企业社会责任与财务管理变革

企业财务管理作为企业各阶层利益关注的核心,对社会责任的践行具有十分重要的影响。企业以往"股东至上"的财务管理模式,已无法与当今社会发展相适应,因此,变革企业社会责任与财务管理势在必行。基于此,文章从企业社会责任与财务管理的研究背景入手,分析了对企业社会责任的界定,探析了面对企业社会责任的财务管理变革。     

基于管理模式变革的企业社会责任认识

编者按：企业社会责任似乎已经成为一个热门的谈资,然而对其认识却仍然千差万别。在实践中,往往也只是片面地强调保护员工权益．参与社会公益和加强环境保护等。在作者看来,这些实践都不是反映企业核心社会功能的“社会责任”。作者从企业社会责任是一种新的企业管理模式的视角指出,全面社会责任管理是企业管理发展的崭新阶段,是对现有企业管理模式的创新与扬弃,是正在不断发展的社会资源优化配置机制。     

基于商业生态系统视角的我国企业社会责任的思考

本文认为,任何一个企业都是商业生态系统中的生命体,系统的合理性、环境的动态变化直接影响到企业的经营活动和战略发展。企业的可持续发展能力与其所处的环境、社会、商业系统不是分离的,而是相互协调的关系。企业承担必要的社会责任,既有利于自身的可持续发展,又有利于和谐社会的建立。企业应有意识地加强同所处社会环境相结合的紧密程度,自觉增强企业的社会公德和责任意识。文章提出,从企业方面来讲,强化企业社会责任就是要通过企业社会责任自我意识的转变,关注与保障员工权益,保护消费者利益,采取有效措施保护环境等来增强企业的社会责任感;从商业生态系统方面考虑,就是要通过核心企业的带头示范作用、消费者的口碑及货币投票、社会监督和公众形象、政府行为和法律监管等来影响和强化企业的社会责任。     

责任消费与企业社会责任的互动影响机制——理论回顾、逻辑比较及路径选择

西方国家实践经验表明,企业与消费者之间的良性互动关系是企业社会责任(CSR)成功推进的关键,并决定着消费模式的良性变迁.立足于国内CSR推行不畅的现实以及扩大、优化内需的必要性.文章通过理论回顾阐释了责任消费与CSR之间的良性互动关系,在"社会守则"导向和"社会意识"导向两种理论逻辑的基础上,探讨了在中国建立责任消费与CSR互动影响机制的路径选择,包括:建立消费者维度的CSR优先标准,实现CSR评价体系的量化及标准化,推行CSR量化结果的标签化.     

企业社会责任与管理绩效的关系分析

随着经济的发展,企业社会责任越来越被重视,企业管理绩效也成为各企业关注的焦点。本文从企业社会责任与管理绩效的角度出发,对两者的关系进行了分析,并探讨了企业社会责任与管理绩效存在的问题和提升的策略。     

企业的性质及其社会责任管理

随着市场经济的发展,企业作为社会行为主体,其目标不应该只是追求利润的最大化,其在享有社会权利的同时应该承担自己的多元社会责任。本文尝试从企业社会属性的角度来研究企业在现代市场经济应该承担社会责任的依据,同时对于企业如何进行社会责任管理进行探讨。     

社会责任活动、社会责任沟通与企业价值

企业履行适当的社会责任是大势所趋,但目前理论与实务界对社会责任经济后果的认识存在困惑,难以指导企业的社会责任实践。企业社会责任对企业价值的影响因不同社会责任类型的收益、成本特征而异,并且社会责任价值实现受制于社会责任沟通的影响,企业应该在整体战略规划的视野里树立社会责任管理理念,对企业社会责任进行事前决策和实时的过程管理。     

企业发展与社会责任

企业是社会的一个细胞，来源于社会，也必须回馈于社会。企业必须承担社会责任，已经成为社会各界的共识。那么，企业到底要承担哪些社会责任，又该如何来承担社会责任呢？     

全面社会责任管理新的企业管理模式

本着为了对企业可持续发展起到更大推动作用的目的,本文针对企业全面社会责任管理进行了较为深入的相关分析。     

浅议企业社会责任对企业管理的影响

企业社会责任的形成和发展过程,也就是传统企业管理理念的转变过程。企业社会责任从战略管理、营销管理、评价、手段等方面对企业管理都有影响。企业社会责任的形成和产生,源于社会需要和企业发展的需要,是管理理念的创新。企业社会责任理论对传统的企业生存和发展价值观产生了巨大冲击,并引发了对企业本质问题的一系列探讨,进一步延伸和发展,导致了管理理念的改变。它对整个管理产生了革命性的影响。     

