畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯---企業(yè)公民的階段

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯</p><p><b>　　企業(yè)公民的階段</b></p><p>　　全世界的商界領(lǐng)袖都認(rèn)為企業(yè)公民是他們公司的一個(gè)優(yōu)先環(huán)節(jié)。有些更新政策修改程序;另一些形成公民督導(dǎo)委員會(huì),測(cè)量他們的環(huán)境和社會(huì)效益,然后向公眾報(bào)告。公司正在努力調(diào)整員工的職能使其對(duì)公民負(fù)責(zé)并且將責(zé)任和問責(zé)制納入到業(yè)務(wù)范圍。先進(jìn)的公司正在努力創(chuàng)造一個(gè)

2、更廣闊的公民市場(chǎng)，并提供產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)，他們明確目標(biāo)，既是賺錢也是創(chuàng)造一個(gè)更美好的世界。</p><p>　　由于一系列的活動(dòng)，許多管理人員不知道是怎么回事，擔(dān)心那無數(shù)的公民行動(dòng)是否有意義。他們的公司是否會(huì)采取適當(dāng)和有效的行動(dòng)在如透明度，管理，社區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展，工作與家庭間的平衡，環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性，保護(hù)人權(quán)和道德投資者上？這里是否有任何聯(lián)系，也就是說，在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理，企業(yè)品牌，利益相關(guān)者的參與，供應(yīng)商認(rèn)證，公益型市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷和員工

3、的多樣性上？有嗎？</p><p>　　在波斯頓大學(xué)研究中心正在進(jìn)行的企業(yè)公民研究表明，混亂之間的平衡和連貫性主要取決于公司是處于其發(fā)展企業(yè)公民的哪個(gè)階段。比較之下，那些新手，例如，往往缺乏了解這些企業(yè)公民的各個(gè)方面，他們也沒有專業(yè)知識(shí)，沒有機(jī)制去應(yīng)對(duì)如此多的不同利益和要求。他們主要的挑戰(zhàn)是把公民在企業(yè)議程上堅(jiān)決執(zhí)行，獲得更好的了解利益相關(guān)者的關(guān)切，并采取一些明智的初期步驟。另一個(gè)極端是公司在企業(yè)公民上已經(jīng)取得一

4、個(gè)成熟的攻略。他們的總裁通常會(huì)導(dǎo)致他們公司在社會(huì)和環(huán)境問題上的立場(chǎng)，他們的董事會(huì)充分了解公司的做法。如果這些企業(yè)要向前發(fā)展，他們可能接下去嘗試連接公民責(zé)任和公司品牌以及日常員工通過“做活品牌”運(yùn)動(dòng)，像IBM公司和諾和諾德公司建立公民各級(jí)管理人員的目標(biāo)，就像杜邦公司和瑞銀集團(tuán)曾經(jīng)做過的那樣。</p><p>　　說到企業(yè)公民意識(shí)，在很大程度上取決于一個(gè)公司迄今已完成了什么和他想（而且必須）走多遠(yuǎn)。在一個(gè)隨即抽樣的美

5、國企業(yè)的調(diào)查中發(fā)現(xiàn)，大約百分之十的公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人不明白企業(yè)公民的全部意義所在。在另一個(gè)極端，而不是像許多公司有綜合性計(jì)劃，并制定了新的性能標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在絕大多數(shù)之間，有各種各樣在轉(zhuǎn)型的公司，其知識(shí)，態(tài)度，結(jié)構(gòu)，和做法代表了對(duì)于企業(yè)公民不同程度的理解和復(fù)雜性。</p><p>　　知道處于哪個(gè)階段的企業(yè)，以及他在推進(jìn)公民責(zé)任方面所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)，可以清楚地設(shè)立一個(gè)執(zhí)行混亂事情的立場(chǎng)，構(gòu)架前進(jìn)的戰(zhàn)略選擇，幫助確定基準(zhǔn)和目標(biāo)，也許會(huì)

