中文4400字，英文2300单词，13000字符
文献出处：Fuentes-García F J, Núñez-Tabales J M, Veroz-Herradón R. Applicability of Corporate Social Responsibility to Human Resources Management: Perspective from Spain[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2008, 82(1):27-44.
外文文献：
Applicability of Corporate Social Responsibility to Human Resources Management: Perspective from Spain
values翻译
FJ Fuentes-García，JM Núñez-Tabales，R Veroz-Herradón
ABSTRACT
This article analyses the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in relation to Human Resources (HR) management. Five potential tools are defined and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Finally, the implementation of the most advanced and powerful tool in this area is studied: the SA8000 standard.
KEY WORDS: Corporate Social Responsibility, human resources, interest groups, SA8000 standard, Spain
Introduction:The growing importance of CSR
At the dawn of the third millennium, there is growing interest in the social dimension of business activities; nowadays, citizens are better informed and their values have changed; they are increasingly ecologically and socially aware and demand more from companies than just the efficient production of goods and services.
Companies have responded to the new social demands of their interest groups by implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) actions, which include all their environmental and social activities that go beyond mere economic interests and break away from the traditional image of a company that focuses solely on generating value for its shareholders.
Porter and Kramer (2003) believe there is a space where the interests of pure philanthropy and pure business can converge and create both social and economic benefits. In short, CSR can give companies a competitive edge, a strategy that leading companies are already implementing.
The development of CSR is the result of changes in the develo ped world’s core values (greater concern for environmental deterioration, discriminatory working practices, respect for human rights, etc.) and is linked to three key factors (Nieto and Ferna´ndez, 2004):
Increased regulation: Regulations have been drawn up by very diverse international organizations (UN, OECD, EU...) and governmental sources, requiring all economic agents to respect certain guidelines that work for the good of society in general.
Pressure from consumer markets: Consumer markets are now gradually changing and a growing number of consumers are making responsible purchases, choosing organic products or those produced in accordance with CSR criteria (fair trade, limited use of non-renewable resources, fair working conditions, etc.).
Pressure from the financial market: The pressure from the financial market is the most recent change. In money markets, a growing number of investors are looking for SRI (socially responsible investment), which refers to funds and companies that develop good CSR practices. Certain studies
indicate that investors are not solely moved by altruistic values since there is a positive correlation between social and financial performance (it seems that companies with more developed CSR policies
and activities have fewer sanctions, greater quality management, better reputations and are able to recruit and retain the best staff).
Reasons that drive companies to adopt CSR criteria
There are two basic reasons that have led companies to adopt CSR criteria:
–On the one hand, greater social awareness on a global scale. Public opinion is increasingly critical of the negative effects of globalization and over the last few years many associations and initiatives have been springing up through nongovernmental organizations, foundations and standards agencies to tackle this issue.
–On the other hand, companies themselves are divulging the advantages offered by CSR not only as a defensive strategy that protects them against possible charges and lawsuits, but also as an offensive stra tegy to create value. This is consequence of the increasing impact of social criteria in consumers’ purchasing decisions, as revealed in a recent CSR study in Europe. In general, consumers are not willing to buy products or services from companies that engage in unethical behaviour. Faced with growing competition and the increased transparency of information, companies feel obliged to adopt CSR practices.
Even though companies do not usually publicize the specific reasons that have led them to adopt CSR criteria, the European Commission has put together a list of motives, suggested by the companies themselves:
–Business ethics.
–The personal commitment of the company’s directors. –Improve competitiveness.
–Strengthen the company’s image.
–Prevent negative publicity, lawsuits or campaigns against the company.
–Increase customer loyalty. –Stand out from the competition.
–Improve human resources management.
–Strengthen the loyalty of management staff.
–Attract new employees.
–Improve adaptation to change.
–Cost reduction.
–Tax breaks.
CSR and HR management
CSR encompasses a wide range of practices, from respect for the environment to the elimination of discrimination and abuse in the work place.
One of the basic aspects of CSR, which is increasingly gaining importance, is the fact that it is also implemented within the company itself, specifically in the area of human resources. Here, CSR spans a wide range of concepts and can vary between the minimum requirements of respecting the workers’ basic human rights and the implementation of policies that help employees achieve a work/life balance.
These practices can be classified into four main areas:
–The recognition of and respect for basic human and workers rights established by the various international bodies.
–Adoption of the measures proposed in the European Commission’s Green Book aimed at improving quality of work, such as continuous learning, a better work/life balance, job stability, etc.
–Actions in the area of outsourcing, which affect contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers.
–Actions related to changes deriving from company restructuring operations, owing to the social consequences of such operations. The following classification can be used to rank companies according to their CSR activities in this area:
–Level zero: these companies do not even comply with legal requirements or respect the basic human rights established by the various international organizations.
–Level one: these companies carry out certain social activities, although they make no modifications of their management and therefore they cannot be considered CSR actions.
–Level two: these companies implement a reactive strategy in terms of risk prevention by adopting formal initiatives which do not imply a significant change in their management.
–Level three: these companies adopt an active approach, integrating CSR criteria into their management.
CSR compliance and communication alternatives in HR management
As mentioned previously, production activities are increasingly being relocated to areas where costs are lower and the authorities are more permissive regarding certain abusive practices. But globalization has also meant that the media publish more information about the activities of companies and any possible abuses.
Many people are not willing to purchase products from companies that do not respect the human rights of their workers or employ children in factories located in other parts of the world, even if that same company does not carry out these practices in Europe. Faced with increasingly aware public opinion about the abuses of multinational companies, said companies are expected not only to be honest and honourable, but in particular to appear to be so (much like Caesar’s wife).
