Pour ceux que ça intéresse. Mémoire dispo sur demande à partir de Mai 2007.

In today's post-Enron environment, ethics has certainly become a trendy concept. Every wrong move by a corporation is magnified and sometimes distorted either by the media or academics. Whether it is about environment, health or safety, consumers, shareholders and employees now question the behaviour of multinational companies. The reason is, according to the public opinion, the multinational companies would be the main actors and beneficiaries of a globalisation of which they do not carry the consequences. Under these circumstances, they are asked to play a greater role in the social sphere: time has come to ‘globalise the social progress’. Facing the growing expectations of the ‘citizen-consumers’ - more aware than ever of the damages of an hazardous globalisation -, corporations all claim motivations that outperform the profit: they seek to be ‘responsible’, even ‘moral’. ‘Companies of the 21st century will be ethical or will not be’ ...

[Suite:]

...and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) seems to be no exception. In the aftermath of various disasters such as the Exxon Valdez Crisis , major corporations decided to implement corporate socially responsible strategies and started to look at more closely the environmental and social impacts of their activities. As a result, CSR became the favourite bandwagon for multinational companies to demonstrate their ethical behaviour and win the trust of their consumers and shareholders – the most prestigious reward being ranked among ‘The 100 Best Corporate Citizens’, an annual list published by the magazine Business Ethics. Definitely fashionable... but also vague in terms of promises kept.

Although the concept of CSR has been developing since the early 1970s, there is no universally accepted definition of CSR. A variety of terms are used – sometimes interchangeably – to talk about CSR: business ethics, corporate citizenship, corporate accountability and sustainability. The European Commission defines it as ‘essentially a concept whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment. (...) This responsibility is expressed towards employees and more generally towards all the stakeholders affected by business and which in turn can influence its success.’ In its simplest terms, CSR is about ‘what you do, how you do it, and when and what you say.’ In this sense, CSR can be viewed as ‘a comprehensive set of policies, practices and programs that are integrated throughout business operations, and decision-making processes throughout the company” and includes responsibility for the current and past actions as well as future impacts. The interpretation of CSR that one makes, influences the dialogue between companies and theirs stakeholders. This is why one has to be careful in understanding and defining the concept of CSR, as it is often mistakenly equated with either corporate philanthropy or simply compliance with law.
As there is no single commonly accepted definition of CSR, there is also no commonly accepted classification of the main components of CSR. Its scope remains quite unbound at the present time. In its broadest categories, CSR typically includes issues related to environmental protection, labour security, human rights, business standards and marketplace – its goal being to positively impact society and environment while achieving business success (the so-called ‘triple bottom line’ ).

It is true that in a context where the actions of the companies and their consequences are becoming more and more visible and where ethical issues can damage both brand image and financial outlooks of a company, shareholders’ concerns have been embodied in the concept of CSR. Within a decade, a whole new corporate language has evolved around the notion of ethical business practices and a new industry has emerged to help corporations in presenting, implementing and monitoring what they are doing on behalf of CSR. But is there any substance behind? About CSR, Milton Moskowitz writes: ‘Looking over the history of corporate social responsibility, I can see it as consisting of 95 percent rhetoric and five percent action. Companies are adept at drawing up high-sounding mission statements. Changing the way they do business? That's something else.’ Would CSR be merely a PR tool used by companies to be perceived as more politically correct in the eyes of their consumers or is CSR the result of a deep change in the nature of the companies and their business practices? Is CSR a smokescreen or a real managerial revolution? In a nutshell: CSR, fact or fiction?

Posted by pimousse at 13:29:05 into the following categories: Switzerland, Lausanne

---

http://blog.jovialyteam.com/htsrv/trackback.php/668