The Rise of Global Corporate Social Responsibility: Mining and the Spread of Global Norms
The Rise of Global Corporate Social Responsibility: Mining and the Spread of Global Norms
复制标题
全球企业社会责任的兴起：采矿业和全球规范的传播
DOI：
10.1177/0094306114553217f
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Alwyn Lim
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alwyn Lim
考虑到自20世纪90年代以来商品和服务生产全球化的急剧上升，有些令人惊讶的是，学术界对全球化进程后果的关注在认识到企业社会责任的跨国维度方面进展缓慢，更不用说围绕明确的研究项目进行联合了。Hevina Dashwood对全球规范对采矿业的影响的研究，将几个理论和经验线索以连贯的方式结合在一起，可以为全球化、组织和对企业社会责任问题感兴趣的管理学者的工作提供信息。企业社会责任（CSR）——企业对法律合规之外的社会和环境问题的关注——长期以来一直是采掘业公司争议的中心，其中矿业公司一直受到非政府组织和政府监管机构的严格审查。在《全球企业社会责任的兴起》一书中，Dashwood提出了一个问题，为什么矿业公司愿意接受企业社会责任的努力来限制他们的活动，尽管企业社会责任的参与会给他们的活动带来越来越多的审查和约束。Dashwood的回答基于她对全球采矿业企业社会责任的分析，以及对三家加拿大矿业公司如何应对外部企业社会责任压力的案例研究，为企业社会责任的文献提供了急需的贡献：关注全球层面的企业社会责任，一个三级制度框架，以及对有助于企业社会责任参与的内部组织动态的分析。企业社会责任研究中的一个重要问题是如何解释企业社会责任参与的差异。制度方法指出，规范、原则和框架的日益巩固，突显了企业社会责任现在如何成为商业环境中理所当然的特征。这种制度的巩固大部分发生在全球层面，其特点是全球主要行为体——国家行为体、非政府组织，甚至公司本身——努力构建框架来规范公司的社会和环境实践。正如达什伍德详述的那样，1991年国际金属与环境理事会的成立就是这种协调努力的早期例子。考虑到这些努力，人们会期望企业之间的企业社会责任参与相对统一。然而，企业参与企业社会责任的时间（早期采用者和后期采用者）以及企业表现出的承诺程度（一些企业是全球企业社会责任努力的领导者）都存在显著差异，这表明内部组织因素可能也很重要。本书采用了一种创造性的方法来解释采矿业企业社会责任的这些发展：一个综合了理性选择制度主义、新制度理论和历史制度主义的三级制度框架。达什伍德从历史制度主义的角度分析了矿业面临的关键时刻，包括市场准入和融资受限、环境灾难和争议、发达国家更严格的监管、社会运动组织的持续压力，这些因素导致企业社会责任成为20世纪90年代矿业公司关注的焦点问题。从国际关系中的新制度理论和建构主义方法出发，Dashwood关注全球企业社会责任规范的传播，这些规范首先对采矿业公司施加外部压力，要求他们关注社会和环境问题，以及企业层面的认知维度，这些维度导致矿业公司在更广泛的可持续发展条件下构建其企业社会责任方法。从理性选择制度主义的角度出发，Dashwood描述了两家著名的加拿大矿业公司Noranda和Placer Dome的管理人员如何能够战略性地回应并带头要求更严格的审查839
Given the dramatic rise in the globalization of production of goods and services since the 1990s, it is somewhat surprising that scholarly attention to the consequences of those globalization processes has been slow to recognize the cross-national dimensions of corporate social responsibility, much less coalesce around definitive research programs. Hevina Dashwood’s examination of the impact of global norms on the mining industry is a study that brings several theoretical and empirical threads together in a coherent manner that can inform the work of globalization, organizations, and management scholars interested in issues in corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility (CSR)—business attention to social and environmental issues beyond legal compliance—has long been at the center of controversies for companies in the extractive industries, of which mining companies have been heavily scrutinized by nongovernmental organizations and government regulatory agencies. In The Rise of Global Corporate Social Responsibility, Dashwood asks why mining companies have been receptive to CSR efforts to constrain their activities despite the increased scrutiny and constraint on their activities that CSR engagement would bring. Dashwood’s answer, based on her analysis of CSR in the global mining industry and case studies of how three Canadian mining companies responded to external CSR pressures, offers contributions to the literature on CSR that are much needed: a focus on CSR at the global level, a three-level institutional framework, and an analysis of internal organizational dynamics that contributes to CSR engagement. A significant issue in existing CSR studies is how to explain variation in CSR engagement among firms. Institutional approaches point to a growing consolidation of norms, principles, and frameworks that highlight how CSR has now become a taken-forgranted feature of the business environment. Much of this institutional consolidation has taken place at the global level, featuring the efforts of prominent global actors—state actors, nongovernmental organizations, and even corporations themselves—to construct frameworks to regulate firms’ social and environmental practices. As Dashwood details, the creation of the International Council on Metals and the Environment in 1991 is an early example of such a coordinated effort. Given these efforts, one would expect CSR engagement among firms to be relatively uniform. Yet, there exists significant variation in both the timing of that CSR engagement (early versus late adopters) as well as the degree of commitment that firms display (some firms were leaders in global CSR efforts), suggesting that internal organizational factors may also be significant. The approach this book takes to explaining these developments in CSR in the mining industry is a creative one: a three-level institutional framework that synthesizes rationalchoice institutionalism, new institutional theory, and historical institutionalism. From historical institutionalism, Dashwood analyzes critical junctures in the mining industry, including restricted access to markets and financing, environmental disasters and controversies, tighter regulations in developed countries, and sustained pressures from social movement organizations, that led CSR to be a focus issue for mining companies in the 1990s. From new institutional theory and constructivist approaches in international relations, Dashwood focuses on the diffusion of global CSR norms that first exerted external pressures on companies in the mining industry to attend to social and environmental issues as well as cognitive dimensions at the firm-level that led mining companies to frame their CSR approaches in broader sustainable development terms. From rational-choice institutionalism, Dashwood describes how management executives from two prominent Canadian mining companies, Noranda and Placer Dome, were able strategically to respond to and take the lead in demands for more stringent Reviews 839