探索企业社会责任与生命周期--留学生essay代写范文

留学生essay代写范文:“探索企业社会责任与生命周期”，这篇论文主要描述的是企业的发展需要承担相应的社会责任，也就是说企业需要拿出一定的补偿来减少因发展所造成的不利社会影响，这也巩固了企业与社会之间的关系，企业的生命周期与其管理策略间也有一定的关联。

During the last century, the corporate social responsibility developed dynamically starting with the hope that the business is responsible in front of the society-the concept of responsibility, as well as for society-the concept as a factor which contributes to the welfare of the society , having the purpose to compensate the external negative effects” and accepting ?waiting as an activity in itself to be led in a responsible way”, more precisely getting to” the connection between corporation and society by consolidating all the relations among the interested parts.” Due to the dynamic characteristics as a cluster (which covers under a single umbrella ,a whole set of concepts used to describe CSR) and often to the contextual ones, the nature of CSR will be a problem in permanent changing both in theory and in practice, rather than a strong and stable construction, operated clearly and constantly.

The retrospective and prospective construction of the life cycle of CSR based on the previous theoretical and practical developments of CSR and creating the foundation for future developments and trends in CSR (the involvement of interested parties, a new perspective on the business models and assumptions, changes in the mentality of management, consolidating capacities, rethinking the management of human resources, actions on climate changes, corporate governance, supply chain management, community investments, innovation partnerships,, etc.) are always important and necessary.

引言---Introduction

The various "elements" of the sustainable development assists in contextualisation of CSR, in a structure and construction of sustainable development, and in its size. In addition, it was introduced the concept of “corporatist responsibility (CR)", from which the concept of CSR was derived. Taking into consideration that the research focuses on CSR, CR mentioning is introduced now, in order to provide a systematic progression by CSR.

CR incorporates social, economic and environmental components of sustainable development and provides a holistic approach to companies in order to understand the issues involved in sustainable development. This fact supports the clarification and the translation of numerous factors in corporate language, according to their relevance for companies. In addition, the CR offers a holistic structure of global sustainability from the corporate point of view, the accession and implementation from the perspective of an individual society and its operations being easier.

As Brady asserts ?it is not useful to use CSR to refer to the net contribution of business to sustainable development because it implies that the only reason we would conserve…the environment is because society demands it. The phrase suggests that environment …does not have its own innate value. This goes against the founding ethos of sustainable development” (2004). The previous statement sets the CSR as part of CR and CR as a whole that represents a company's contribution to sustainability. Therefore, it can be concluded that the CSR covers social dimension of the CR, where it was created the link of CSR with sustainability. Responsibility has been interpreted in various forms, including the allocation and investment of the profit, research and the development of the community. These interpretations have been developed in a more detailed form of CSR, first stated in Bowen's book in 1953 "Social Responsibility of business", which was the beginning of the modern era of corporate responsibility.

He states that ?social responsibility rests upon the idea that business should be conducted with concern for the effects of business operations upon the attainment of valued social goals” (1953). Further, he proposes a set of objectives that include ?community improvement, security, justice, personal integrity, freedom and development of individual person”. As Hens and Nath assert ?CSR is clearly supportive of sustainable development, making companies, managers, employees and shareholders alike aware of the impact that the company has socially” (2005). Later, it appeared numerous definitions of CSR. Davis defined it as ?decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest” (1960). Carroll asserts ?the social responsibility encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organisations at a given point of time” (1979). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD), defines CSR as ?the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large” (WBCSD report 1998).

In recent years, Porter and Kramer have noted that ?the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate success and social welfare as a zero-sum game” (2006). Definitions, although they retain the meaning of CSR (responsibility of a company in front of the company), they can create ambiguities, because they include a wide range of words such as ethics, economic and technical development, as well as quality of life, which have inside, numerous items of complexity. This is positive in terms of grouping people from various fields and the creation and development of solutions and strategies. However, it could undermine the genuine social responsibility of a company, because the definitions include a wide range of issues involving different actors. Therefore, it can be concluded that the context in which CSR is used supports the clarity of the concept.

