企業(yè)的社會責(zé)任外文文獻翻譯1知識講解0001

1、企業(yè)的社會責(zé)任：一種趨勢和運動, 但社會責(zé)任是什么，是為了什么？企業(yè)社會責(zé)任(CSR )已成為一個全球趨勢，涉及企業(yè)，國家，國際組織和民間社 會組織。但這遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不能清楚CSR的主張，有什么真正的趨勢，是從哪里開始，在哪里發(fā)展， 誰是項目的主要行動者。如果把它作為一種社會運動，我們必須要問：什么運動和誰執(zhí)行? 討論有助于我們反思形成的趨勢和如何管理某些特點來迅速和廣泛地在全球各地進行擴 展，并增加了以下體制變革，特別是對變化中國家之間、企業(yè)法人和民間社會組織關(guān)系之間 的界限的作用。企業(yè)社會責(zé)任的趨勢在三個方面：作為一個管理框架，新的要求，地方企業(yè)；作為動員企業(yè)行為，以協(xié)助國家的發(fā)展援助；和作為管理

2、趨勢。每一個這些畫像表明，中心的某些行 為，關(guān)系，駕馭團隊和利益。我的例子表明，沒有人對這些意見似乎比別人更準(zhǔn)確，而是， 活動包括規(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可以部分描述其 成功以及它的爭論，脆弱性和流動性。許多公司現(xiàn)在有具體的計劃和小節(jié)在其網(wǎng)站上處理企業(yè)社會責(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者，他們正 在尋求與跨國公司進行對話，而不是試圖通過國家控制企業(yè)社會責(zé)任。各國際組織不是對 企業(yè)的社會責(zé)任監(jiān)管機構(gòu)；而他們卻是監(jiān)管和自我

3、約束的倡議之間的經(jīng)紀(jì)人的最合適人選。 對社會負(fù)責(zé)行為和監(jiān)測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，因為他們并不總是非正式的。軟規(guī) 章常常包括正式報告和統(tǒng)籌程序。還有，從統(tǒng)籌和行政的觀點來看，那些規(guī)章和精細(xì)還是 相去甚遠(yuǎn)的。社會責(zé)任的措施和規(guī)章在公司和他們的利益相關(guān)者之間的對話中發(fā)展。聯(lián)合國全球契約是發(fā)展中的軟規(guī)章框

4、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，實現(xiàn)將規(guī)章轉(zhuǎn)化為行動的改變。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法律框架。 此倡議依賴于承諾，信譽和能見度遵守，而不是對不符合原則的企業(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，增長其信譽。軟規(guī)則，換言之，是嵌套在更廣泛的監(jiān)管范圍(Jacobssoiffi薩赫林-安德森，2006年)，原文出處及作者： CORPORATE GOVERNANCE V

5、OL. 6 NO. 5 2006 Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson 更說明了一個事實，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。2004年的夏天，一個十原理產(chǎn)生廣泛的 在協(xié)商過程。此外，大量的重點放在形成什么被稱為“學(xué)習(xí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)”和“政策對話”。大量的 會議,安排定期商界領(lǐng)袖、聯(lián)合國機構(gòu)、政府的代表 ，勞工協(xié)會，非政府組織和其他團體、學(xué) 者、都聚集了來討論和分享他們的經(jīng)驗和關(guān)心的具體問題。全球緊湊的進一步鼓勵產(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)

6、絡(luò)為例，探討了實現(xiàn)的原理。努力擴大主要是為了擴大網(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)和對話的目標(biāo)，為全球契約的網(wǎng)站上公布，在推動學(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。組織者現(xiàn)在全球契約當(dāng)作學(xué)習(xí)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)和一個后面的報告是存在野心的，為最佳實踐提 供了范例。最近，全球已經(jīng)強調(diào)贊成學(xué)術(shù)著作標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的報告的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。最佳實踐的案例是由 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)的依賴性有價值的獨立與科學(xué)和審計。似乎有一種視覺形式的社區(qū)中，每個參與者個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

7、他們的利益相關(guān)者的立場，他們根 據(jù)律。為鼓勵人們的機制，堅持準(zhǔn)則是，因此，包括他們的小組，來說服他們，關(guān)鍵是要有 一個好的該組織內(nèi)部的名字，達到一個高水平的合法性的努力，在作為一個整體事實上， 一定程度的合法性，信號到更廣泛的觀眾，團隊成員定義、對社會負(fù)責(zé)。最后，既包含緊湊 像強調(diào)的名字的主動權(quán)。一個邏輯的適用性（1981年3月）作為管理策略：緊湊的重要性，強 調(diào)個人演員出現(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 社會運動，它是依靠自己的演員。為了讓這樣一個網(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，這個網(wǎng)站，見證公司的放松和不活躍的參與。積