Roadmapping Corporate Social Responsibility in Finnish Companies

This paper presents a roadmap of Finnish companies adopting and managing corporate social responsibility (CSR). It discusses the companies' views on CSR and highlights the practices that Finnish companies have adopted or are currently adopting. It also presents a framework that outlines the CSR processes and management prospects.Results showed that Finnish companies are progressively managing CSR. This newly revived thinking about social responsibility is viewed as an issue traced back from Finland's history of industrial development. There is no general definition of CSR; however, various concepts are connoted into it. Driven by several factors, CSR is developing gradually as indicated by the positive responses and initiatives of the companies.CSR management and practices towards employees, suppliers, community and customers are well defined locally based generally on established socially responsible behavior which could be articulated by laws and regulations, corporate values and business ethics. However, managing CSR with a global scope, problems such as; lack of information and structured management system, different views and interpretations, supply chain complexities, overlap with environmental issues, etc. often lead some companies to manage CSR haphazardly. Views and management of CSR are also influenced by some distinct Finnish cultural attributes.An initial conceptual framework for CSR is drawn reflecting the current practices and prospects for management strategies. Such framework can be used in organizing and streamlining CSR elements for effective management approaches and measuring of performance. It could be expected that in due time, the efforts of the companies will become more evident, organized and systematically managed.     

基于TMT视角的企业社会回应研究

企业高层管理者所处的地位决定了他们对于企业社会回应行为的实施具有重要作用,然而很少有文章从高管团队(TMT)角度分析其特征及行为对企业社会回应行为的影响。因此,文章从TMT视角出发,在Ackerman和Bauer提出的企业社会回应三阶段模型基础上将其改进为四阶段模型,来更好地研究TMT的社会回应行为,通过分析TMT组成及互动过程来研究其对企业采取社会回应行为的影响,并最终反映在对企业利润、竞争力、均衡利益相关者利益的效应影响方面。同时,建立了TMT组成与互动过程对企业社会回应过程及效应的影响关系模型,为进一步研究TMT企业社会回应行为打下了基础。     

Philanthropy, Integration or Innovation? Exploring the Financial and Societal Outcomes of Different Types of Corporate Responsibility

This article argues that previous research on the outcomes of corporate responsibility should be refined in two ways. First, although there is abundant research that addresses the link between corporate responsibility (CR) and financial performance, hardly any studies scrutinize whether the type of corporate responsibility makes a difference to this link. Second, while the majority of CR research conducted within business studies concentrates on the financial outcomes for the firm, the societal outcomes of CR are left largely unexplored. To tackle these two deficiencies, this article extends the different conceptualizations of corporate responsibility and elaborates both the financial and the societal outcomes of different types of CR.     

What Corporate Social Responsibility Activities are Valued by the Market?

Corporate management is torn between either focusing solely on the interests of stockholders (the neo-classical view) or taking into account the interests of a wide spectrum of stakeholders (the stakeholder theory view). Of course, there need be no conflict where taking the wider view is also consistent with maximising stockholder wealth. In this paper, we examine the extent to which a conflict actually exists by examining the relationship between a company’s positive (strengths) and negative (concerns) corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and equity performance. In general, we find little evidence to suggest that managers taking a wider stakeholder perspective will jeopardise the interest of its stockholders. However, our findings do suggest that the market is not only influenced by the independent CSR activities, but also the totality of these activities and that the facets that they value do vary over time. It seems that␣most recently, the market has valued most firms that satisfied minimum requirements in the areas of diversity and environmental protection but were most proactive in the area of employee-relations. Ron Bird is an Emeritus Professor in the School of Finance and Economics at the University of Technology, Sydney. His research interests focus on market implications of corporate social responsibility and also dysfunctionality within capital markets. He received his Master's degree in economics at Monash University in 1971. Anthony D. Hall is currently the Head of the School of Finance and Economics and Director of the Quantitative FinanceResearch Centre at the University of Technology, Sydney. His research interests cover all aspects of financial econometrics. He was awarded a PhD in econometrics from the London School of Economics in `976.Francesco Momente is Professor of Corporate Finance at the Bocconi University, Milan (Italy). His research intersts focus on the market valuation of corporate social responsibility and the value relevance of accounting information.He received his PhD in General Management at Ca' Foscari University, Venice (Italy) in 1998. Francesco Reggiani is Professor of Corporate Finance at the Bocconi University, Milan (Italy). His research interests focuson the market valuation of corporate social responsibility and corporate governance. He received his PhD in GeneralManagement at Bocconi University in 2001.     

Risk Management,Real Options,Corporate Social Responsibility

The relationship of corporate social responsibility to risk management has been treated sporadically in the business society literature. Using real options theory, I develop the notion of corporate social responsibility as a real option its implications for risk management. Real options theory allows for a strategic view of corporate social responsibility. Specifically, real options theory suggests that corporate social responsibility should be negatively related to the firm’s ex ante downside business risk.