There have been debates about the purpose and meaning of CSR in industry (Waddock 2004). Jenson suggests that maximizing long-term wealth for shareholders by increasing the market value will lead to the achievement of social responsibility (Jensen 2002). In addition, ?Management scholars have recently focused attention on instances when managers use CSR instrumentally” (McWilliams cited in Waldman et. al 2006). In addition, increasing pressure on the part of international organizations (including the International Labour Organization, Global Reporting Initiatives, guidelines of the Organization for economic cooperation and development, the International Organization for standardization and the Global impact of UN) has led companies in compliance with the codes of conduct of the CSR (Mamic 2004). However, CSR, theorists like Ackerman (1973), Sethi (1975), Wartrick and Cochran (1985), Carroll (1991), Wood (1991) and Margolis and Walsh (2003) sustain that the understanding of CSR and its credibility can support companies in balancing the social and financial objectives. Although this could raise social issues, the concept of social responsibility of the companies may add to the changing of the way of thinking of the society.

As Davis asserts, “the business which vacillates or chooses not to enter the arena of social responsibility may find that it gradually will sink into customer disfavour” (1973). Building and maintaining relationships between an organization and society is an essential part in the growth of the company (community relations).

Brady asserts that ?this concept is most prominently opposed by the Milton Friedman type ideology; Friedman has suggested that only individuals can have responsibility, the corporation as an artificial person can only have artificial responsibilities” (2005) This idea becomes the joint structure only if the organization and its employees are regarded as two different entities, and the unique social responsibility of business is to increase the profits, provided that no illegal activity does not take place. However, the strategy to turn the shareholders of the company into employees in order to make them feel that they are part of it, and responsible for its development, combines the benefits of profit maximization with those of the employees. However, such a move on the part of a company may be considered to be more beneficial for the company than for employees, creating a reciprocal relationship of give and take, and thus advantageous to both. Another example, Husted et al refer to, from the strategic perspective of CSR, is to support the community by providing scholarships for training programs (2006).

Therefore, the company benefits through additional opportunities for personal development and the company has at its disposal a wider area of selection of qualified labour. Individuals together form a company and consider it as being entirely responsible in front of the people and the community, taking into consideration that people in the community form the organization. As Ghosal and Bartlett state in their book The Individualized Corporation “The management is, above all else, about achieving results through people. Not that there is no value in crunching numbers, analysing trends, or restructuring activities. But these traditional responsibilities have, for too long, distracted managers from their most basic and most valuable role – being able to attract, motivate, develop and retain individuals with scarce and valuable knowledge skills.” (1998)

Exploration of CSR in various companies will allow the enrichment of the image on CSR in general, and in specific industries where there are fewer activities of analysis and research in the sector. When people of different backgrounds work together, they create a new dimension of creativity and knowledge. The two positive aspects are the processes of learning and mutual communication in order to achieve sustainability and responsible practice. As Marrewijk noted ?business forms an important triangular relationship with the state and civil society. Each has a specific mechanism that coordinates their behaviour and fulfils a role within society.” (2006)

In addition, with the transfer of operations to companies in course of developing or developed economies, CSR has gone to a whole new level where more problems with social character take birth. To shed light on social issues, a survey conducted by McKinsey Quarterly showed that 84% of the directors of companies argue that their "role is not only to generate returns for shareholders and investors but also contribute towards societal benefits” (2006). Therefore, the concern with social responsibility approach is not only outside, but also inside the companies. From this perspective, CSR could be viewed as a strategy that includes compliance with the organization's objectives and promoting sustainability.

Sheldon’s work on corporate social responsibility management reflects the fact that the industry has been designed to be useful to the society (1923). The progress that the industry has recorded up to now, is rooted in the relationship between industry and society. The requirements of the society led to the process of creativity and innovation. In short, the industries were established for the benefit of the society and for its sustainability.