8、極組織的會議和網(wǎng)絡(luò)視為一種發(fā)起人調(diào)動會員為建立一個更活躍的運動。還有其他 的方法中，全球契約提醒我們的社會運動或使用汪宏年的（2002）術(shù)語模式轉(zhuǎn)向網(wǎng)絡(luò)。作為其代表強調(diào)，“全球契約辦公室不規(guī)范和監(jiān)控公司文件和行動”（Kell , 2003年3月，p38）0范圍的動員、政策制定、報告和監(jiān)測機構(gòu)正在形成網(wǎng)絡(luò)。這整個網(wǎng)絡(luò) ，不是個體的規(guī)則和規(guī) 則制定者形式監(jiān)管框架。這個目標(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)來判斷對方相對于既定的規(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

9、享共同規(guī)范。包含機制建立在視覺上的更大更廣泛的這個網(wǎng)絡(luò)，更 重要的是它會的是為企業(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。延長網(wǎng)絡(luò)是建立 在全球契約包含了大量的主動關(guān)心的企業(yè)公民 ，企業(yè)社會責(zé)任和相關(guān)問題。它包含大量多 樣，包括政府機構(gòu)組織為世界銀行、國際經(jīng)濟合作與發(fā)展組織，商業(yè)協(xié)會（例如國際商會及 世界貿(mào)易委員會對可持續(xù)發(fā)展），勞動組織（例如國際聯(lián)合會的自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定 卜學(xué)術(shù)機構(gòu)、民間組織。另外，主動離開紀(jì)律的獨立觀察者學(xué)者、非政府組織、獨立的媒體一一觀察和細(xì)究 這個措施，用手指責(zé)備那些超越規(guī)則界限的行為。鼓勵公

10、民社會組織細(xì)看社會責(zé)任感的企 業(yè)，全球形成一種治理結(jié)構(gòu)緊湊而不需要運用法律框架。在這個指南為會員，貼在全球契 約的網(wǎng)站，Corpwatch及其他公民社會組織已知愈發(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，積極進行審查。通過與這些更關(guān)鍵的演員，主動進一步合法 化。這些組織預(yù)計扮演重要的角色檢查監(jiān)視器和批判的公司的演員和公司遵循建立的原 則。另一種和補充的獨立觀察員和活動中不可或缺的部分的管理和治理結(jié)構(gòu)是建立具有獨 立性的監(jiān)測系統(tǒng)。這樣一個系統(tǒng)的會計的這些方面生意的全球報告倡議（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“多方利益過程和獨立機構(gòu)的使命是去可持

11、續(xù)發(fā)展和推廣全球報告準(zhǔn)則”放之四海而皆準(zhǔn)。這個主辦了多方利益過程具有永久性，獨 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)展的困擾一個報告制度與國 際會計準(zhǔn)則委員會和達到一定水平的報告的經(jīng)濟效益、環(huán)境效益和社會的可持續(xù)發(fā)展，將 作為常規(guī)財務(wù)報告。一個框架協(xié)定全球契約世源科技公司成立，于200孫3月，在全球契約同意鼓勵公司使用指南和報告指標(biāo)，世源科技公司現(xiàn)有匹配全球契約的原則。延長網(wǎng)絡(luò) 的報告、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

12、相互之間伴隨著 相關(guān)的監(jiān)督管理抄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趨勢的抗議活動演變與公民社會 的關(guān)注組織。公司已經(jīng)推出計劃，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)了主要驅(qū)動因素的趨勢。 其他組織或多或少都動員作為這個公司的環(huán)境的因素。國家和政府間國際組織擔(dān)任在公司 的渠道，要求地方要求，也被表達公民社會組織。這個組織的努力與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

13、協(xié)議。這樣的運動建立并將會進一步強調(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)，維護公司的行為。這個原因形成這種監(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。因為公司有這樣的力量這個世界，他們的最基本的人性、工人和環(huán)境的權(quán)利積極發(fā)展所 必需的深化企業(yè)社會責(zé)任的世界。辯論中心應(yīng)符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的實現(xiàn)誰應(yīng)該監(jiān)控，達到符合處罰 不遵守的行為。然而，也有不同的方式，在各種行動者追趕 CSRo 一個區(qū)別有關(guān)的其他相 關(guān)企業(yè)社會責(zé)任活動，并要求對公司的業(yè)務(wù)。在企業(yè)的

14、需求行為以及培養(yǎng)社會責(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)注整個公司在世界的運作方式。另一方面， 當(dāng)企業(yè)社會責(zé)任是追求作為公司在協(xié)助美國動員工作的發(fā)展援助，它可能不關(guān)心整個公 司，而這似乎是組織形式，在特定的項目，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，企業(yè)社會責(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，商業(yè)和關(guān)系公司和公民社會組織、三大趨勢似乎也需要之間的 差異。第一個趨勢，這對公司的新要求，似乎是建立在和強化相對傳統(tǒng)的責(zé)任，在社會領(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