6、加速前進(jìn)。</p><p>　　一個(gè)公司處于一個(gè)“階段”的企業(yè)公民是什么意思？在一個(gè)對(duì)兒童，團(tuán)體，所有類型的系統(tǒng)，包括企業(yè)組織的研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)在不同的發(fā)展階段存在不同的活動(dòng)模式。通常情況下，這些活動(dòng)像發(fā)展進(jìn)步一樣變得更加復(fù)雜、精密，因此應(yīng)對(duì)環(huán)境挑戰(zhàn)的能力同樣提高。皮亞杰的發(fā)展理論，例如，兒童進(jìn)展階段，需要更多的復(fù)雜思維和精細(xì)的判斷在認(rèn)識(shí)他們自己以外的社會(huì)上。同樣，成熟的團(tuán)體沿著一條發(fā)展的道路前進(jìn)，他們面對(duì)情緒和任務(wù)的

7、挑戰(zhàn)，需要更多的社會(huì)敏感和復(fù)雜的相互作用來解決問題。</p><p>　　格雷納，在他關(guān)于組織增長(zhǎng)的開創(chuàng)性的研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)，公司在不同的增長(zhǎng)階段還開發(fā)更復(fù)雜的做事方法。他們必須隨著時(shí)間的推移，在他們創(chuàng)作啟動(dòng)階段后找到更多的方向，發(fā)展基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和系統(tǒng)，以承擔(dān)更大的責(zé)任。 然后“通過”挑戰(zhàn)，通過協(xié)調(diào)和合作在控制和繁文縟節(jié)上，然后在工作單位和水平上。</p><p><b>　　公民的發(fā)展&

8、lt;/b></p><p>　　有一些是企業(yè)公民“階段”的模型。宏觀尺度上講，例如，學(xué)者們跟蹤在社會(huì)中不斷變化的商業(yè)概念，通過企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，各國政府，學(xué)術(shù)界和各行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)。近年來他們?cè)絹碓蕉嗟奈募谌绾沃贫▽?duì)社會(huì)責(zé)任包容性的定義，保護(hù)環(huán)境，企業(yè)道德和治理方面都放大到企業(yè)在社會(huì)中的作用上。另一些研究已經(jīng)把這些想法通過社會(huì)和職業(yè)流動(dòng)的形式傳播到工業(yè)和社會(huì)中。</p><p>　　初級(jí)的公司

9、，郵政和奧特曼有很多環(huán)境政策的逐步擴(kuò)大和深化，因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)有更多的期望和要求建立自己的能力以滿足這些需求。反過來，Zadek的個(gè)案研究，耐克對(duì)于挑戰(zhàn)它的突出階段的供應(yīng)鏈發(fā)展的回應(yīng)，關(guān)于企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任在企業(yè)反應(yīng)的社會(huì)問題。這兩項(xiàng)研究強(qiáng)調(diào)的作用，組織學(xué)習(xí)的概念，公司的責(zé)任變得更加復(fù)雜，在歷屆的發(fā)展階段，采取行動(dòng)要求更高的要求，以及需要更詳細(xì)和全面的組織結(jié)構(gòu)，流程和系統(tǒng)用來管理公民。</p><p>　　這種企業(yè)級(jí)的框架還沒

10、有完全解決某種邏輯和機(jī)制來推動(dòng)組織內(nèi)公民的發(fā)展。在這里，我們考慮發(fā)展公民身份分階段相結(jié)合的過程，內(nèi)部功能適用于環(huán)境挑戰(zhàn)，推動(dòng)發(fā)展前進(jìn)或多或少“正?！被蛞?guī)范邏輯。</p><p>　　葛瑞娜的模式，組織增長(zhǎng)說明了這一點(diǎn)規(guī)范的軌道。在他的角度來看，發(fā)展的一個(gè)組織是間斷了一系列可預(yù)見的危機(jī)，觸發(fā)的反應(yīng)，推動(dòng)組織向前發(fā)展。什么是觸發(fā)機(jī)制？他們的緊張關(guān)系是由于他們的問題和產(chǎn)生新的需求作出堅(jiān)定反應(yīng)。例如，創(chuàng)造性，企業(yè)發(fā)生危難

