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

Tomsk 2009

Corporate Social responsibility as a main concept of modern business development

Introduction

This paper is devoted to the problem of corporate social responsibility in big companies. In the first part the author underlines that we live in an increasingly complex and skeptical world. Corporate scandals, stock market downturn, uncertain economy, threat of terrorism - all have diminished trust in the corporate sector and its leaders.companies have to address this, individually by demonstrating their positive impact on society and collectively by developing comparative meaningful measures by which to report their progress against. Corporate responsibility is not a fad, but an imperative. Yet even as it becomes more mainstream, stakeholders are becoming more critical, and the standards for meaningful social interaction are rising.

According to the second part of this paper, companies that embrace corporate responsibility recognize that their social and environmental impacts have to be managed in just the same way as their economic or commercial performance. But getting started, putting corporate responsibility principles into practice can be difficult and many companies struggle to justify the management of social and environmental affairs in terms of tangible business benefit. Ideally, CSR policy would function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would monitor and ensure their adherence to law, ethical standards, and international norms. Business would embrace responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. Furthermore, business would proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality.

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."

Moreover, CSR is international in nature. Although it can take different forms in different countries, it is more often than not about the internationally applicable behaviour of multinational companies. CSR has a relationship to globalization, is the subject of an international debate and has attracted the attention of intergovernmental organizations.

Key areas for CSR realization

In fact, there are the main four areas that emerged from the 'Winning with Integrity' framework by Business in the Community in 2000, which were adopted as common labels by other organizations and by many companies.

Marketplace. The central issue area is that of marketplace issues - in other words, how your business shows responsibility in how it makes its money. It's not just about ethical niche brands that sell specifically to customers that are activist shoppers. It's about the expectations that underpin the trust between the company and its customers, its suppliers and its shareholders.

It is obviously that you have to retain trust. In order to do this you shold deliver on your promises, you look after the other person's interests, and if you get it wrong, you help to put it right again. But of the social responsibility issues that most get companies into the spotlight for the wrong reason - it is usually marketplace issues.

Environment. Needless to say, climate change looms large over the future of successful business. We now better now than at any time before how high the stakes have become. Anyone with children has a stake in future generations and the ability of the environment to support life. But environmental good practice is also about business efficiency - it's about the best use of valuable raw materials, and feeding the benefits of action straight through to the bottom line.

The author beliefes that companies can take customers with them in their attempt to reduce their environmental impact. Moreover, we can design successful businesses that add value to people's lives without having to make more and more "stuff" that has a high environmental cost. And when we really get to grips with the huge cuts in carbon emissions we will need to meet, will companies be able to rise to the challenge.

Workplace. As a matter of fact, one of your company's biggest positive impacts on society will be the jobs you provide, and the wealth you put into the community via the wages you pay. But a big positive can be a big minus if you discriminate - or you provide soul destroying meaningless work that takes no account of your people's right to a private life. And the simple fact of the matter is that if people are your company's greatest asset, you need to invest seriously to begin to realise the returns.

It is obviously that, if you pay out good money to recruit talent, but then find you can't keep hold of it, it may be that you're missing out on a basic truth of human nature - people need to be developed, and challenged, and nurtured for them to be motivated to meet your business goals. And if you hold people back because of their sex, or the color of their skin - or you insist that if they've left the office before 7pm they don't have what it takes to make a senior manager, or if you think training is a mugs game because people might leave - then you're certainly not getting the most from your recruitment.

Not to mention the fact affair, recent surveys of business leaders have suggested that the ability to recruit and hold onto key talent is one of the biggest emerging issues for businesses. And there is plenty of evidence as well that the corporate reputation of the business - including its social responsibility - is seen as a key factor for a significant number of recent graduates considering where they should go.

Community. In particular, a successful company needs to operate in a healthy, thriving community - the kind of community your employees will want to live in, with the kind of schools they will want to send their kids to. If you think your business can be a little island of prosperity in a sea of deprivation, think again. And come to that, you need to be seen as a good neighbor to those communities. If you want to operate well, and to be able to expand or change when the time is right, you need the goodwill that comes of being an active supporter of the community - not a hostile intruder.

Potential business benefits.

As a matter of fact, the scale and nature of the benefits of CSR for an organization can vary depending on the nature of the enterprise, and are difficult to quantify, though there is a large body of literature exhorting business to adopt measures beyond financial ones). Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes found a correlation between social/environmental performance and financial performance. However, businesses may not be looking at short-run financial returns when developing their CSR strategy [61].

