會(huì)計(jì)外文文獻(xiàn)(共11頁)

1、精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上 企業(yè)的社會(huì)責(zé)任 企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任（ CSR ）已成為一個(gè)全球趨勢(shì)，涉及企業(yè)，國家，國際組織和民間社會(huì)組織。但這遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不能清楚CSR的主張，有什么真正的趨勢(shì)，是從哪里開始，在哪里發(fā)展，誰是項(xiàng)目的主要行動(dòng)者。如果把它作為一種社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)，我們必須要問：什么運(yùn)動(dòng)和誰執(zhí)行？討論有助于我們反思形成的趨勢(shì)和如何管理某些特點(diǎn)來迅速和廣泛地在全球各地進(jìn)行擴(kuò)展，并增加了以下體制變革,特別是對(duì)變化中國家之間、企業(yè)法人和民間社會(huì)組織關(guān)系之間的界限的作用。企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的趨勢(shì)在三個(gè)方面：作為一個(gè)管理框架，新的要求，地方企業(yè);作為動(dòng)員企業(yè)行為，以協(xié)助國家的發(fā)展援助;和作為管理趨勢(shì)。每一個(gè)這些畫像表明，中

2、心的某些行為，關(guān)系，駕馭團(tuán)隊(duì)和利益。我的例子表明，沒有人對(duì)這些意見似乎比別人更準(zhǔn)確，而是，活動(dòng)包括規(guī)范的不同利益、作用因素、起源和軌跡。這些多重身份的趨勢(shì)可以部分描述其成功以及它的爭(zhēng)論，脆弱性和流動(dòng)性。許多公司現(xiàn)在有具體的計(jì)劃和小節(jié)在其網(wǎng)站上處理企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任。在過去，軟條例和指導(dǎo)網(wǎng)絡(luò)，國際公認(rèn)的規(guī)則一直是一種重要機(jī)制，作用在公司、國家和國家間組織的需求，例如，發(fā)布指導(dǎo)方針和條例的公司。在這背景下，國際組織仍然是重要的行動(dòng)者，他們正在尋求與跨國公司進(jìn)行對(duì)話，而不是試圖通過國家控制企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任。各國際組織不是對(duì)企業(yè)的社會(huì)責(zé)任監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu);而他們卻是監(jiān)管和自我約束的倡議之間的經(jīng)紀(jì)人的最合適人選。對(duì)社會(huì)負(fù)

3、責(zé)行為和監(jiān)測(cè)這些行為的需求越來越多地以國家以外的這些組織為渠道，并強(qiáng)調(diào)贊成高比例的自律。因此，我們看到了軟法律(Morth, 2004)的出現(xiàn)，或者是Knill 和 Lehmkuhl (2002) 所說的“被規(guī)管的自律”， 和Moran (2002)所歸納的“精細(xì)”或“非正式”規(guī)章。我更喜歡“軟法律”和“軟規(guī)章”的說法，因?yàn)樗麄儾⒉豢偸欠钦降?。軟?guī)章常常包括正式報(bào)告和統(tǒng)籌程序。還有，從統(tǒng)籌和行政的觀點(diǎn)來看，那些規(guī)章和精細(xì)還是相去甚遠(yuǎn)的。社會(huì)責(zé)任的措施和規(guī)章在公司和他們的利益相關(guān)者之間的對(duì)話中發(fā)展。聯(lián)合國全球契約是發(fā)展中的軟規(guī)章框架的中心。它是自愿的，沒有法律約束力的制裁。適用于沒有遵守規(guī)章并

4、被籠統(tǒng)制定的企業(yè)。它為理解條例提供許多余地，從而以適合它們自身情況和期待的某種方式，實(shí)現(xiàn)將規(guī)章轉(zhuǎn)化為行動(dòng)的改變。該倡議是建立在菜單上的書面原則基礎(chǔ)上的國際宣言和協(xié)定的成員契約遵循。然而，契約本身并不是一個(gè)法律框架。此倡議依賴于承諾，信譽(yù)和能見度遵守，而不是對(duì)不符合原則的企業(yè)發(fā)出明確的制裁。全球契約從全球影響力和道德權(quán)威的聯(lián)合國和增列角色創(chuàng)建社區(qū)發(fā)出的原則，增長(zhǎng)其信譽(yù)。軟規(guī)則，換言之，是嵌套在更廣泛的監(jiān)管范圍（ Jacobsson和薩赫林-安德森，2006年），更說明了一個(gè)事實(shí)，即目前還不清楚，結(jié)合這些條例以及在何種程度上可以預(yù)料，從而遵守或?qū)⒈３制＼?。?lián)合國全球契約,已形成過程中通過響應(yīng)規(guī)則。

