CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN A GLOBALISED WORLD CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Fernando Franco SJ
June 2007
Borgo S. Spirito,
4
C.P. 6139 / 00195 Roma-Prati (
+39 06689 77393 (tel) +39 06689 77380
(fax)
<sjs@sjcuria.org>
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY IN A GLOBALISED WORLD
CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES
table
of contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Presuppositions and
methodological perspectives
Vision of IAJBS
Methodological
standpoint
Globalisation
Challenges and
Opportunities
Corporate
Social Responsibility
3.
First question: are we looking at the whole of
reality?
Excellence as
looking with honesty at reality
4.
Second question: are we in favour of an inclusive
approach to the understanding of CSR?
Excellence as
solidarity
5.
Third question: are we
ready to move from responsible to accountable social responsibility?
Excellence as being accountable
6.
Conclusion
1. Introduction
I am grateful for the invitation to be with you this
evening. I consider it a great honour to be in front of this learned audience representing
the International Association of Jesuit Business Schools (IAJBS).
I bring greetings to all of you from Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach SJ, Superior General of the Society of Jesus. He
believes that these meetings are a good occasion to reflect on our specific
Jesuit contribution to business education.
Let me start with a confession. Using meteorological
language, one may characterise my relationship with Jesuit business schools as
cloudy with sunny intervals. Let me recount two anecdotes. Before coming to
A few years later, at the end of the 90s, the
provincial of
In both cases I was committed to bringing the
concept and practice of ‘social responsibility’ to a Jesuit business school. In
At a global level, I must acknowledge that things
are changing for the better. Twenty years ago it was almost a contradiction to
use the words ‘corporate’ and ‘social responsibility’ in the same sentence.
Today it has become part of the business culture, government public policy and
the strategic planning of many NGOs.
I must add to my previous confession a comment about
my dislike for undivided and monolithic identities. I have always tried to
ride, at the very least, two horses. To put it differently, one may say that I
have simultaneously inhabited two different worlds: the university world and
the world of social activism. If, under normal circumstances, you require
special balancing skills to ride two horses, under the typical oppositional
culture of the 70s and 80s it was close to performing a miracle. The fact that
I did fall frequently from the horse –now the one and now the other-- proves my
failure to make a living either as a tightrope walker or as a miracle man.
I stand before you today with humility and hope,
acknowledging my specific history. I do not claim to be a person “unencumbered
by past experiences.”
2. Presuppositions and methodological
perspectives
My starting point is the vision of IAJBS I
discovered in your website. IAJBS is defined as a
“network of institutions
committed to management and business education […] to prepare men and women for
leadership in the management professions in a global economy; that is, an education
focused on justice, leadership, profession and vocation as defined by the
Popes beginning with Pius XII and in Vatican II, and various other documents,
and deeply committed to Ignatian principles.” (Emphasis mine)
This definition emphasizes your core business: you
are in management education. It also points out to the specific character of
your institutions: they are inspired by the charism
of the Church and the Society of Jesus. Yours is an “education focussed on
justice.” I am going to be faithful to this formulation. I have not come here
to talk as an expert in business ethics…which I am not. I want to share my
reflections on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a Jesuit entrusted with
the task of animating social justice in Jesuit works and institutions.
Based on my past experience and drawing inspiration
from my present responsibility, I want to clarify the methodological
standpoint underpinning this presentation. This position, or rather
presupposition, may be described by two inter-related elements:
(1)
True
to the charism of the Society of Jesus, that is, to a
faith that does justice, I want to position myself on the side of the
excluded and marginalised of this world. I want to act in alliance with
them and their interests.
(2)
Acknowledging
that we live in a globalised world has helped me to
understand more profoundly God’s plan to save the whole world. It makes today
more sense to believe that God offers the banquet of life to all. Hence I
prefer to adopt an inclusive approach, and choose a strategy that
builds bridges, not one that deepens divisions.
The presentation aims at raising three fundamental
questions and generating awareness of the challenges and opportunities brought
about by globalisation. While the questions are meant to be an invitation to
reflect on some controversial aspects of CSR, they are also addressed to Jesuit
Schools committed to pursuing an “education focussed on justice.” As a matter
of fact, these questions are addressed finally to this international
Association that fosters the universal acceptance of its vision among its
member schools.
Before I raise these questions I want to clarify
as briefly as possible some of the terms I am going to be using in this
address.