11、，公司在其第一階段，產(chǎn)生的混亂和損失的重點(diǎn)，可以攤檔增長(zhǎng)。這構(gòu)成了“領(lǐng)導(dǎo)危機(jī)” ，也就是解決一個(gè)階段的有序發(fā)展的成果，一旦該公司獲得方向，往往在新的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)班子和更正結(jié)構(gòu)上。后來代表團(tuán)之間的緊張局勢(shì)及其后果，次優(yōu)和群體間的沖突，引發(fā)了“危機(jī)管理”并走向協(xié)調(diào)。在語言發(fā)展上，公司“主動(dòng)”實(shí)施這些挑戰(zhàn)，給他們逐步制定更有效和更詳細(xì)的答復(fù)。</p><p>　　這里提出的模型也是規(guī)范的，因?yàn)樗俣艘幌盗械钠髽I(yè)公民的發(fā)展階段

12、。觸發(fā)的運(yùn)動(dòng)是挑戰(zhàn)，需要新的反應(yīng)。這些挑戰(zhàn)的中心最初是一個(gè)公司的信譽(yù)作為企業(yè)公民的責(zé)任，那么它滿足人們期望的連貫性的能力，其許多后來的努力，并最終致力于商業(yè)戰(zhàn)略和文化上的公民制度化。</p><p>　　運(yùn)動(dòng)沿著單一的發(fā)展道路是不是固定不變的，也不是實(shí)現(xiàn)倒數(shù)第二的“最終狀態(tài)”的一個(gè)合乎邏輯的結(jié)論。這意味著，公民在任何特定的公司所形成的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)，環(huán)境和體制力量影響著企業(yè)。這效果很好記錄了沃格爾的分析“市場(chǎng)德治” ，

13、他認(rèn)為相當(dāng)變異的企業(yè)個(gè)案公民的企業(yè)和行業(yè)，從而限制其市場(chǎng)回報(bào)。盡管如此，公司對(duì)這些市場(chǎng)力量因其領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人也有不同的態(tài)度和展望，設(shè)計(jì)和管理其公民議程并學(xué)習(xí)也不同。因此，“公司有良知”有更廣闊的公民形象和為企業(yè)創(chuàng)造一個(gè)良好的市場(chǎng)工程。</p><p><b>　　公民尺度</b></p><p>　　要跟蹤發(fā)展道路中的企業(yè)公民，我們側(cè)重于公民在每個(gè)階段的不同的七個(gè)方面：<

14、;/p><p>　　公民概念：公民如何界定？如何全面的定義？定義企業(yè)公民意識(shí)是多種多樣的。該中心的概念認(rèn)為公民是公司的總的行為（商業(yè)和慈善事業(yè)） 。 Bettignies指出，將公民身份和可持續(xù)性的概念納入道德，慈善事業(yè)，利益相關(guān)者管理，社會(huì)和環(huán)境責(zé)任納入綜合框架，指導(dǎo)企業(yè)采取行動(dòng)。</p><p>　　戰(zhàn)略意圖：公司公民的目的是什么？通過實(shí)現(xiàn)公民身份它的企圖是什么？史密斯指出，少數(shù)幾家公司擁

15、抱嚴(yán)格的道德承諾的公民意識(shí);而不是考慮具體的聲譽(yù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和利益的市場(chǎng)和社會(huì)，從而努力建立商業(yè)案例。Rochlin和Googins反過來看到，越來越大的興趣在“內(nèi)外”框架下的價(jià)值主張下，為公民行動(dòng)和投資作指南。</p><p>　　領(lǐng)導(dǎo)：高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人支持公民嗎？他們帶頭努力嗎？可見，積極性，在一個(gè)公司里最高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)在每一個(gè)調(diào)查中都作為第一因素公民。如何使最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人關(guān)于公民充分知情，有多少領(lǐng)導(dǎo)在做他們的工作以及在何種程度上他

