会计外文文献

1、 企业的社会责任 企业社会责任（ CSR ）已成为一个全球趋势，涉及企业，国家，国际组织和民间社会组织。但这远远不能清楚CSR的主张，有什么真正的趋势，是从哪里开始，在哪里发展，谁是项目的主要行动者。如果把它作为一种社会运动，我们必须要问：什么运动和谁执行？讨论有助于我们反思形成的趋势和如何管理某些特点来迅速和广泛地在全球各地进行扩展，并增加了以下体制变革,特别是对变化中国家之间、企业法人和民间社会组织关系之间的界限的作用。企业社会责任的趋势在三个方面：作为一个管理框架，新的要求，地方企业;作为动员企业行为，以协助国家的发展援助;和作为管理趋势。每一个这些画像表明，中心的某些行为，关系，驾驭团

2、队和利益。我的例子表明，没有人对这些意见似乎比别人更准确，而是，活动包括规范的不同利益、作用因素、起源和轨迹。这些多重身份的趋势可以部分描述其成功以及它的争论，脆弱性和流动性。许多公司现在有具体的计划和小节在其网站上处理企业社会责任。在过去，软条例和指导网络，国际公认的规则一直是一种重要机制，作用在公司、国家和国家间组织的需求，例如，发布指导方针和条例的公司。在这背景下，国际组织仍然是重要的行动者，他们正在寻求与跨国公司进行对话，而不是试图通过国家控制企业社会责任。各国际组织不是对企业的社会责任监管机构;而他们却是监管和自我约束的倡议之间的经纪人的最合适人选。对社会负责行为和监测这些行为的需求

3、越来越多地以国家以外的这些组织为渠道，并强调赞成高比例的自律。因此，我们看到了软法律(Morth, 2004)的出现，或者是Knill 和 Lehmkuhl (2002) 所说的“被规管的自律”， 和Moran (2002)所归纳的“精细”或“非正式”规章。我更喜欢“软法律”和“软规章”的说法，因为他们并不总是非正式的。软规章常常包括正式报告和统筹程序。还有，从统筹和行政的观点来看，那些规章和精细还是相去甚远的。社会责任的措施和规章在公司和他们的利益相关者之间的对话中发展。联合国全球契约是发展中的软规章框架的中心。它是自愿的，没有法律约束力的制裁。适用于没有遵守规章并被笼统制定的企业。它为理解

4、条例提供许多余地，从而以适合它们自身情况和期待的某种方式，实现将规章转化为行动的改变。该倡议是建立在菜单上的书面原则基础上的国际宣言和协定的成员契约遵循。然而，契约本身并不是一个法律框架。此倡议依赖于承诺，信誉和能见度遵守，而不是对不符合原则的企业发出明确的制裁。全球契约从全球影响力和道德权威的联合国和增列角色创建社区发出的原则，增长其信誉。软规则，换言之，是嵌套在更广泛的监管范围（ Jacobsson和萨赫林-安德森，2006年），更说明了一个事实，即目前还不清楚，结合这些条例以及在何种程度上可以预料，从而遵守或将保持疲软。联合国全球契约,已形成过程中通过响应规则。2004年的夏天,一个十原

5、理产生广泛的在协商过程。此外,大量的重点放在形成什么被称为“学习网络”和“政策对话”。大量的会议,安排定期商界领袖、联合国机构、政府的代表,劳工协会,非政府组织和其他团体、学者、都聚集了来讨论和分享他们的经验和关心的具体问题。全球紧凑的进一步鼓励产生的局部结构和网络的国家区域的水平。参赛者来自丹麦，芬兰，挪威和瑞典已经形成了全球契约北欧网络为例，探讨了实现的原理。努力扩大主要是为了扩大网络招聘和活化成员及其它跨国组织形成合作关系。这些网络和对话的目标,为全球契约的网站上公布，在推动学习的演员和部门。参与公司在全球契约要求提供的例子是如何工作的，按照积极推广十原则。组织者现在全球契约当作学习的网