15、者的范圍內(nèi)做 點公益和介質(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特的社會領(lǐng)域。第二個趨勢，入口的大公司進入交割的援助來發(fā)展國 家，似乎是駕駛多點的界限，其中公司不僅是期望遵循規(guī)則，并期望和由其他要求，但實 際上是期望補充和添加到國家和政府間國際組織，在那里，他們到達和力量似乎太有限。 在第三管理，我們看到了一個趨勢中發(fā)揮更積極的作用，由運營商概念、模型、期望和演 講比通常被認(rèn)為是這個案子。再次，這并非獨一無二，它還代表被發(fā)現(xiàn)的情況管理與組織 發(fā)展的趨勢更加普遍。這種現(xiàn)象，然而，重要性闡述了跨部門的發(fā)展模式更進一步關(guān)系， 中介機構(gòu)之間的關(guān)系；并規(guī)范

16、和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)企業(yè)家、組織平臺和管理技術(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 is far from clear what CSR stands for,

17、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 certain models come to flow rapidly and

18、 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 framework that places new demands on

19、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 views seems more accurate than the oth

20、ers; 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 programs and subsections on their websit

21、es 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 example, issued guidelines and regulation

22、s 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 not regulators of corporate social respo

23、nsibility; 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, and the emphasis favours a high prop

24、ortion of self-regulation. Consequently, we have seen the emergence of soft law (Morth, 2004) or what Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002) have called ''regulatexelf-regulation'aHd Moran (2002) has termed ' ' subtleor' '' ' nformal '' regulations. I prefer the terms

25、' ' slOW ' Or ' ' sofgulations becau sethey 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 mea

26、suresand regulations evolve in dialogues 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 provid

27、es considerable leeway for those interpreting 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. Howev

28、er, the Compact is not in itself a legal 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

29、 authority of the UN and from the inclusion 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-A

30、ndersson, 2006), adding to the fact 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

31、 principle resulted from extensive consultative processesamong Compact members. In addition, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the formation of what is termed ' ' learninnetworks ' and ' ' policyalogues ' A number of meetings is arranged regularly, in which business leade

32、rs, UN agencies, labor associations, governmental representatives, 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 ne

33、tworks at the country and regional level. Participants from Denmark, 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 f

34、orming partnerships with other transnational organizations. These 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 an

35、d actively spread the ten principles. The organizers present the 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-emphasizedin favor of academic writings and standardized reporti

36、ng criteria. Cases of best practice are written by academic scholars 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 scien

37、ce and auditing. It seems that there is a vision to form a community 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

38、articulated. The mechanism for encouraging people to adhere to 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 si

39、gnals to wider audiences that group members are, by definition, socially 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 emphasizesthe importan

40、ce for individual actors to appear appropriate and it is aimed 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 effective

41、ly, the active participation of members is crucial. In contrast 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

42、members in order to form a more active movement. There are other ways in which the Global Compact reminds us of a social movement or, touse Moran ' s (2002) term, a mode of steering network. As its representatives repeatedly emphasize, ' ' TGeobal Compact office neither regulates nor mon

43、itors a company" ssubmissions and initiatives(Kell, 2003, p. 38).Constellations 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

44、 of actors together by common principles, procedures and norms. Those in conflict 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 th

45、ese established rules and procedures. Although common interests may not be present 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 f

46、or corporations, which are dependenton their stakeholders,to join the network and 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

47、 large number of initiatives concerned with corporate citizenship, corporate social 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

48、 Commerce and World Business Council for Sustainable Development), labor organizations (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 indep

49、endent observers -academics, NGOs, and independent media -that watch and scrutinize 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 g

50、overnance framework without necessarily applying a legal framework. In the guidelines 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 o

51、perations of the Global Compact and its members - a sign of the active scrutiny that is being performed. By associating with these more critical actors, the initiative is further legitimized. These organizations are expected to play an important role as critical monitors and scrutinizers of corporat

52、e actors and of corporations compliance with the established principles. An alternative and a complement to the activities of independent observers and an integral part of the regulatory and governance framework is the establishment of monitoring systems, characterized by independence. Such a system

53、atic accounting of these aspects of business, the Global Report Initiative (GRI), is under development. GRI describes itself on its website as ' ' a multi-stakeholder process and independent institution whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting

54、Guidelines 'This multi-stakeholder process is hosted by a permanent, independent organization which has had global headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands since 1997. The GRI seeks to develop a reporting system comparable to the international accounting standards board and to achieve a level of r

55、eporting 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 2003, wherein the Global Compact agreed to encourage companies to use GRI guidelines and reporting indi

56、cators that matched existing Global Compact principles. Extended networks of reporting, standardizing, rule setting and the monitoring of organizations have been connected to the Global Compact. For example, the GRI and the Global Compact have announced their links with social and environmental stan

57、dards.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 with the interplay among related regulatory, governing and criticizing efforts. Regulations and governance are characterized by r

58、eciprocity 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 and concerns of civil society organizations. Corporations have launched programs, applied standards and taken an active part in

59、 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 organizations are mobilized more or less as actors in the environment of the corporations. States a

60、nd intergovernmental organizations act as channels to place demands on corporations, demands which have also been expressed by civil society organizations. The organized efforts of states and international organizations have put legitimacy and strength behind these demands by packaging them in the form of globally applicable standards and r