16、們只是“光說不做”？</p><p>　　結(jié)構(gòu)：如何管理公民的責(zé)任？三年深入八家公司的研究中心關(guān)于執(zhí)行企業(yè)公民的論壇發(fā)現(xiàn)，許多都在發(fā)展，管理公民權(quán)從功能“島”到跨職司委員會(huì)還有少數(shù)已通過更正規(guī)的組合結(jié)構(gòu)，流程和系統(tǒng)開始實(shí)現(xiàn)一體化。</p><p>　　問題管理：企業(yè)如何處理出現(xiàn)的公民問題？學(xué)者們繪制的演變公共事務(wù)辦公室在企業(yè)的各個(gè)階段管理公共事務(wù)。一個(gè)公司是怎樣反應(yīng)它在公民方面的政策，程序

17、和性能的？</p><p>　　利益相關(guān)者的關(guān)系：公司是如何參與利益相關(guān)者的？一個(gè)廣泛的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)，股東參與越多的社會(huì)活動(dòng)來迎合世界各地的非政府組織（ NGOs ），在公司的溝通方式和從事他們的利益相關(guān)者上推動(dòng)重大變動(dòng)。</p><p>　　透明度：如何“開放”一個(gè)公司關(guān)于其財(cái)政，社會(huì)和環(huán)境方面的表現(xiàn)？網(wǎng)站超過80 ％的財(cái)富500強(qiáng)企業(yè)解決社會(huì)和環(huán)境問題，大約一半的公司今日發(fā)表公開報(bào)告他們的

18、活動(dòng)。</p><p><b>　　企業(yè)公民的階段</b></p><p>　　該模型在圖1中介紹了企業(yè)公民在發(fā)展階段中沿著以上七個(gè)方面的問題。我們的每個(gè)階段的說明一些例子公司的做法。（但是請(qǐng)注意，我們并不意味著這些公司目前經(jīng)營(yíng)在這個(gè)階段，而是再次指出，他們說明了公民在發(fā)展階段。）密切檢查發(fā)現(xiàn)，這些公司的情況下，他們實(shí)際上在某些方面領(lǐng)先，但其他方面欠發(fā)達(dá)，這應(yīng)毫不奇怪

19、。例如，兒童的生理，心理，和情感發(fā)展是很少統(tǒng)一。通常一個(gè)方面的發(fā)展速度比另一個(gè)就不一樣。以同樣的方式，發(fā)展集團(tuán)和組織能力是不平衡的。企業(yè)特定社會(huì)的力量，行業(yè)動(dòng)態(tài)，和其他環(huán)境影響功能如何開發(fā)一個(gè)公司公民。</p><p><b>　　第1階段：初級(jí)</b></p><p>　　在這個(gè)基礎(chǔ)階段，公司的公民身份活動(dòng)和其表現(xiàn)沒有得到發(fā)展。原因很簡(jiǎn)單：缺乏認(rèn)識(shí)什么是企業(yè)公民，感

20、興趣或漠不關(guān)心高層管理人員，和有限的或與外部利益相關(guān)者單向的互動(dòng)，特別是在社會(huì)和環(huán)境部門。這些心態(tài)在這些公司中，還有相關(guān)的政策和做法，往往集中在簡(jiǎn)單的遵守法律和行業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中。</p><p>　　負(fù)責(zé)處理事項(xiàng)的職責(zé)在于這些公司通常分配給各職司負(fù)責(zé)人力資源，法律部門， 投資者關(guān)系，公共關(guān)系，和社區(qū)事務(wù)。執(zhí)行這些職能是的管理人員確保公司遵守法律和控制可能出現(xiàn)的問題，減少對(duì)公司聲譽(yù)的損害。在許多情況下，他們采取防御態(tài)度應(yīng)