6、络和一个后面的报告是存在野心的，为最佳实践提供了范例。最近，全球已经强调赞成学术著作标准化的报告的标准。最佳实践的案例是由学术的学者全球契约，张贴在网站上。科学和学术参考作为一个合法化的设备和手段的平衡,出现在网络的依赖性有价值的独立与科学和审计。似乎有一种视觉形式的社区中，每个参与者个人演员努力显得适当的关系网络和其他成员对他们的利益相关者的立场，他们根据律。为鼓励人们的机制,坚持准则是，因此，包括他们的小组，来说服他们，关键是要有一个好的该组织内部的名字，达到一个高水平的合法性的努力，在作为一个整体事实上，一定程度的合法性,信号到更广泛的观众，团队成员定义、对社会负责。最后，既包含紧凑像强

7、调的名字的主动权。一个逻辑的适用性(1981年3月)作为管理策略：紧凑的重要性，强调个人演员出现，它是适当的规范旨在使看得见的适用性和合规或缺乏。开发类似于一个社会运动，它是依靠自己的演员。为了让这样一个网络功能有效的、积极参与成员是至关重要的。相反于这种理想的设定紧凑,这个网站，见证公司的放松和不活跃的参与。积极组织的会议和网络视为一种发起人调动会员为建立一个更活跃的运动。还有其他的方法中，全球契约提醒我们的社会运动或使用汪宏年的(2002)术语模式转向网络。作为其代表强调，“全球契约办公室不规范和监控公司文件和行动”(Kell，2003年3月，p38)。范围的动员、政策制定、报告和监测机构

8、正在形成网络。这整个网络,不是个体的规则和规则制定者形式监管框架。这个目标是为了保持网络的演员一起共同原则、程序和规范。那些在冲突或那些不遵守规则内没有受到惩罚系统。因此柔性的规定存在的假设，将共同规范中这些连接网络来判断对方相对于既定的规则和程序。虽然可能有共同利益之初，希望是这些包括在网络来分享共同规范。包含机制建立在视觉上的更大更广泛的这个网络，更重要的是它会的是为企业，依赖于他们的利益相关者，加入网络向他人显示他们遵守其规章。那些没有遵守原则的，仅仅被责备和羞辱，而没有接受正规的制裁。延长网络是建立在全球契约包含了大量的主动关心的企业公民,企业社会责任和相关问题。它包含大量多样，包括政

9、府机构组织为世界银行、国际经济合作与发展组织，商业协会(例如国际商会及世界贸易委员会对可持续发展),劳动组织(例如国际联合会的自由贸易协定)、学术机构、民间组织。另外,主动离开纪律的独立观察者学者、非政府组织、独立的媒体观察和细究这个措施，用手指责备那些超越规则界限的行为。鼓励公民社会组织细看社会责任感的企业，全球形成一种治理结构紧凑而不需要运用法律框架。在这个指南为会员，贴在全球契约的网站,Corpwatch及其他公民社会组织已知愈发细看公司和全球化被称为活性检查操作的全球契约和它的成员的迹象,积极进行审查。通过与这些更关键的演员,主动进一步合法化。这些组织预计扮演重要的角色检查监视器和批判

10、的公司的演员和公司遵循建立的原则。另一种和补充的独立观察员和活动中不可或缺的部分的管理和治理结构是建立具有独立性的监测系统。这样一个系统的会计的这些方面生意的全球报告倡议(世源科技公司)，正在发展。世源科技公司自己描述其网站作为“多方利益过程和独立机构的使命是去可持续发展和推广全球报告准则”放之四海而皆准。这个主办了多方利益过程具有永久性，独立的组织自从1997年全球总部位于荷兰阿姆斯特丹。致力于发展的困扰一个报告制度与国际会计准则委员会和达到一定水平的报告的经济效益、环境效益和社会的可持续发展，将作为常规财务报告。一个框架协定全球契约世源科技公司成立，于2003年3月，在全球契约同意鼓励公司

11、使用指南和报告指标，世源科技公司现有匹配全球契约的原则。延长网络的报告、规范、规则设定和监控组织已经连接到全球契约。例如，世源科技公司和全球契约已经宣布，他们与社会和环境标准的联系。 SA8000和ISO14000。监督和治理模式和发展伴随着新元素的演变，以相互之间伴随着相关的监督管理,控制相互作用和批判的作用力。法规和治理具有相互作用的规范。CSR作为监管框架：影响组织和跨界别的关系有一种特殊的社会趋势的抗议活动演变与公民社会的关注组织。公司已经推出计划，应用标准和带着积极参与开发此类标准的回应新的要求和新形式的监控。它是一种管理框架。公司的主要目标，开始出现了主要驱动因素的趋势。其他组织或