5、2004年的夏天,一個(gè)十原理產(chǎn)生廣泛的在協(xié)商過程。此外,大量的重點(diǎn)放在形成什么被稱為“學(xué)習(xí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)”和“政策對(duì)話”。大量的會(huì)議,安排定期商界領(lǐng)袖、聯(lián)合國機(jī)構(gòu)、政府的代表,勞工協(xié)會(huì),非政府組織和其他團(tuán)體、學(xué)者、都聚集了來討論和分享他們的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和關(guān)心的具體問題。全球緊湊的進(jìn)一步鼓勵(lì)產(chǎn)生的局部結(jié)構(gòu)和網(wǎng)絡(luò)的國家區(qū)域的水平。參賽者來自丹麥，芬蘭，挪威和瑞典已經(jīng)形成了全球契約北歐網(wǎng)絡(luò)為例，探討了實(shí)現(xiàn)的原理。努力擴(kuò)大主要是為了擴(kuò)大網(wǎng)絡(luò)招聘和活化成員及其它跨國組織形成合作關(guān)系。這些網(wǎng)絡(luò)和對(duì)話的目標(biāo),為全球契約的網(wǎng)站上公布，在推動(dòng)學(xué)習(xí)的演員和部門。參與公司在全球契約要求提供的例子是如何工作的，按照積極推廣十原則。組織

6、者現(xiàn)在全球契約當(dāng)作學(xué)習(xí)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)和一個(gè)后面的報(bào)告是存在野心的，為最佳實(shí)踐提供了范例。最近，全球已經(jīng)強(qiáng)調(diào)贊成學(xué)術(shù)著作標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的報(bào)告的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。最佳實(shí)踐的案例是由學(xué)術(shù)的學(xué)者全球契約，張貼在網(wǎng)站上?？茖W(xué)和學(xué)術(shù)參考作為一個(gè)合法化的設(shè)備和手段的平衡,出現(xiàn)在網(wǎng)絡(luò)的依賴性有價(jià)值的獨(dú)立與科學(xué)和審計(jì)。似乎有一種視覺形式的社區(qū)中，每個(gè)參與者個(gè)人演員努力顯得適當(dāng)?shù)年P(guān)系網(wǎng)絡(luò)和其他成員對(duì)他們的利益相關(guān)者的立場(chǎng)，他們根據(jù)律。為鼓勵(lì)人們的機(jī)制,堅(jiān)持準(zhǔn)則是，因此，包括他們的小組，來說服他們，關(guān)鍵是要有一個(gè)好的該組織內(nèi)部的名字，達(dá)到一個(gè)高水平的合法性的努力，在作為一個(gè)整體事實(shí)上，一定程度的合法性,信號(hào)到更廣泛的觀眾，團(tuán)隊(duì)成員定義、對(duì)社會(huì)

7、負(fù)責(zé)。最后，既包含緊湊像強(qiáng)調(diào)的名字的主動(dòng)權(quán)。一個(gè)邏輯的適用性(1981年3月)作為管理策略：緊湊的重要性，強(qiáng)調(diào)個(gè)人演員出現(xiàn)，它是適當(dāng)?shù)囊?guī)范旨在使看得見的適用性和合規(guī)或缺乏。開發(fā)類似于一個(gè)社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)，它是依靠自己的演員。為了讓這樣一個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)功能有效的、積極參與成員是至關(guān)重要的。相反于這種理想的設(shè)定緊湊,這個(gè)網(wǎng)站，見證公司的放松和不活躍的參與。積極組織的會(huì)議和網(wǎng)絡(luò)視為一種發(fā)起人調(diào)動(dòng)會(huì)員為建立一個(gè)更活躍的運(yùn)動(dòng)。還有其他的方法中，全球契約提醒我們的社會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)或使用汪宏年的(2002)術(shù)語模式轉(zhuǎn)向網(wǎng)絡(luò)。作為其代表強(qiáng)調(diào)，“全球契約辦公室不規(guī)范和監(jiān)控公司文件和行動(dòng)”(Kell，2003年3月，p38)。范圍的動(dòng)員

8、、政策制定、報(bào)告和監(jiān)測(cè)機(jī)構(gòu)正在形成網(wǎng)絡(luò)。這整個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò),不是個(gè)體的規(guī)則和規(guī)則制定者形式監(jiān)管框架。這個(gè)目標(biāo)是為了保持網(wǎng)絡(luò)的演員一起共同原則、程序和規(guī)范。那些在沖突或那些不遵守規(guī)則內(nèi)沒有受到懲罰系統(tǒng)。因此柔性的規(guī)定存在的假設(shè)，將共同規(guī)范中這些連接網(wǎng)絡(luò)來判斷對(duì)方相對(duì)于既定的規(guī)則和程序。雖然可能有共同利益之初，希望是這些包括在網(wǎng)絡(luò)來分享共同規(guī)范。包含機(jī)制建立在視覺上的更大更廣泛的這個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)，更重要的是它會(huì)的是為企業(yè)，依賴于他們的利益相關(guān)者，加入網(wǎng)絡(luò)向他人顯示他們遵守其規(guī)章。那些沒有遵守原則的，僅僅被責(zé)備和羞辱，而沒有接受正規(guī)的制裁。延長(zhǎng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)是建立在全球契約包含了大量的主動(dòng)關(guān)心的企業(yè)公民,企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和相關(guān)問