21、對(duì)外來壓力，例如，在1990年代初耐克的交易勞動(dòng)積極分子。</p><p>　　有些企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，例如，支持經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家米爾頓弗里德曼的概念，認(rèn)為他們的公司的義務(wù)是“賺取利潤(rùn)，繳納稅金，并提供就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。”其他人，尤其是那些標(biāo)題小和中型企業(yè)，遵守自愿的就業(yè)和健康， 安全和環(huán)境法規(guī)，但既沒有資源也沒有必要做更多的員工，社區(qū)或社會(huì)責(zé)任。</p><p>　　通用電氣前首席執(zhí)行官杰克韋爾奇是這種觀點(diǎn)的代

22、表人物。“現(xiàn)在的首席執(zhí)行官的首要社會(huì)責(zé)任是確保金融成功的公司，”他說，“只有健康的、勝利的公司擁有資源和能力做正確的事情。”通用電氣公司的財(cái)務(wù)成功的過去二十年是無可置疑的。然而，在韋爾奇在任時(shí)該公司的信譽(yù)受到考驗(yàn)走到了盡頭，發(fā)現(xiàn)其中一個(gè)業(yè)務(wù)單位已出現(xiàn)成噸的有毒化學(xué)物質(zhì)多氯聯(lián)苯投入到哈得遜河。遇到挑戰(zhàn)時(shí)，韋爾奇是防御性的，并指出通用電氣公司已完全遵守當(dāng)時(shí)現(xiàn)有的環(huán)境保護(hù)法律。</p><p>　　這表明了一個(gè)觸發(fā)使公

23、司推進(jìn)到公民的新階段。韋爾奇的立場(chǎng)顯然脫離了公司社會(huì)責(zé)任的期望和通用電氣公司成功創(chuàng)造財(cái)富之間的矛盾，它的聲譽(yù)損失是顯而易見的。韋爾奇的繼任者，杰夫·伊梅爾特，扭轉(zhuǎn)了這一過程，至少接受了部分財(cái)政責(zé)任清理，并在其后調(diào)整了公民在該公司的議程。</p><p>　　Stages of Corporate Citizenship</p><p>　　Business leaders thr

24、oughout the world are making corporate citizenship a key priority for their companies.1 Some are updating policies and revising programs; others are forming citizenship steering committees, measuring their environmental

25、and social performance, and issuing public reports. Select firms are striving to align staff functions responsible for citizenship and move responsibility—and accountability—into lines of business. Vanguard companies are

26、 trying to create a broader market for c</p><p>　　Amid the flurry of activity, many executives wonder what’s going on and worry whether or not their myriad citizenship initiatives make sense. Is their compan

27、y prepared to take appropriate and effective actions on transparency, governance, community economic development, work-family balance, environmental sustainability, human rights protection, and ethical investor relations

28、hips?</p><p>　　Is there any connection between, say, efforts in risk management, corporate branding, stakeholder engagement, supplier certification, cause related marketing, and employee diversity? Should th

29、ere be? Studies conducted by the Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College suggest that the balance between confusion and coherence depends very much on what stage a company is in its development of corporate ci

30、tizenship.</p><p>　　Comparative neophytes, for instance, often lack understanding of these many aspects of corporate citizenship and have neither the expertise nor the machinery to respond to so many diverse

31、 interests and demands. Their chief challenges are to put citizenship firmly on the corporate agenda, get better informed about stakeholders’ concerns, and take some sensible initial steps.</p><p>　　At the o

32、ther extreme are companies that have already made a full-blown foray into citizenship. Their CEO is typically leading the firm’s position on social and environmental issues, and their Board is fully informed about compan

33、y practices. Should these firms want to move forward, they might next try to connect citizenship to corporate branding and everyday employees through a “l(fā)ive the brand” campaign like those at IBM and Novo Nordisk or esta

34、blish citizenship objectives for line managers, as D</p><p>　　When it comes to making sense of corporate citizenship, much depends on what a company has accomplished to date and how far it wants (and has to)

35、 go. The Center’s surveys of a random sample of American businesses find that roughly ten percent of company leaders don’t understand what corporate citizenship is all about. On the other end of the spectrum, not quite a

36、s many firms have integrated programs and are setting new standards of performance. In the vast majority in between, there is a wide ra</p><p>　　Knowing at what stage a company is, and what challenges it fac