Large companies suffer from a profound (and often unfair) assumption of guilt that leads them to look for alternatives to strengthen and clean up their corporate image in the eyes of society. The main routes currently used to tackle CSR obligations are:
–lists of socially responsible companies;
–sustainability indexes; –the establishment of codes of conduct;
–the support or ratification of international declarations/standards;
– Social reports that seek to increase transparency in human resources management;
–certificates guaranteeing that certain human resources ethical management standards are being enforced, accreditations of compliance similar to traditional quality or environmental certificates (such as ISO 9000 or 14000).
Sustainability indexes
Companies must prove that they carry out certain CSR activities defined by the index provider in order to gain such accreditation.
The two indexes that have had the greatest media impact are the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI Word) and the FTSE4GooD, launched by the two reputable index providers, Dow Jones and FTSE (Financial Times Stock Exchange), respectively.
The Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI Word) aims to provide guidance for investors who are concerned about sustainable development and social practices.7 It uses the following social criteria: –corporate citizenship
–commitment to interest groups
–working practices
–development of human capital
–organizational learning
–social information
–attraction and retention of qualified workers –standards for suppliers
–specific criteria for each industry
The SA8000 standard
Origin and content
The SA8000 standard was drafted in 1997 in the United States, with the aim of improving labour conditions on a global scale. It was drawn up by a group of experts brought together by the Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency, CEPAA, including individuals from organizations that repres
ented several interested parties (trade unions, manufacturers, retailers, academic institutions, NGOs, and consultancy firms and certification companies). In 1998, the Social Accountability International (SAI) organization was set up to direct the implementation of the SA8000 standard.
Although it is still a little too early for interest groups to know enough about this standard and therefore demand that companies adopt it, standards like this will undoubtedly be imposed and become widespread in organizations just as quality standards have, and hopefully just as quickly.
The following elements are involved in the SA8000 certification process:
an active subject, a certifier, to carry out external verification. The active subject must have expert knowledge about the standard and also gain in-depth knowledge about the company being analysed.
a passive subject, the organization, which can be a business organization or not, and which uses a workforce, either directly or indirectly (through outsourcing) and wishes to obtain the SA8000 certificate.
Another fundamental requirement is that the expert must base his or her work on proof that reveals sufficient evidence. A company cannot be reviewed from a distance without in-depth knowledge of the tasks being judged.
A document must be issued that provides a summary of the expert’s opinion, and the expert is responsible for this document. If the certificate is awarded, it has a certain validity timeframe. When this period expires, the company must be reviewed again.
The report is aimed at parties that are interested in knowing whether the company complies with the requirements of the SA8000 standard (these parties are the company’s customers, owners, employees, authorities, governments, etc.)
The SA8000 standard indicates three ways in which it can be used:
firstly, as a useful reference for internal audits carried out by the organization itself;
secondly, when the company is audited by another affiliated company (customer, ) in order to verify compliance with the requirements of a standard chosen by the affiliated company; for example a clothing retail outlet might audit the companies that manufacture the garments supplied in relation to the requirements of the SA8000 standard;
thirdly, when the company is audited by an external independent organization that is not a direct customer or supplier, the audit will be carried out by a certification body, a specialist financial audit company, or an NGO, as long as said body is authorized by CEPAA to perform such audits.
The advantages and beneficiaries of this standard
The establishment and generalization of standards such as the SA8000 have undeniable advantages not only for workers but also for companies, and certain benefits even reach the consumers.
Firstly, workers in emerging countries benefit because their working conditions and wages improve significantly and their circumstances become more dignified. Workers in industrialized
countries from the First World would also benefit since standards would dissuade businesses from relocating to other countries (even though this phenomenon is probably inescapable, at least it would be slowed down or certain less labour intensive industries would be saved).
The companies also obtain advantages; although a priori they would experience a certain increase in costs, the generalization of standards would make it difficult to carry out social dumping and would be an obstacle to disloyal competition based on unfair and undignified working conditions. Companies would also benefit from other advantages: if standards raise salaries to more dignified levels, the workers will have increased purchasing power, which could enable solvent demand to increase in Third World countries. Of course, organizations that implement this standard also improve their ability to attract the best work force and keep them motivated, and would also increase their sales as a result
of their improved image.
Finally, there are also benefits for the customers, who would be buying slightly more expensive products but produced with greater transparency and probably much better quality since they would be manufactured in better conditions and by more motivated and satisfied staff .
Limitations to the development of the standard
Nieto and Ferna´ndez (2004) debate whether CSR practices, including standards such as the SA8000, might just be another management fashion,11 with a cycle of growth/saturation, then decline and disappearance just like many other business practices. However, they believe that the positive image conveyed by CSR to the company’s interest groups justifies the long term use of these practices.
The implementation of HR management conduct standards comes up against several hurdles: the general lack of awareness about the standards, the lack of certifying companies, cost and control: Firstly, HR management standards are still not widely known about (not even the SA8000 standard), hence companies not only have to work to adapt their practices to the requirements but also to inform their customers and society of the advantages and commitments of said standard.
Secondly, there are still very few companies that are willing to carry out the required reviews thoroughly and with the right levels of quality. This activity requires a high degree of specialization and a great deal of work to verify the application of the standards.
The third obstacle is the cost of implementation and the fees charged by accreditation companies. To cap it all, this accreditation must be renewed periodically, therefore the process is very expensive for companies that operate on several continents and even greater for those in which production processes are less integrated.
It is also difficult to control the work carried out by consultancy firms. The fact that the reviewed company pays for the work might influence the opinion of the auditors. Clearly, there is a danger that monitors carry out this task under pressure and unscrupulous consultancy firms could go into the profitable business of ‘‘selling’’ certificates that guarantee good practice in human resources without having researched the company thoroughly and conscientiously.

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。