Globalisation
Let me start with the term ‘globalisation’. The word
refers to a complex and ubiquitous process that touches all aspects of life. It
is like the sea surrounding your house: the moment you step out you get wet,
and as you try to walk you get in deeper and deeper. A document[1]
prepared by an international group of Jesuits under the auspices of the Social
Justice Secretariat describes it as an “unprecedented increase in the
inter-connectedness of the relationships among ourselves and the whole planet.”[2]
This process has been paradoxically accompanied by
an increase in the number of people who are marginalised, that is, by those who
seem to be thrown into an economic, social, cultural and political periphery.
The ‘excluded’ get disconnected from social and economic processes and some of
them become ‘human waste’.
This process has been primarily driven by economic
forces and incredible technological innovations. It has, nevertheless, profound
political and cultural effects. The Secretariat’s report on globalisation
notes:[3]
This web of new and
changed interrelationships is also characterised by a certain ‘fluidity’, and
‘liquidity’ both at the conceptual and institutional levels. The ‘solidity’ of
traditional relationships with its corresponding universe of meanings has been
replaced by a constant melting and reshaping that bring a sense of ‘relativism’
increasing the gap between individual and collective political action. One of
the consequences of this fluidity is the constant ebb and flow capable of
throwing masses of individuals to the margins and creating a huge mass of human
and non-human waste. [4]
Challenges and Opportunities
By the terms ‘challenges’ and ‘opportunities’ I
refer to two complementary aspects of the process of globalisation. The immense
possibilities open and the evils --I have called them ‘challenges’ -- brought
about by this process. I do believe that they exist and I consider we must
accept the challenge of fighting against them. John Paul II said:
“Globalisation gives rise to new hopes [opportunities] while at the same time
it poses troubling questions.”[5]
Let me start with the possibilities: we have, as
never before in the history of mankind, the resources, and the technical
ability to feed all the inhabitants of this planet, to win the battle over
frequent disease-killers like malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS, and to arrest
substantially ecological degradation. We have reached a situation where human
dependence on nature, for good or for bad, has dramatically decreased. The
Compendium notes: “Globalisation is able to produce potentially beneficial
effects for the whole of humanity” (362).
In the midst of these possibilities we also discover
the paradox of exclusion. Catholic Social Teaching[6]
mentions specifically the following evils challenging us: increasing
inequalities; marginalisation[7];
violation of human rights (365); and lack of “special attention [… to] local
features and cultural differences” (366) which turns globalisation into “a new
version of colonialism”[8].
Finally, the Compendium notes that “solidarity between generations must be
forcefully emphasized” (367), a typical expression expressing concern for
ecological and environment degradation.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Following the definition of ‘social corporate
responsibility’ contained in the European Union’s Green Book I understand CSR
as:
a concept whereby
companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business
operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary
basis.[9]
The document emphasizes that,
being socially
responsible means not only fulfilling legal expectations, but also going beyond
compliance and investing ‘more’ in human capital, the environment and the
relations with stakeholders.
The document recognises that adopting this approach
can contribute to the firm’s competitiveness and adds a remark which will guide
one of my questions:
Corporate social
responsibility should nevertheless not be seen as a substitute to regulation or
legislation concerning social rights or environmental standards, including the
development of new appropriate legislation.
3.
First question:
are we looking at the whole of reality?
My first question originates in the scepticism with
which CSR is viewed by many NGOs. There has been a noticeable change in corporate
behaviour and culture: CSR has been embraced heartily. Many corporations wave
CSR around as a sign of respectability. A few questions, however, have been
raised: is this another business trick to gloss over ecological and social
disasters that have attracted enormous media attention? Serious scholars have
reminded us that this new interest in CSR appears often as a new fashion,[10]
and it “has attracted dozens of other pieces of jargon.”[11]
A few international NGOs have presented documented evidence that “the CSR
landscape is uneven and full of potholes.”[12]
Since I consider the matter quite important, let me remind you briefly of some
of the cases reported by Christian Aid, a respected NGO.
In March 2001,
a report[13] described the human
rights abuses in
Oil industry infrastructure – the same roads and airstrips
which serve the companies – is used by the army as part of the war […] The
Sudanese government itself now admits that oil is funding the wider civil war.[14]
In January 2002 a report[15]
raised serious concerns about the health safety and livelihoods of contracted
farmers growing tobacco for a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT) in
southern Brazil[16], and this resulted in
remedial steps being announced by BAT.