37、es in advancing citizenship, can clear up an executive’s confusion about where things stand, frame strategic choices about where to go, aid in setting benchmarks and goals, and perhaps speed movement forward.</p>

38、<p>　　Stages of Development</p><p>　　What does it mean that a company is at a “stage” of corporate citizenship? The general idea—found in the study of children, groups, and systems of all types, includi

39、ng business organizations—is that there are distinct patterns of activity at different points of development. Typically, these activities become more complex and sophisticated as development progresses and therefore capa

40、cities to respond to environmental challenges increase in kind. Piaget’s developmental theory, for example, has chi</p><p>　　Greiner, in his groundbreaking study of organizational growth, found that companie

41、s also develop more complex ways of doing things at different stages of growth. They must, over time, find more direction after their creative start-up phase, develop an infrastructure and systems to take on more respons

42、ibilities, and then “work through” the challenges of over-control and red-tape through coordination and later collaboration across work units and levels.</p><p>　　Development of Citizenship</p><p&

43、gt;　　There are a number of models of “stages” of corporate citizenship. On a macro scale, for example, scholars have tracked changing conceptions of the role of business in society as advanced by business leaders, govern

44、ments, academics, and multi-sector associations. They document how increasingly elaborate and inclusive definitions of social responsibility, environmental protection, and corporate ethics and governance have developed o

45、ver recent decades that enlarge the role of business in society. </p><p>　　At the level of the firm, Post and Altman have shown how environmental policies progressively broaden and deepen as companies encoun

46、ter more demanding expectations and build their capability to meet them. In turn, Zadek’s case study of Nike’s response to challenges in its supply chain highlights stages in the development of attitudes about social res

47、ponsibilities in companies and in corporate responsiveness to social issues. Both of these studies emphasize the role of organizational learning as </p><p>　　What such firm-level frameworks have not fully ad

48、dressed are the generative logic and mechanisms that drive the development of citizenship within organizations. Here we consider the development of citizenship as a stage-by-stage process where a combination of internal

49、capabilities applied to environmental challenges propels development forward in a more or less “normal” or normative logic.</p><p>　　Greiner’s model of organizational growth illustrates this normative trajec

50、tory. In his terms, the development of an organization is punctuated by a series of predictable crises that trigger responses that move the organization forward. What are the triggering mechanisms? They are tensions betw

51、een current practices and the problems they produce that demand a new response from a firm. For instance, creativity, the entrepreneurial fire in companies in their first stage, also generates confusion and</p>&l

52、t;p>　　The model presented here is also normative in that it posits a series of stages in the development of corporate citizenship. The triggers for movement are challenges that call for a fresh response. These challen

53、ges center initially on a firm’s credibility as a corporate citizen, then its capacities to meet expectations, the coherence of its many subsequent efforts, and, finally, its commitment to institutionalize citizenship in

54、 its business strategies and culture.</p><p>　　Movement along a single development path is not fixed nor is attaining a penultimate “end state” a logical conclusion. This means that the arc of citizenship wi

55、thin any particular firm is shaped by the socio-economic, environmental, and institutional forces impinging on the enterprise. This effect is well documented by Vogel’s analysis of the “market for virtue” where he finds

56、considerable variability in the business case for citizenship across firms and industries and thus limits to its marketp</p><p>　　Dimensions of Citizenship</p><p>　　To track the developmental pa

57、th of citizenship in companies, we focus on seven dimensions of citizenship that vary at each stage:</p><p>　　Citizenship Concept: How is citizenship defined? How comprehensive is it? Definitions of corporat

58、e citizenship are many and varied. The Center’s concept of citizenship considers the total actions of a corporation (commercial and philanthropic). Bettignies makes the point that terms such as citizenship and sustainabi

59、lity incorporate notions of ethics, philanthropy, stakeholder management, and social and environmental responsibilities into an integrative framework that guides corporate action.</p><p>　　Strategic Intent:

60、What is the purpose of citizenship in a company? What it is trying to achieve through citizenship? Smith observes that few companies embrace a strictly moral commitment to citizenship; instead most consider specific repu