Besides, the definition of CSR used within an organization can vary from the strict "stakeholder impacts" definition used by many CSR advocates and will often include charitable efforts and volunteering. CSR may be based within the human resources, business development or public relations departments of an organization [62], or may be given a separate unit reporting to the CEO or in some cases directly to the board. Some companies may implement CSR-type values without a clearly defined team or programme.

The business case for CSR within a company will likely rest on one or more of these arguments:

Human resources. A CSR programme can be an aid to recruitment and retention [59], particularly within the competitive graduate student market. Potential recruits often ask about a firm's CSR policy during an interview, and having a comprehensive policy can give an advantage. CSR can also help to improve the perception of a company among its staff, particularly when staff can become involved through payroll giving, fundraising activities or community volunteering.

Risk management. Managing risk is a central part of many corporate strategies. Reputations that take decades to build up can be ruined in hours through incidents such as corruption scandals or environmental accidents. These events can also draw unwanted attention from regulators, courts, governments and media. Building a genuine culture of 'doing the right thing' within a corporation can offset these risks [65].

Brand differentiation. In crowded marketplaces, companies strive for a unique selling proposition that can separate them from the competition in the minds of consumers. CSR can play a role in building customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values [67]. Several major brands, such as The Co-operative Group, The Body Shop and American Apparel [68] are built on ethical values. Business service organizations can benefit too from building a reputation for integrity and best practice.

License to operate. Corporations are keen to avoid interference in their business through taxation or regulations. By taking substantive voluntary steps, they can persuade governments and the wider public that they are taking issues such as health and safety, diversity or the environment seriously, and so avoid intervention. This also applies to firms seeking to justify eye-catching profits and high levels of boardroom pay. Those operating away from their home country can make sure they stay welcome by being good corporate citizens with respect to labour standards and impacts on the environment.

Current drivers of CSR.

In fact, the practice of CSR is subject to much debate and criticism. Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations.

Corporations may be influenced to adopt CSR practices by several drivers [7]:

Ethical consumerism. In fact, the rise in popularity of ethical consumerism over the last two decades can be linked to the rise of CSR. As global population increases, so does the pressure on limited natural resources required to meet rising consumer demand (Grace and Cohen 2005, 147). Industrialization in many developing countries is booming as a result of technology and globalization. Consumers are becoming more aware of the environmental and social implications of their day-to-day consumer decisions and are beginning to make purchasing decisions related to their environmental and ethical concerns. However, this practice is far from consistent or universal.

Globalization and market forces. As corporations pursue growth through globalization, they have encountered new challenges that impose limits to their growth and potential profits government regulations, tariffs, environmental restrictions and varying standards of what constitutes labour exploitation are problems that can cost organizations millions of dollars. Some view ethical issues as simply a costly hindrance. Some companies use CSR methodologies as a strategic tactic to gain public support for their presence in global markets, helping them sustain a competitive advantage by using their social contributions to provide a subconscious level of advertising. (Fry, Keim, Meiners 1986, 105) Global competition places particular pressure on multinational corporations to examine not only their own labour practices, but those of their entire supply chain, from a CSR perspective.

Social awareness and education. Anyway, the role among corporate stakeholders to work collectively to pressure corporations is changing. Shareholders and investors themselves, through socially responsible investing are exerting pressure on corporations to behave responsibly. Non-governmental organizations are also taking an increasing role, leveraging the power of the media and the Internet to increase their scrutiny and collective activism around corporate behavior. Through education and dialogue, the development of community in holding businesses responsible for their actions is growing (Roux 2007).

Ethics training. Needless to say, the rise of ethics training inside corporations, some of it required by government regulation, is another driver credited with changing the behaviour and culture of corporations. The aim of such training is to help employees make ethical decisions when the answers are unclear. Tullberg believes that humans are built with the capacity to cheat and manipulate, a view taken from (Trivers 1971, 1985), hence the need for learning normative values and rules in human behaviour (Tullberg 1996). The most direct benefit is reducing the likelihood of "dirty hands" (Grace and Cohen 2005), fines and damaged reputations for breaching laws or moral norms.organizations also see secondary benefit in increasing employee loyalty and pride in the organization. Caterpillar and Best Buy are examples of organizations that have taken such steps (Thilmany 2007).