9、題。它包含大量多樣，包括政府機(jī)構(gòu)組織為世界銀行、國際經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織，商業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)(例如國際商會(huì)及世界貿(mào)易委員會(huì)對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展),勞動(dòng)組織(例如國際聯(lián)合會(huì)的自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定)、學(xué)術(shù)機(jī)構(gòu)、民間組織。另外,主動(dòng)離開紀(jì)律的獨(dú)立觀察者學(xué)者、非政府組織、獨(dú)立的媒體觀察和細(xì)究這個(gè)措施，用手指責(zé)備那些超越規(guī)則界限的行為。鼓勵(lì)公民社會(huì)組織細(xì)看社會(huì)責(zé)任感的企業(yè)，全球形成一種治理結(jié)構(gòu)緊湊而不需要運(yùn)用法律框架。在這個(gè)指南為會(huì)員，貼在全球契約的網(wǎng)站,Corpwatch及其他公民社會(huì)組織已知愈發(fā)細(xì)看公司和全球化被稱為活性檢查操作的全球契約和它的成員的跡象,積極進(jìn)行審查。通過與這些更關(guān)鍵的演員,主動(dòng)進(jìn)一步合法化。這些組織預(yù)計(jì)扮演

10、重要的角色檢查監(jiān)視器和批判的公司的演員和公司遵循建立的原則。另一種和補(bǔ)充的獨(dú)立觀察員和活動(dòng)中不可或缺的部分的管理和治理結(jié)構(gòu)是建立具有獨(dú)立性的監(jiān)測(cè)系統(tǒng)。這樣一個(gè)系統(tǒng)的會(huì)計(jì)的這些方面生意的全球報(bào)告倡議(世源科技公司)，正在發(fā)展。世源科技公司自己描述其網(wǎng)站作為“多方利益過程和獨(dú)立機(jī)構(gòu)的使命是去可持續(xù)發(fā)展和推廣全球報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則”放之四海而皆準(zhǔn)。這個(gè)主辦了多方利益過程具有永久性，獨(dú)立的組織自從1997年全球總部位于荷蘭阿姆斯特丹。致力于發(fā)展的困擾一個(gè)報(bào)告制度與國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)和達(dá)到一定水平的報(bào)告的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益、環(huán)境效益和社會(huì)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展，將作為常規(guī)財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。一個(gè)框架協(xié)定全球契約世源科技公司成立，于2003年3

11、月，在全球契約同意鼓勵(lì)公司使用指南和報(bào)告指標(biāo)，世源科技公司現(xiàn)有匹配全球契約的原則。延長(zhǎng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的報(bào)告、規(guī)范、規(guī)則設(shè)定和監(jiān)控組織已經(jīng)連接到全球契約。例如，世源科技公司和全球契約已經(jīng)宣布，他們與社會(huì)和環(huán)境標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的聯(lián)系。 SA8000和ISO14000。監(jiān)督和治理模式和發(fā)展伴隨著新元素的演變，以相互之間伴隨著相關(guān)的監(jiān)督管理,控制相互作用和批判的作用力。法規(guī)和治理具有相互作用的規(guī)范。CSR作為監(jiān)管框架：影響組織和跨界別的關(guān)系有一種特殊的社會(huì)趨勢(shì)的抗議活動(dòng)演變與公民社會(huì)的關(guān)注組織。公司已經(jīng)推出計(jì)劃，應(yīng)用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和帶著積極參與開發(fā)此類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的回應(yīng)新的要求和新形式的監(jiān)控。它是一種管理框架。公司的主要目標(biāo)，開始出現(xiàn)了主要