61、tational risks and benefits in the market and society and thereby establish a business case for their efforts. Rochlin and Googins, in turn, see increasing interest in an “inside-out” framing where a value proposition fo

62、r citizenship guides actions and investmen</p><p>　　Leadership: Do top leaders support citizenship? Do they lead the effort? Visible, active, top level leadership appears on every survey as the number one fa

63、ctor driving citizenship in a corporation. How well informed are top leaders are about citizenship, how much leadership do they exercise, and to what extent do they “walk the talk”?</p><p>　　Structure: How a

64、re responsibilities for citizenship managed? A three-year indepth study of eight companies in the Center’s Executive Forum on Corporate Citizenship found that many progressed from managing citizenship from functional “is

65、lands” to cross-functional committees and that a few had begun to achieve more formal integration through a combination of structures, processes, and systems.</p><p>　　Issues Management: How does a company d

66、eal with citizenship issues that arise? Scholars have mapped the evolution of the public affairs office in corporations and stages in the management of public issues. How responsive a company is in terms of citizenship p

67、olicies, programs, and performance?</p><p>　　Stakeholder Relationships: How does a company engage its stakeholders? A wide range of trends—from increased social activism by shareholders to an increase in the

68、 number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world—has driven major changes in the ways companies communicate with and engage their stakeholders.</p><p>　　Transparency: How “open” is a company

69、 about its financial, social, and environmental performance? The web sites of upwards of 80% of Fortune 500 companies address social and environmental issues and roughly half of the companies today issue a public report

70、on their activities.</p><p>　　Citizenship at Each Stage</p><p>　　The model in Figure 1 presents the stages in the development of corporate citizenship along these seven dimensions. We illustrate

71、 each stage with selected examples of corporate practice. (Note, however, that we are not implying that these companies currently operate at that stage; rather, at the times noted, they were illustrative of citizenship a

72、t that development stage.) A close inspection of these companies reveals instances where they had a leading-edge practice in some dimensions but were l</p><p>　　Stage 1. Elementary</p><p>　　At t

73、his base stage, citizenship activity in a company is episodic and its programs are undeveloped. The reasons are straightforward: scant awareness of what corporate citizenship is all about, uninterested or indifferent top

74、 management, and limited or one-way interactions with external stakeholders, particularly in the social and environmental sectors. The mindset in these companies, and associated policies and practices, often centers on s

75、imple compliance with laws and industry standards.</p><p>　　Responsibilities for handling matters of compliance in these firms are usually assigned to the functional heads of human resources, the legal depar

76、tment, investor relations, public relations, and community affairs. The job of these functional managers is to make sure that the company obeys the law and to keep problems that might arise from harming the firm’s reputa

77、tion. In many cases, they take a defensive stance toward outside pressures—e.g., Nike’s dealings with labor activists in the early 19</p><p>　　Some corporate leaders, for example, have espoused economist Mil

78、ton Friedman’s notion that their company’s obligations to society are solely to “make a profit, pay taxes, and provide jobs.”20 Others, particularly those heading smaller and mid-size businesses, comply willingly with em

79、ployment and health, safety, and environmental regulations but have neither the resources nor the wherewithal to do much more for their employees, communities, or society.</p><p>　　Former General Electric CE

80、O Jack Welch is an exemplar of this principled big-business view. “A CEO’s primary social responsibility is to assure the financial success of the company,” he says. “Only a healthy, winning company has the resources and

81、 capability to do the right thing.”21 GE’s financial success over the past two decades is unquestioned. However, the company’s reputation suffered toward the end of Welch’s tenure when it was revealed that that one of it

82、s business units had discharged to</p><p>　　This illustrates one of the triggers that move a company forward into a new stage of citizenship. Welch’s stance was plainly out of touch with changing expectation

83、s of corporate responsibilities and the contradiction between GE’s success at wealth creation and loss of reputation was palpable. Welch’s successor, Jeffrey Immelt, reversed this course, accepted at least partial financ