【正文】 itself on its website as ‘‘a(chǎn) multistakeholder process and independent institution whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines’’. This multistakeholder process is hosted by a permanent, independent anization which has had global headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands since 1997. The GRI seeks to develop a reporting system parable 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 established in March 2021, wherein the Global Compact agreed to encourage panies to use GRI guidelines and reporting indicators that matched existing Global Compact principles. Extended works of reporting, standardizing, rule setting and the monitoring of anizations have been connected to 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。 and with the interplay among related regulatory, governing and criticizing efforts. Regulations and governance are characterized by reciprocity and coregulation. CSR as a regulatory framework: impacts on anizations and crosssector relations I have described the CSR trend as evolving from the protests and concerns of civil society anizations. 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 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。 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。 and the interrelations among norms and norm entrepreneurs, anizational platforms and governing technologies.