In 2004 a report[17]
examined the role played by Shell in
Let me not give you the impression that I am
referring to past events. As world leaders meet in Davos
in 2007, to discuss ‘The shifting power equation’, Christian Aid's latest
report, A Rich Seam: Who benefits from rising commodity prices? shows
that, despite spectacular rises in the prices of commodity (oil, copper and
gold) prices, the ‘equation’ is still weighted very much in favour of the rich,
with developing countries scarcely benefiting at all. Some examples quoted in
the report:
(1)
While
mining company profits have risen eight times from 2002-2005, many of the
developing countries from which the commodities are exported receive very
little in either tax or royalties. There are often heavy costs, including
environmental costs, related to attracting foreign investment in natural
resources.
(2)
In
(3)
In
Are we ready to look squarely at the challenges
(evils) of globalisation? Are we also looking at the good practices, the
efforts made by some companies to change behaviour and accept CSR? In one word:
are we ready to look at the challenges and opportunities of globalisation?
Before I move to the next question let me touch
finally on the consequences of this first question for the vision of Jesuit
Business Schools. Jesuit tradition and vision have been grounded on the
meditation of the Incarnation in the Spiritual Exercises where we are told of
how God looks at the whole reality before deciding to take action and become
man.
The first Point is, to see the various persons: and first
those on the surface of the earth, in such variety, in dress as in actions:
some white and others black; some in peace and others in war; some weeping and
others laughing; some well, others ill; some being born and others dying, etc. […] and consider the Three Divine
Persons, […] how They look on all the surface and circuit of the earth.[18]
If Jesuit schools have to provide a management
education focussed on justice, then it needs to expose students and faculty to the
whole of reality. If this is true then we might need to re-define the concept
of ‘excellence’, the Ignatian magis,
as including the practice of looking with honesty at reality. I would
suggest that Jesuit excellence needs to incorporate the element of ‘compassionate
truthfulness’: looking at reality through the eyes of the poor.
The first question addressed to our Jesuit Business
Schools could take this form: does our management education put our students in
touch with the whole reality? Does our education invite the students to factor
in the element of social justice?
4.
Second question:
are we in favour of an inclusive approach to the understanding of CSR?
This question emerges from the discussion that has
dotted the history of the concept of CSR. The debate started, as you well know,
with the question of the nature of the relationship between business and
society: was an enterprise responsible to society? The development of the
concept of CSR has entailed an inclusive process: it has, on the one hand,
rejected a conception of a business enterprise as autonomous, and it has, on
the other, made the enterprise responsible to those groups affected by it. The
question is meant to help us examine our position with respect to the
inclusiveness of our understanding of the term ‘responsible’.
A little history may help us remember the context in
which the question is put. The earliest conception of a business emphasized the
unity between capital and labour and defined it as a unit of production. Social
ethics was then rightfully preoccupied with achieving an acceptable balance
between both factors of production. A sort of “managerial revolution”[19]
followed: the enterprise was conceived to be an autonomous organisation, free
from the constraints of capital and labour, in the hands of the managers.
The first clear response to the question of business
responsibility came from Milton Friedman: business was only responsible to the
stockholder.[20] In the course of time,
and in a globalised context, the responsibility of
business was extended and moved meaningfully from stockholder to the
stakeholders,[21] that is, those affected
by business activities. The term stakeholder has been defined as follows:
those persons or groups
that have or claim to have rights, interests, or ownership in a business
enterprise and in its past, present and future activities.”[22]
There is a consensus that among the most important
stakeholders we must consider the owner, labour, consumers, the chain of input
providers, public administration and the immediate and more external
environment. The nature of social responsibility emerges from the relationships
that an enterprise has with each of these social groups. In the context of the
increasing precariousness of labour and the worsening of the ecological balance
it makes sense to give priority among the stakeholders to labour and the
environment.
Let me offer a brief characterisation of the
stakeholder or inclusive approach.
(1) An ethical defence of this approach may invoke the principle that the exercise of power carries also corresponding responsibilities. Since business exercises power over each stakeholder, business also carries responsibilities towards them.
(2) CSR cannot ultimately become a substitute for the State’s own responsibility. It has been pointed out that the growing awareness about CSR has accompanied the weakening of the state in a globalised society, but CSR should not be equated with the indiscriminate move to ‘privatise the public.’
(3)
The
inclusive approach inherent in the concept of stakeholders needs to avoid two
extremes: extend the list of stakeholders endlessly, and reduce the
relationship between business and stakeholders to some activity or dimension
external to, or separable from their core business. CSR will always call for social
responsibility to be part of the internal structure of managing business. For
example, it needs to be incorporated in decision-making.
(4)
The
right interpretation of this inclusive approach would lead us to consider CSR
as partnership between the State, business and civil society. It is in the
space where all three meet and interact that CSR can find the most efficient
response.
