterprise stakeholder issues, which should be from the enterprise, employees and shareholders,Customers, suppliers, and public stakeholders collect data to evaluate corporate social performance. Among them, enterprises include enterprise calendarHistory, industry background, organizational

54、structure, competitive environment, economic performance, objectives, guidelines and benefits of stakeholder managementOverview of stakeholder and social problem management systems. Other aspects are corporate governance policies for different stakeholders, and for employeesTraining, assessment and

55、management of different stakeholders in different stakeholder management. For example, in public interestThe data of stakeholders should be collected from the following seven aspects: 1. Public health, safety and protection; energy and raw material protection;Environmental assessment of investment p

56、rojects and other environmental issues; to participate in the public policy; the community relations; the social investment and donation.Well, how to collect data, specific collection of what indicators? Clarkson through the preparation of the index description and data collection guide, stillTake t

57、he public interest side as an example:(1) public health, safety and protection refers to the policies, codes of conduct and objectives of enterprises in public health, safety and protectionIt includes training and assessment of employees in this area, as well as in the public health, safety and safe

58、ty of suppliers, distributors, and customers of enterprisesPolicy extension in the field of care. Its performance data include: public complaints and criticisms of the original records, the effectiveness of emergency transactions, whether or not onlyChange the policy, the decision speed of public rel