12、多或少都动员作为这个公司的环境的因素。国家和政府间国际组织担任在公司的渠道，要求地方国际组织把这些要求背后的合法性和力量被包装他们的形式全球标准和报告的标准，通过基于联合国框架，通过将他们与建立、规范和协议。这样的运动建立并将会进一步强调了三者之间关系国家、国际组织、企业、国家有望形式制度框架内，维护公司的行为。这个原因形成这种监管框架是薄弱的，而不是努力是基于框架似乎无法完成和国家法规，不得有接受那些调节(公司)及他们的利益相关者。因此，把重点放在柔软的条例，出现了全球性的权力力量的跨国公司。因为公司有这样的力量这个世界,他们的最基本的人性、工人和环境的权利积极发展所必需的深化企业社会责任的

13、世界。辩论中心应符合标准的实现谁应该监控，达到符合处罚不遵守的行为。然而，也有不同的方式，在各种行动者追赶CSR。一个区别有关的其他相关企业社会责任活动，并要求对公司的业务。在企业的需求行为以及培养社会责任方面所做的努力与调节和审查从这些要求，是用来关注整个公司在世界的运作方式。另一方面，当企业社会责任是追求作为公司在协助美国动员工作的发展援助，它可能不关心整个公司，而这似乎是组织形式，在特定的项目，经常瞄准非常遥远的地方和部门。再者，作为管理的趋势，企业社会责任似乎主要是与演示和连接在公司的合法性建设，我们可以预期，根据以往的研究大量的结合发生。 当谈到跨界别的界限，商业和关系公司和公民社会

14、组织、三大趋势似乎也需要之间的差异。第一个趋势，这对公司的新要求，似乎是建立在和强化相对传统的责任，在社会领域美国提供了游戏的规则和公司按照这些规则。美国与国际组织的规则制定者的范围内做点公益和介质的更广泛的需求导致冲突和紧张的公司应该在谁的规则和谁应该监督他们。但这样的冲突并不独特的社会领域。第二个趋势，入口的大公司进入交割的援助来发展国家，似乎是驾驶多点的界限，到达和力量似乎太有限。在第三管理，我们看到了一个趋势中发挥更积极的作用，由运营商概念、模型、期望和演讲比通常被认为是这个案子。再次，这并非独一无二，它还代表被发现的情况管理与组织发展的趋势更加普遍。这种现象，然而，重要性阐述了跨部门

15、的发展模式更进一步关系，中介机构之间的关系;并规范和标准企业家、组织平台和管理技术。Corporate social responsibility: a trend and a movement, but of what and for what? Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a global trend involving corporations,states, international organizations and civil society organizations. It is far from

16、clear what CSR stands for,what the trend really is, where it comes from, where it is heading and who the leading actors are. If one views it as a social movement, one must ask: a movement of what and for whom? The discussions help us reflect on the formation ofmanagement trends and how certain model

17、s come to flow rapidly and extensively around the globe,following and adding to institutional change especially to changes in the roles, relations and boundaries between and among states, business corporations and civil society organizations.The CSR trend in three ways: as a regulatory framework tha

18、t places new demands on corporations; as a mobilization of corporate actors to assist state development aid; and as a management trend. Each one of these portraits suggests the centrality of certain actors, relations, driving forces and interests. My examples show that no one of these views seems mo

19、re accurate than the others; instead the movement comprises a bundle of diverse interests, actors, origins and trajectories. These multiple identities of the trend may partly describe its success as well as its contestation, fragility and fluidity. Many corporations now have specific programs and su

20、bsections on their websites dealing with corporate social responsibility. Soft regulations and steering networks In the past, internationally established regulations have been one important mechanism for placing such demands on companies states and interstate organizations have, for example, issued

21、guidelines and regulations for companies. International organizations are still important actors in this context, but they are seeking a dialogue with corporations rather than seeking to control the social responsibility of corporations via states. The international organizations are not regulators