Many companies are faced constantly with challenges but also, often with harsh criticism on the part of the interested parties as regards their participation in order to be socially responsible, despite the rigorous and intense activity in applying CSR initiatives. There is still the perception of CSR as a "marketing stunt" that companies can use in order to access markets and expand activities. Current issues represented by sustainability, policies, regulations or standards, with which many industries are facing, required governments, international organizations and businesses to work in dealing with the challenges of these industries. CSR is a way by which a business can be profitable and responsible; however, CSR initiatives do not seem to convince society of the connection between business and social responsibility. As Porter and Kramer say ?first, they pit business against society, when in reality the two are interdependent. Secondly, they pressure companies to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways instead of doing it in ways more appropriate to their individual strategies" (2006). Later, the issue of integration of CSR on the agenda of a business and strategies still remains, despite the efforts of integration and implementation on the part of companies and their interested parties. Despite the implementation of CSR in order to overcome societal obstacles, the ambiguity of the concept creates ambiguity. This ambiguity raises several issues, two of which are particularly important.

The first is that CSR is seen rather as a tool of the public relations than as a process of value creation in itself, whose goal is to assist companies in achieving sustainability. Secondly there are some companies that have claimed to follow the path of the CSR, but, in fact, they have used the contributions to social objectives only as a mechanism to carry out operations to maximize profit. Profit is an integral part and a concrete way to assess a company's development; however, it is not the only goal. CSR offers a mixture of vision and is ability (competence) for multinational companies. It is important to understand the perspective of business of companies that "they are challenged by real difficulties of integrating societal issues into their organizational systems and structures" (Epstein & Hanson 2006), while they continue CSE initiatives to achieve sustainability. Exploration of CSR within various companies can lead to an understanding of the industry and of the challenges which companies currently face in order to resolve persistent misconceptions.

As they were identified in the literature "social aspects have received less consideration, even though they are of considerable importance to the successful and sustainable operation" (Werner & Schafer 2007). Throughout the twentieth century, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has developed both as a managerial idea (Porter and Kramer Donham, 1927) and as an academic concept (Bowen 1953, Walsh, Weber and Margolis 2003, Clark 1916). This development was reflected in the area occupied in management and academic level, as well as in particular within the framework of business scholarship and education (Cheit 1978, Frederick, Matten and Moon 2004, Orlitzky 2011). The development was certainly not equal, but it is also true that the status of CSR in the second decade of the 21st century is higher than it has been in the last hundred years (Bakker, Groenewegen and den Hond 2006, Lockett, and Visser 2006, Margolis and Walsh 2003). Therefore, the emphasis should be put on both the CSR as a concept of management and managerial practice as an academic concept. Corporate social responsibility refers generically, to the hope that the company is responsible in front of the society, in the sense of responsibility (Bowen, Carroll 1979) and for society, in order to explain the negative aspects and the contribution to social welfare (Crouch 2006, Arrow, 1974); hopes that the company acts in a responsible manner (Carroll, 1979); and the management of corporate business-society by strengthening relations with and between the concerned parties(Barnett, Gond, and Matten, Freeman, 1984). However, the concepts have varied together with the definitions used for describing social phenomena relating to CSR. Although these transformations usually reflect the conceptual developments (Wood, 1991, Carroll 2008) or changes in management practices and visions, they also reveal the spirit of the time accompanying the trend-cycle and management consulting (2005, 2008 Economist, 1996 Abrahamson, den Hond, Bakker and Neergard 2007). Thus, CSR can be viewed as dynamic, contextual and overlay. In a great extent, its quality is based on the dynamic developments in the relationships between company and society, including among others and new trends of "irresponsibility". The overlay feature of CSR points out that it corresponds, to a certain extent, to the "cluster concept" (Moon 2002) getting in and pulling out from related fields such as business ethics, corporate governance, business strategy, sustainability, business and society relations and between government and business.

