企业社会责任英文原
文加翻译
—・英文原文
Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
By MaryAnn Reynolds, Kristi Yuthas
ABSTRACT
This paper examines voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting as a form of moral discourse・ It explores how alternative stakeholder perspectives lead to differing perceptions of the process and content of responsible reporting・ We contrast traditional stakeholder theory, which views stakeholders as external parties having a social contract with corporations, with an emerging perspective, which views interaction among corporations and constituents as relational in nature・ This moves the stakeholder from an external entity to one that is integral to corporate activity. We explore how these alternative stakeholder perspe
ctives give rise to different normative demands for stakeholder engagement, managerial processes, and communication. We discuss models of CSR reporting and accountability: EMAS,什ie ISO 14000 series, SA8000, AA1000, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the Copenhagen Charter. We explore how these models relate to the stakeholder philosophies and find that they are largely consistent with the traditional atomistic view but fall far short of the demands for moral engagement prescribed by a relational stakeholder perspective. Adopting a relational view requires stakeholder engagement not only in prescribing reporting requiremenu, but also in discourse relating to core aspects of the corporation such as mission,values,and management systems, Habermas* theory of communicative action provides guidelines for engaging stakeholders in this moral discourse.
KEY WORDS: stakeholder engagement, stakeholder reporting, relational stakeholder perspective, corporate social responsibility,Theoryof Communicative Action,discourse ethics
Introduction
Throughout this paper, we use Habermas* theory of communicative action (1984, 1987, 1990) as a means through which to critique current approaches corporate the degree menu forsocial responsibility reporting in terms to which these reports embody require moral discourse. We provide a brief introduction to key elements of the theory and ground it in social theory. We then discuss the details as they apply to CSR reporting ・
Our analysis is conducted in two stages, relying on different portions of Habermas* theory. In the first part, we examine the conditions that allow for basic communicative understanding・ These conditions are the unspoken assumptions underlying communication. In normal communication, four basic universal assumptions are made: that the speaker is telling the truth, that he means what he says, and that what he says is appropriate in its context, and that it is understandable to the listener. In the first part of the paper, we show how models or frameworks for CSR reporting, taken together, address these assumptions and contribute to the effectiveness of CSR reports as a form of communication.In the second part of our analysis, we rely upon the ethical aspects of Habermas* theory as a means through which to provide a normative critique of the body of
discourseCSR reporting frameworks. The theory of communicative action suggests that social progress can be accomplished through rational discourse under specific conditions・ The discourse must be inclusive, democratic, and free of power asymmetries. Apel (1980) has suggested that the ethical nature of an agreement derives from theprocess used to arrive at that agreement (rather than universal or externally-imposed ethical standards).We use Habermas* principles as a means to examine the extent to corporate communication is reflective of moral discourse.We find that while the frameworks generally promote stakeholder consultation,they fall short of providing other conditions needed for moral discourse・ In particular, they fail to provide mechanisms 什lat allow stakeholders with differing resources to participate democratically in discourse・
The paper is organized as follows. First^we introduce social responsibility and corporate disclosure concepts related to CSRreporting.Next,we explore widely-used frameworks associated with corporate accountability in the CSR realm・ Then, as noted above, we provide a 2-part analysis of how concepts from Habermas* theory of communicative action are currently realized in guidance provided by CSR reporting models・ We close with concl
uding rem arks.
Background: social responsibility and corporate disclosure
Corporate social responsibility is addressed in current business, accounting and ethics literature. The issue was widely discussed in the seventies and early eighties and then dropped out of sight. The current re-energized focus includes social, environmental and ethical reporting by corporations. The notion of corporate social disclosure arises from a view of social theory which holds that the corporation owes a duty to the society; or has a social contract. One widely cited quotation comes from Shocker and Sethi (1974, p.67):
”Any social institution — and business in no exception — operates in society via a social contract, expressed or implied, whereby its survival and growth are based on:
1 ・The delivery of some socially desirable ends to society in general and,
2. The distribution of economic, social or political benefits to groups from which it derives its power・
In a dnamic society, neither the sources of institutional power nor the needs for its services are permanent. Therefore, an institution must constantly meet the twin tests of legitimacy and relevance by denionstrafing that society requires its services and that the groups benefiting from its rewards have society*s approval.H
Carroll and Bucholtz offer a four part definition of corporate social responsibility, "The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legahethicaL and discretionary (philanthropic) expectadons that society has of organizations at a given point in time (2006, p. 35).n This definition reflects current thinking on corporate social responsibility and acknowledges the need to note shifts in social environment, these may be social, legal, or political.