22、of corporate social responsibility; rather they are best described as brokers between regulatory and self-regulatory initiatives. The demand for socially responsible operations and the monitoring of these operations has increasingly been channeled through organizations other than states, and the emp

23、hasis favours a high proportion of self-regulation. Consequently, we have seen the emergence ofsoft law (Morth, 2004) or what Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002) have called regulated self-regulation and Moran (2002) has termed subtle or non-formal regulations. I prefer the terms soft law or soft regulations,

24、 because they are not always informal. The soft regulations often include formal reporting and co-ordinating procedures and, from a co-ordination or administrative point of view; the regulations are often far from subtle.the social responsibility measures and regulations evolve in dialogues between

25、corporations and their stakeholders.The UN Global Compact is at the centre of this evolving soft regulatory framework: It is voluntary, has no binding legal sanctions applied to those who fail to comply, and is formulated in general terms so it provides considerable leeway for those interpreting the

26、 regulations to translate them into practice in a way that fits their circumstances and expectations.The initiative is built on a menu of written principles based on international declarations and agreements for members of the Compact to follow. However, the Compact is not in itself a legal framewor

27、k. Instead of issuing clear sanctions for organizations that do not comply with the principles, the initiative depends upon commitment, credibility and visibility for compliance. The Global Compact gains its credibility from the global reach and moral authority of the UN and from the inclusion of ad

28、ditional actors creating a community around the issued principles. It also gains credibility through its linkages to other regulatory systems. The soft regulations, in other words, are nested in broader regulatory constellations(Jacobsson and Sahlin-Andersson, 2006), adding to the fact that it remai

29、ns unclear how binding these regulations are and to what extent they can be expected to lead to compliance or to remain soft. The UN Global Compact has developed through processes of responsive regulation. In the summer of 2004, the addition of a tenth principle resulted from extensive consultative

30、processes among Compact members. In addition, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the formation of what is termed learning networks and policy dialogues. A number of meetings is arranged regularly, in which business leaders, UN agencies, labor associations, governmental representatives, non-govern

31、mental organizations, academics, and other groups are brought together to discuss and share their experiences and concerns about specific issues. The Global Compact further encourages the creation of local structures and networks at the country and regional level. Participants from Denmark, Finland,

32、 Norway and Sweden have formed the Global Compact Nordic Network to discuss the implementation of the principles. Major efforts have been extended in order to expand the network by recruiting and activating members and by forming partnerships with other transnational organizations. These networks an

33、d dialogues aim, as announced on the Global Compact website, at facilitating learning across actors and sectors. Participating companies in the Global Compact are asked to provide examples of how they work to comply with and actively spread the ten principles. The organizers present the Global Compa

34、ct as a learning network and one ambition behind the reports is to provide examples of best practices for others to follow. Lately, self-reporting has been de-emphasized in favor of academic writings and standardized reporting criteria. Cases of best practice are written by academic scholars and pos

35、ted on the Global Compact website. Reference to science and academics serve as a legitimizing device and a means of balancing dependence that emerges in the networks with values of independence that are associated with science and auditing. It seems that there is a vision to form a community among t

36、he participants in which each individual actor strives to appear appropriate in relation to other members of the network and to their stakeholders at large, a stance that should drive them to act according to the principles articulated. The mechanism for encouraging people to adhere to the norms is,

37、 therefore, to include them in the group, to persuade them that it is critical to have a good name within the group, and to reach a high level of legitimacy for the effort as a whole in fact, a degree of legitimacy that signals to wider audiences that group members are, by definition, socially respo

38、nsible. Inclusion is both the end and the means of the Compact as emphasized by the very name of this initiative. A logic of appropriateness (March, 1981) is used as a governance strategy: the Compact emphasizes the importance for individual actors to appear appropriate and it is aimed at making vis

39、ible the norms of appropriateness and compliance or the lack thereof. The development resembles that of a social movement, as it is dependent upon the mobilization of actors. In order for such a network to function effectively, the active participation of members is crucial. In contrast to this idea

40、l setup of the Compact, the websites bear witness to a somewhat more relaxed and less active participation by the companies. The active organizing of conferences and networks can be seen as a means for initiators to mobilize members in order to form a more active movement. There are other ways in wh