Although the occurrence of CSR has been far more visible in the USA it is also true that it also appeared in very different contexts at national level, reflecting different contexts of corporate governance, institutional, economic, political, social and ethical, so that experiences with regard to CSR can be related to numerous countries. Moreover, even within and between different sectors of the countries there have been developed distinct trails of CSR, often reflecting the balance between risk and opportunity, or market structure and property.

As a result of this dynamic character in context and overlay, a wide range of concepts and structures have been used to describe and theorize social phenomena that correspond to CSR: Businessmen’s Responsibility, Corporate Social Performance, Corporate Social Responsiveness, Triple Bottom Line, and Corporate Responsibility to Stakeholders or Corporate Citizenship. The name of CSR is used as a general concept of "umbrella" as it has been suggested by Hirsh and Levin, who defined this category as broad concepts used to encompass and account for a diverse set of phenomena (1999). According to Garriga and Mele (2004) and Gond and Matten (2007), in the specific case of CSR, the phenomena covered by this broad concept refers to the relationship between business and society.

企业社会责任-生命周期---CSR –cycle of life

From a managerial point of view, "the ideology of social responsibility", was released in the U.S. in the late 1800s from the tradition of industrial paternalism or philanthropy with foundation in the religious belief of the leaders of major companies such as Andrew Carnegie and John d. Rockefeller (Heald, Carroll, 2008). Contrary to the image received (Porter and Kramer, 2006), social responsibility has been shaped by business people themselves (Bowen, Frederick Swanson, 2008).

To a large extent, this is a co-product of much deeper management professionalization (Abrams, 1951, Donham, 1927) which accompanied the gradual separation of corporate ownership from corporate control (Berle and Means, 1932) .This separation has created both the need for a new category of "professional managers" to justify their social status in society, as well as the opportunity to make this in improved managerial care forms, without any other precedent in the past (Friedman, 1970, Bowen, Berle and Means, 1932). As an ideology, social responsibility aims at increasing the legitimacy of the "great companies" as well as their management (Acquier and Gond 2007, Moon, Kang and Gond 2010 Pasquero, 2005). The legitimacy of new companies was first put under question. (Chandler 1962, 1977). On the one hand, corporate scandals which have raised public issues relating to corporate regulation have been strongly denounced (Sinclair, 1946) and which put public issues relating to corporate Regulation (Markham, 2002). On the other hand, this uncontrolled development of the "hierarchy", an inherent characteristic of corporations as a form of organization, (Williamson 1985) was perceived as a direct threat to the American democratic ideals (Miller and O'Leary, 1989). In this new context, the directors have begun to think about the perception of their activities by public opinion. In this context, there were created the first public relations departments (Heald, 1970), and along with them came the idea that large corporations have a duty to serve the public, and have referred to the notion of public service that corresponds to a first form of social responsibility (Toynbee, 1953).

In the 1920s, social responsibility was most often addressed by managers in terms of stewardship and trusteeship, two questions inspired by the Protestant religion (Bowen, Carroll 2008, Heald, 1970). Stewardship maintains that ?those who own property have the duty of using and administering it, not exclusively for their own purpose, but in ways that will serve the needs of the whole society "while trusteeship confirms that " The owner is a trustee accountable to God and society” (Bowen 1953). According to Heald (1961, 1970), these two concepts have created ideological bases which formed the basis for the development of CSR in the USA until the 1960s, and the most important innovation of the 1950s and 1960s would be the formulation and dissemination of social responsibility itself. During about half a century, the CSR was subsequently addressed in the managerial world by getting different notions such as "public service", "stewardship", "trusteeship" and finally "social responsibility".

Between the 1950s and 1960s, social responsibility has gone from practice to theory and CSR has become a theoretical concept (Heald, 1970). This process has accelerated the pace of changes in the CSR. Howard R. Bowen is often regarded as the founder of "modern corporate social responsibility" (Wood, 1991, Carroll, Carroll 1999), after the publication of his book The Social Responsibilities of Business in 1953. Although the book put the institutional bases for economic analysis of social responsibility as a tool to regulate corporate behavior (Acquier, Gond and Pasquero 2011), academia has not brought more than just the definition" the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of actions which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society". This first definition of social responsibility of business was the basis of a set of revisions and redefinitions.