Increasingly, companies are becoming interested in processes that can add visibility to their CSR policies and activities. One method that is gaining increasing popularity is the use of well-grounded training programs, where CSR is a major issue, and business simulations can play a part in this.

Laws and regulation. Another driver of CSR is the role of independent mediators, particularly the government, in ensuring that corporations are prevented from harming the broader social good, including people and the environment. CSR critics such as Robert Reich argue that governments should set the agenda for social responsibility by the way of laws and regulation that will allow a business to conduct themselves responsibly.

Actually, the issues surrounding government regulation pose several problems. Regulation in itself is unable to cover every aspect in detail of a corporation's operations. This leads to burdensome legal processes bogged down in interpretations of the law and debatable grey areas (Sacconi 2004). General Electric is an example of a corporation that has failed to clean up the Hudson River after contaminating it with organic pollutants. The company continues to argue via the legal process on assignment of liability, while the cleanup remains stagnant. (Sullivan & Schiafo 2005). The second issue is the financial burden that regulation can place on a nation's economy. This view shared by Bulkeley, who cites the Australian federal government's actions to avoid compliance with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, on the concerns of economic loss and national interest. The Australian government took the position that signing the Kyoto Pact would have caused more significant economic losses for Australia than for any other OECD nation (Bulkeley 2001, pg 436). Critics of CSR also point out that organizations pay taxes to government to ensure that society and the environment are not adversely affected by business activities

Crises and their consequences. Often it takes a crisis to precipitate attention to CSR. One of the most active stands against environmental management is the CERES Principles that resulted after the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska in 1989 (Grace and Cohen 2006). Other examples include the lead poisoning paint used by toy giant Mattel, which required a recall of millions of toys globally and caused the company to initiate new risk management and quality control processes. In another example, Magellan Metals in the West Australian town of Esperance was responsible for lead contamination killing thousands of birds in the area. The company had to cease business immediately and work with independent regulatory bodies to execute a cleanup.

Stakeholder priorities. Increasingly, corporations are motivated to become more socially responsible because their most important stakeholders expect them to understand and address the social and community issues that are relevant to them. Understanding what causes are important to employees is usually the first priority because of the many interrelated business benefits that can be derived from increased employee engagement (i. e. more loyalty, improved recruitment, increased retention, higher productivity, and so on). Key external stakeholders include customers, consumers, investors (particularly institutional investors, regulators, academics, and the media).

Nature of CSR Challenges and Opportunities.

It is obviously that there is increasing focus on both the private and public sectors to be proactive in the area of CSR. Various challenges are emanating from consumers, shareholders, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and other stakeholders. These challenges are increasingly recognized in public policy debates as well as in the marketplace by companies and industry sector associations and they are frequently recognized as opportunities.

The fact of the matter is that stakeholders challenge corporations to play social responsibility roles - at both the domestic and international levels. Challenges usually focus on one or more elements of CSR such as environmental protection, health and safety, corporate governance, human resource management practices, human rights, community development and consumer protection. In many cases, the challenges are framed in an incremental way and on other occasions the challenges are spelled out in a more comprehensive and overarching manner. The challenges often call for voluntary actions by businesses to demonstrate responsible behaviour and effective responses to social and environmental problems - both in the domestic and international contexts. The demands also call upon the public sector to reinforce corporate leadership and to use other policy tools such as economic and regulatory instruments to encourage CSR.

Moreover, the challenges for action can differ considerably from one stakeholder group to another. For example, the demands can range from a call for more disclosure of information to demands for improved stakeholder involvement to requests for changes in management practices to proposals for altering the relationships between company directors, business managers, auditors, shareholders, debt holders, employees, suppliers, customers, community members, and other stakeholders. Some of the challenges are oriented to the ways that businesses manage their internal operations such as human resources management while others are directed at the ways that a business interacts with the rest of the community and society (e. g. human rights, consumers, and supplier relationships).

Conclusion.

In conclusion it can be underlined, that companies that embrace corporate responsibility can open doors on new markets, new opportunities and new relationships, set the scene for long term profitability and increase the competitiveness of the communities in which they operate. Conversely, companies that fail to manage their responsibilities to society as a whole risk losing their so-called License to Operate - the unwritten authority to do business that is granted by a company's stakeholders at large.

Taking everything into account, the author points out that stakeholder views and their expectations of corporate behavior are shaped by what they see happening in the world around them. Thus with today's communication networks, the world extends from the local neighborhood to the planet as a whole.

Приложение Б. Программа исследования