41、ich the Global Compact reminds us of a social movement or, to use Morans (2002) term, a mode of steering network. As its representatives repeatedly emphasize, The Global Compact office neither regulates nor monitors a companys submissions and initiatives (Kell, 2003, p. 38). Constellations of mobili

42、zing, policy making, reporting and monitoring bodies are formed into a network. This entire network, rather than individual rules and rule makers form a regulatory framework. The goal is to hold the network of actors together by common principles, procedures and norms. Those in conflict or those unl

43、ikely to adhere to the rules are not punished within the system. Thus the soft regulation presumes the existence of common norms and a will among those joining the network to judge each other relative to these established rules and procedures. Although common interests may not be present at the outs

44、et, the hope is that those included in the network come to share common norms. The inclusion mechanism is built on the vision that the larger and more extensive this network, the more important it will be for corporations, which are dependent on their stakeholders, to join the network and to show ot

45、hers that they comply with its rules. Instead of receiving formal sanctions, those not following principles are merely blamed and shamed.The extended network that is built around the Global Compact includes a large number of initiatives concerned with corporate citizenship, corporate social responsi

46、bility and related issues. It comprises a wide set of diverse organizations, including such intergovernmental organizations as the World Bank and the OECD, business associations (e.g. International Chamber of Commerce and World Business Council for Sustainable Development), labor organizations (e.g.

47、 The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions), academic institutions, and civil society organizations (e.g. Amnesty International). Furthermore, the initiatives leave discipline in the hands of independent observers academics, NGOs, and independent media that watch and scrutinize the action

48、s taken and point the finger of blame at those who step out of line. By encouraging civil society organizations to scrutinize the social responsibility of business corporations, the Global Compact forms a governance framework without necessarily applying a legal framework. In the guidelines for memb

49、ers, posted on the Global Compact web site, Corpwatch and other civil society organizations known to more critically scrutinize corporations and globalization are referred to as active scrutinizers of the operations of the Global CompacI describes itself on its website as a multi-stakeholder process

50、 and independent institution whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. This multi-stakeholder process is hosted by a permanent, independent organization which has had global headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands since 1997. The GRI seeks to

51、 develop a reporting system comparable to the international accounting standards board and to achieve a level of reporting of economic, environmental and social sustainability that would be as routine as financial reporting. A framework agreement between the Global Compact and the GRI was establishe

52、d in March 2003, wherein the Global Compact agreed to encourage companies to use GRI guidelines and reporting indicators that matched existing Global Compact principles. Extended networks of reporting, standardizing, rule setting and the monitoring of organizations have been connected to the Global

53、Compact. For example, the GRI and the Global Compact have announced their links with social and environmental standards.SA 8000 and ISO 14000. The regulatory and governance modes and domains develop incrementally with the enrollment of new actors; with the interplay among actors; and with the interp

54、lay among related regulatory, governing and criticizing efforts. Regulations and governance are characterized by reciprocity and co-regulation.CSR as a regulatory framework: impacts on organizations and cross-sector relations I have described the CSR trend as evolving from the protests and concerns

55、of civil society organizations. Corporations have launched programs, applied standards and taken an active part in developing such standards in response to new demands and new forms of monitoring. It is a regulatory framework. Corporations appear both as main targets and as main driving actors of th

56、e trend. Other organizations are mobilized more or less as actors in the environment of the corporations. States and intergovernmental organizations act as channels to place demands on corporations, demands which have also been expressed by civil society organizations. The organized efforts of state

57、s and international organizations have put legitimacy and strength behind these demands by packaging them in the form of globally applicable standards and reporting criteria, by basing them on the UN framework, and by associating them with established norms and agreements. In this way the movement b

58、uilds on and can be expected to further emphasize a relationship between and among states, international organizations and corporations, whereby states are expected to form and uphold the institutional frameworks within which corporations act. The reason for forming this regulatory framework to be s

59、oft rather than hard is based on what the framework seems to be able to accomplish harder and more state-centered regulations may not have been accepted by those who are to be regulated (corporations) and by their stakeholders. Hence, the emphasis on soft regulations appears as an expression of the global power and strength of multinational corporations. Because business corporations have such strength in the world,