外文翻译及文献综述.docx

中国地质大学长城学院本科毕业论文文献综述系 别： 经济系 专 业： 会计学 姓 名： 宁南春 学 号： 013121410 2016 年 4 月30日一般认为，企业社会责任的概念最早起源于上世纪20年代，学者Olive Sheldon 在其发表的著作中对其进行了初次定义，此后，各国学者以及会计组织机构均对社会责任及其信息披露从理论与实证多方角度进行了研究探讨。1962年，Friedman在资本主义与自由一书中表明了自己的观点，他认为社会市场是自由的，企业的责任就是实现企业利润最大化，他不主张企业过多的承担除此之外的其他社会责任，指出过多的要求企业履行社会责任是对自由社会的颠覆。20世纪60年代，人们对企业社会责任的认识有了一定的提高，越来越多的学者和组织支持企业积极履行社会责任。1968年，David Linowes在发表的Social Economic一文中，首次提出了社会责任会计的概念，认为会计学与社会学、政治科学、经济学等学科的结合构成了社会责任会计。1971年，美国经济发展委员会提出“三个同心圆”理论，它从三个维度诠释了社会责任。1976年，Ramanathan根据利益相关者理论阐述了企业社会责任信息披露的必要性，认为企业披露其社会责任信息可满足利益相关者的需求，通过信息披露，实现与利益相关者的沟通与交流。1979年，Carroll指出企业的社会责任包含经济方面的责任、法律责任、伦理道德责任以及自由决定的责任，还将这些责任表示成金字塔形状。1990年，Zeghal和Ahmed提出企业社会责任信息披露的形式主要有三种，一是通过年度报告披露，二是通过年度报告之外的独立报告披露，三是通过大众媒体披露。1991年，管理学家Robbins在其管理学一书中表明企业超过法律、经济等要求的，从长远目标角度有利于社会的责任即为社会责任。1995年，Gray等人把社会责任分为十五个大类，概括起来主要是针对环境与能源、顾客、社区与慈善事业、员工福利与健康等几方面。和国外的研究相比，我国学者对有关企业社会责任的研究要开始的晚一些，我国学者对于企业是否应该承担社会责任方面的问题争论比较少，大多数学者一般都认为企业应该积极承担社会责任。1998年，赵文娟认为应以从简到繁、逐步过渡的方式来披露社会责任信息。1999年，刘俊海认为企业不应该仅仅为了追求股东利益最大化而存在，企业除了向股东负责以外，还要向诸如企业员工、消费者、债权人、环境等各方利益相关者负责。2001年，葛家澍和林志军指出政府部门、外界利益集团以及社会公众多方对企业相关社会责任有需求，信息应包含环境保护、就业、员工培训、社区医疗保险等多方面。2002年，卢代富从法学的角度提出企业履行社会责任需要有关法律制度的配合。2003年郑孟状和潘霞蓉指出企业应积极承担社会责任，维护企业相关者们的利益，从长远来看对企业自身的发展是很有利的。2007年李正结合国外社会责任信息披露的经验，对我国披露方式提出建议：应向独立社会责任报告转变，且相关信息表达方式应以叙述性内容为主。2011年，周祖成将利益相关者纳入概念中，把社会责任概括为社会和利益相关者负责的综合责任。通过对国内外学者有关企业社会责任及社会责任信息披露的文献整理，可以发现国外有关方面的研究已经不断的完善并逐步走向成熟。从最初企业社会责任理论被否定，到慢慢接受并认同企业应该积极履行社会责任，再到后来人们开始意识到企业履行社会责任对企业的长远发展也是有利的。而我国学者对企业社会责任的研究开始较晚，国外有关企业社会责任的研究值得我们学习和借鉴，但是不能盲目的照搬国外的研究。我国有关企业社会责任信息披露的研究应该从我国的基本国情出发，根据各个行业的特点，进行有针对性的研究。我国学者在有关企业社会责任信息披露方面的研究也取得了很大的进步，研究内容也越来越丰富，但是还需要不断地努力，争取做到我国企业能够通过统一规范的披露形式向信息使用者披露有用的信息。本文试图在以往学者研究的基础上，分析目前煤炭企业社会责任信息披露存在的问题，提出相应的改进意见。中国地质大学长城学院本科毕业论文外文资料翻译系 别： 经济系 专 业： 会计学 姓 名： 宁南春 学 号： 013121410 2016 年 4 月 30日外文原文Corporate social responsibility:a trend and a movementCorporate 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,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 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 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 others; 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 websites 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 regulations 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 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 proportion of self-regulation.Consequently ,we have seen the emergence of soft law or what Knill andLehmkuhl have called“regulated self-regulation”and Moran has termed “subtle”or“non-formal”regulations,I prefer the terms“soft law”or“soft regulations”,because they are not always informal.The soft regulations often include formal reporting and co-ordinating procedures and,form a co-ordination or administrative point of view;the regulations are often far from subtle.the social responsibility measures and regulations evolve in dialogues between corporations and their stakeholders. The UN Global Compact is at the center 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 provides considerable leeway for those interpreting the regulations to translate them into practice in a way that fits their circumstance 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.However,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 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 ,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 remains soft.The UN Global Compact has developed through processes of responsive regulation. In the summer of 2004, the addition of a tenth principle resulted from extensive consultative processes among Compact members. In addition, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the formation of what is termed learning networks and policy dialogues. A number of meetings is arranged regularly, in which business leaders, 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 networks 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 forming 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 and 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-emphasized in favor of academic writings and standardized reporting 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 science 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 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 signals 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 emphasizes the importance 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 effectively, 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 members in order to form a more active movement.There are ways in which the Global Compact reminds us of a social movement or,to use Morans term,a mode of steering network.As its representatives repeatedly emphasize,“The Global Compact office neither regulates nor monitors a companys submissions and initiatives”.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 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 these 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 inclusions mechanism is built on the vision that the larger and more extensive this network,the more important it will be for corporations,which are dependent on their stakeholders,to join the network and show others that they comply with its rules.Instead of receiving form sanctions,those not following principles are merely blamed and shamed.The extended network that is built around the Global Compact includes a large number of initiatives concerned with corporate citizenship,corporate social responsibility and related issues. 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 reciprocity 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 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 and 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 reporting criteria, by basing them on the UN framework, and by associating them with 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 organizations 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 accomplish harder and more state-centered 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 compliance 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 compliance should be accomplished, what the criteria are for reaching compliance and who should monitor and sanction those not complying.When it comes to cross-sector boundaries and relationships among states, business corporations and civil society organizations, 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 societals ectors where by states provide the rules of the game and corporations act according to these rules. States and international organizations do act as rule setters and as mediators of the broader demands placed on 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 inter-governmental organizations 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 organizational trends more generally. This phenomenon, however, points to