12、驅(qū)動(dòng)因素的趨勢(shì)。其他組織或多或少都動(dòng)員作為這個(gè)公司的環(huán)境的因素。國家和政府間國際組織擔(dān)任在公司的渠道，要求地方國際組織把這些要求背后的合法性和力量被包裝他們的形式全球標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和報(bào)告的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，通過基于聯(lián)合國框架，通過將他們與建立、規(guī)范和協(xié)議。這樣的運(yùn)動(dòng)建立并將會(huì)進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)了三者之間關(guān)系國家、國際組織、企業(yè)、國家有望形式制度框架內(nèi)，維護(hù)公司的行為。這個(gè)原因形成這種監(jiān)管框架是薄弱的，而不是努力是基于框架似乎無法完成和國家法規(guī)，不得有接受那些調(diào)節(jié)(公司)及他們的利益相關(guān)者。因此，把重點(diǎn)放在柔軟的條例，出現(xiàn)了全球性的權(quán)力力量的跨國公司。因?yàn)楣居羞@樣的力量這個(gè)世界,他們的最基本的人性、工人和環(huán)境的權(quán)利積極發(fā)展

13、所必需的深化企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的世界。辯論中心應(yīng)符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的實(shí)現(xiàn)誰應(yīng)該監(jiān)控，達(dá)到符合處罰不遵守的行為。然而，也有不同的方式，在各種行動(dòng)者追趕CSR。一個(gè)區(qū)別有關(guān)的其他相關(guān)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任活動(dòng)，并要求對(duì)公司的業(yè)務(wù)。在企業(yè)的需求行為以及培養(yǎng)社會(huì)責(zé)任方面所做的努力與調(diào)節(jié)和審查從這些要求，是用來關(guān)注整個(gè)公司在世界的運(yùn)作方式。另一方面，當(dāng)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任是追求作為公司在協(xié)助美國動(dòng)員工作的發(fā)展援助，它可能不關(guān)心整個(gè)公司，而這似乎是組織形式，在特定的項(xiàng)目，經(jīng)常瞄準(zhǔn)非常遙遠(yuǎn)的地方和部門。再者，作為管理的趨勢(shì)，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任似乎主要是與演示和連接在公司的合法性建設(shè)，我們可以預(yù)期，根據(jù)以往的研究大量的結(jié)合發(fā)生。 當(dāng)談到跨界別的界限

14、，商業(yè)和關(guān)系公司和公民社會(huì)組織、三大趨勢(shì)似乎也需要之間的差異。第一個(gè)趨勢(shì)，這對(duì)公司的新要求，似乎是建立在和強(qiáng)化相對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的責(zé)任，在社會(huì)領(lǐng)域美國提供了游戲的規(guī)則和公司按照這些規(guī)則。美國與國際組織的規(guī)則制定者的范圍內(nèi)做點(diǎn)公益和介質(zhì)的更廣泛的需求導(dǎo)致沖突和緊張的公司應(yīng)該在誰的規(guī)則和誰應(yīng)該監(jiān)督他們。但這樣的沖突并不獨(dú)特的社會(huì)領(lǐng)域。第二個(gè)趨勢(shì)，入口的大公司進(jìn)入交割的援助來發(fā)展國家，似乎是駕駛多點(diǎn)的界限，到達(dá)和力量似乎太有限。在第三管理，我們看到了一個(gè)趨勢(shì)中發(fā)揮更積極的作用，由運(yùn)營商概念、模型、期望和演講比通常被認(rèn)為是這個(gè)案子。再次，這并非獨(dú)一無二，它還代表被發(fā)現(xiàn)的情況管理與組織發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)更加普遍。這種現(xiàn)象

15、，然而，重要性闡述了跨部門的發(fā)展模式更進(jìn)一步關(guān)系，中介機(jī)構(gòu)之間的關(guān)系;并規(guī)范和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)企業(yè)家、組織平臺(tái)和管理技術(shù)。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

16、 is far from 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

17、certain models 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

18、framework that 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 v

19、iews seems more 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 pr

20、ograms and subsections 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 exa

21、mple, issued 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 no

22、t regulators 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

23、, and the emphasis 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

24、 regulations, 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 dialo

25、gues between 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 int

26、erpreting the 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 l

27、egal framework. 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 in

28、clusion of additional 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

29、that it remains 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

30、consultative 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 representative

31、s, non-governmental 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 Denm

32、ark, Finland, 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. Thes

33、e networks and 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

34、 Global Compact 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 sch

35、olars and posted 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 comm

36、unity among the 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

37、the norms is, 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, s

38、ocially responsible. 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

39、at making visible 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

40、 to this ideal 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 oth

41、er ways in which 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). Constellati

42、ons of mobilizing, 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

43、 or those unlikely 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 presen

44、t at the outset, 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 a

45、nd to show others 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 so

46、cial responsibility 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 organi

47、zations (e.g. 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 scrutini

48、ze the actions 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 guidel

49、ines for members, 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-stakeh

50、older process 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

51、 GRI seeks to 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 w

52、as established 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 t

53、o the Global 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 wi

54、th the interplay 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

55、and concerns 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

56、 actors of the 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 eff

57、orts of states 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 t

58、he movement builds 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 fram

59、ework to be soft 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 stre