【導(dǎo)讀】企業(yè)的社會(huì)責(zé)任：一種趨勢(shì)和運(yùn)動(dòng)，企業(yè)行為，以協(xié)助國(guó)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，中心的某些行。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。指導(dǎo)網(wǎng)絡(luò)，國(guó)際公認(rèn)的規(guī)則一直是一種重要機(jī)制，作用在公司、國(guó)家和國(guó)家間組織的需求，例如，發(fā)布指導(dǎo)方針和條例的公司。在尋求與跨國(guó)公司進(jìn)行對(duì)話，而不是試圖通過(guò)國(guó)家控制企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任。各國(guó)際組織不是對(duì)。贊成高比例的自律。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(lái)看，那些規(guī)章和精細(xì)還是。適用于沒有遵守規(guī)章并被籠統(tǒng)制定的企業(yè)。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。球契約從全球影響力和道德權(quán)威的聯(lián)合國(guó)和增列角色創(chuàng)建社區(qū)發(fā)出的原則，增長(zhǎng)其信譽(yù)。聯(lián)合國(guó)全球契約,已形成過(guò)程中通過(guò)響應(yīng)規(guī)則。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)問題。的全球契約和它的成員的跡象,積極進(jìn)行審查。

　　

【正文】 in targets and as main driving actors of the trend. Other anizations are mobilized more or less as actors in the environment of the corporations. States and intergovernmental anizations act as channels to place demands on corporations, demands which have also been expressed by civil society anizations. The anized efforts of states and international anizations 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 10 established norms and agreements. In this way the movement builds on and can be expected to further emphasize a relationship between and among states, international anizations 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 soft rather than hard is based on what the framework seems to be able to acplish – harder and more statecentered 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, their pliance with fundamental human, worker and environmental rights is essential for furthering positive developments in the world of corporate social responsibility. Debates center on how such pliance should be acplished, what the criteria are for reaching pliance and who should monitor and sanction those not plying. However, there were also differences in the manner in which various actors pursued CSR. One difference concerned the way in which corporate social responsibility related to other activities, operations and demands on the corporations. The demands on corporations to act and to develop in socially responsible ways and the regulating and scrutinizing efforts that follow from these demands are meant to concern the entire corporation – wherever in the world it operates. On the other hand, when corporate social responsibility is pursued as a mobilization of corporations in assisting states in development aid, it may not concern the whole corporation。 rather it seems to be anized and pursued in the form of specific projects, often aimed at very distant places and sectors. And third, as a management trend, corporate social responsibility seems to be connected primarily with presentations and legitimacy building in corporations, and we should expect, based on previous research, a great deal of decoupling to occur. When it es to crosssector boundaries and relationships among states, business corporations and civil society anizations, the three trends also seem to entail differences. The first trend, the placing of new demands on corporations, seems to be built on and to reinforce a relatively traditional division of responsibility across societal sectors whereby states provide the rules of the game and corporations act according to these rules. States and international anizations do act as rule setters and as mediators of the broader demands placed on 11 corporations leading to conflicts and tensions over who should set the rules and who should monitor them. But such conflicts are not unique to the CSR field. The second trend, the entrance of large corporations into the delivery of aid to developing countries, seems to be driving a somewhat more blurring of boundaries, in which corporations are not only expected to follow rules and to respond to expectations and demands set by others, but are actually expected to supplement and add to state and intergovernmental anizations where their reach and strength seems to be too limited. In the third, the management trend, we find a more active role being played by the carriers of concepts, models, expectations and presentations than is usually assumed to be the case. Again, this is not unique to the CSR field。 it has also been found to be the case in the development of management and anizational trends more generally. This phenomenon, however, points to the importance of developing further elaborated models of crosssectoral relationships。 the role of intermediaries。 and the interrelations among norms and norm entrepreneurs, anizational platforms and governing technologies.