CSR continued to change their shape, as several authors have proposed alternative conceptualizations to define the social phenomenon of CSR, such as the ability of social corporatist reaction, which in the 1970s focused on managing social problems (Frederick, 1978) or corporate social performance which aimed at integrating the concept of social responsibility (Carroll, 1979). Conceptual changes were numerous in the last half-century, so anyone may wonder if you can still talk about the same concept. This question does not receive, for three reasons, a simple answer. First, the same concept and the corresponding acronym, CSR may refer to completely different elements: the definitions given by Bowen (1953) and Friedman (1970) refers to the social responsibility of businessmen, while the definition of Basu and Palazzo (2008) refers to corporate social responsibility. Secondly, the creation of a new concept doesn't necessarily have aimed at replacing previous concepts, and its position between new and old concepts is not always clear. For example, Matten and Crane (2005) pointed out that corporate citizenship was described either as a component of the CSR, CSR is synonymous, or as an alternative to the CSR. Thirdly, a few conceptual changes of duration seemed to have appeared in time, such as the tendency of the last definitions of CSR to borrow the vocabulary of complementary or neighbouring disciplines such as economics, the concept of "externality" (Crouch), political science, the concept of "corporate citizenship" (Moon 1995; Moon, Crane and Matten 2005; Crane and al., 2008).

Another notable change is the quasi-systematic use in the 1990s of the concept of interested parties to define CSR (Basu and Palazzo 2008 Wood Maignan, 1991). However, their review suggests that the definitions and concepts of CSR, old and new, share a few recurring and lasting features, such as the emphasis on activities to a greater or small extend illegal, and by focusing on the Corporation and/or its management as the main unit of analysis. However, the sequence of terms used to refer to social responsibility applied in practice, conceptual developments, changes of definition and rearranging of structures provide a complex image but a sense of confusion on the other hand (Garriga and Mele 2004). Clarkson (1995), for example, claimed that FMC, together with CSR 1 and 2 do not have a clear meaning and remain elusive constructions. A strategy to manage this complex image lies in the adoption of a long-term perspective on the sequence of conceptual structures of CSR, which are reminiscent of the structures of CSR issues reported by the companies (Chapple and Moon, 2005).

观点---Perspectives

CSR has clearly developed as an academic and management concept. Demonstrating often its chameleonic character, its cycle of life suggests that CSR is in a continual state of change. The dynamism and the overlay and contextual character reflect its quality as a concept in question. Therefore, in recent years there have been many changes that critics and followers fifty years ago would have found incompatible with what they considered to be hypothetical about CSR. Two of these developments were represented, first of all, by the concept that CSR appears to reflect to some extent the compatibility of sociability with the success of a company. Secondly, CSR seems to have become incorporated into the systems of national and international governance. Both conceptual developments are subject to discussion among those involved in CSR. From this perspective, any transformations of the concept could have an impact, taking into account the pro and against debates.

It is important to add that, despite its common core, CSR is also contextual and, thus, is based on the national traditions of the business society, reflecting the different institutional, legal and ethical traditions (Matten and Moon 2008; Moon et al. 2010). However, traditions are interwoven where large corporations are transferring their operations and supply chains across borders. Moreover, the new sectorial challenges and even at the level of the company, must ensure also that each context in itself is dynamic. These trends will be, without a doubt, the subject of national and international CSR rearranging, taking into consideration that developments reflect new overlays and contexts. This should not be a source of despair, but rather a reason to recognise the fact that essentially, the contested concepts are attacked because they have value.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创留学生作业代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。

51due为留学生提供最好的服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多essay代写范文 提供美国作业代写以及essay代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。-xz