By raising the second question we have attempted to
focus attention on the exclusion-inclusion dyad; we may now look at this ‘inclusive
approach’ as another way of expressing John Paul II’s
strong invitation to globalise solidarity. It is in this context that I turn my
attention to reflection on the challenge of ‘solidarity’ to our management
education in Jesuit business schools.
Catholic Social Teaching establishes
an intimate bond between
solidarity and the common good, between solidarity and the universal
destination of goods, between solidarity and equality among men and peoples,
between solidarity and peace in the world.[23]
Jesuit business schools need to remember that
General Congregation 34, the highest legislative body of the Jesuits, talking
about globalisation 10 years ago, urged Jesuits to counter
“injustices on a massive
scale, […] by working to build up a world order of genuine solidarity, where
all can have a rightful place at the banquet of the Kingdom.”[24]
Seeking ‘excellence’ today, Jesuit business schools
need to avoid the pitfall of an exclusive elitism and brand their education
with a strong sense of solidarity.
5.
Third question: are we ready to move from responsible
to accountable social responsibility?
This question emerges from the debate regarding the
nature of CSR: should CSR be voluntary? The voluntary approach has been widely
endorsed by European governments, and clearly mentioned by the definition
provided in the Green Book. At the heart of CSR, argue those business that have
developed it, is the idea that companies, on their own, can be trusted to fill
an important ‘regulatory gap’. This gap exists because there may be laws
binding the company in the country of origin, but there are no laws, or a lack
of an effective regulatory mechanism in the poor countries and communities in
which they operate.
Important international NGOs like Christian Aid feel
that,
Legally binding and
internationally agreed regulation for business are needed to protect the rights
of poor communities. Adherence to internationally agreed standards must also be
included as a pre-condition for the commencement of commercial projects that
require loans from international financial institutions.[25]
The World Bank, itself a CSR player, notes:
Despite widespread
rhetoric, the impact is still patchy; in practice, many companies’ implementation
[of CSR strategies] is shallow and fragmented.[26]
It is also evident that during the last 20 years
there has been remarkable progress. A number of institutions (Caux Round Table[27])
have come to the fore to develop a moral version of capitalism. Besides, a
great variety of codes of conduct have been formulated, some of which have an
accountability clause. It may be interesting to name a few.
The Interfaith Declaration is a Code of
Ethics on International Business for Christians, Muslims and Jews.[28] The Coalition for
Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) was formed in 1989 to promote
responsible corporate environmental conduct.[29]
The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), an alliance of companies, NGOs and
trade unions that share a common interest in the labour issues associated with
multinational supply chains. The International Confederation of Free Trade
Union ICFTU and International Trade Secretariats (ITS) adopted in December 1997
a Basic Code of Conduct covering Labour Practices. SA8000 is the
product of Social Accountability International (SAI), an organisation founded
in 1997 and dedicated to addressing the growing concern among consumers
regarding the working conditions of factories around the world.[30] We may add to the list the
UN’s Global Compact including nine guiding principles and the Global
Reporting Initiative.[31]
While our question does not touch directly on the
relative desirability of various codes of conduct, it emphasizes that CSR has
been moving in the direction indicated by the question. We need to remember,
however, that adherence to a code of conduct does not automatically result in
accountability. Insistence on accountability would in this case mean that the
practical implementation or the de facto adherence to the code of conduct
has also been checked and verified by an external authority.
Our contention is that CSR, within the context of
voluntarism, has been also accompanied by a movement in which society demands
more accountability. We believe that it is of the utmost importance to continue
discussing and reflecting on the relation between responsibility and
accountability. Certain guidelines may be in place.
(1)
The
claim in favour of voluntarism is made on the assumption that the term
‘responsibility’, as a human act, must be based on the freedom of the person.
One is not really responsible if s/he is forced to submit to the law.
(2)
Even
those who do accept voluntarism as the basis for CSR are at pains to emphasize
that ‘voluntarism’ should not be confused with a ‘discretionary’ approach. They
argue “that moral behaviour does not only mean the fulfilment of the norms but
also the acceptance of values and a type of behaviour which is coherent with
these values,”[32] a kind of “moral
voluntarism”. The question is not whether companies can decide or not to be
socially responsible; the fact is that they are socially responsible.
(3)
Though
legal provisions are important, some argue that legal provisions (law) may be a
necessary but not a sufficient condition to make an action ethical. A company
may behave according to law and yet the action may be unethical. There are many
examples of this.
·
Productive
processes which are considered to be toxic or dangerous against the environment
and banned in one country can be developed in other countries where no law
banning it exists. The company is then acting legally but unethically.
·
Technological
discoveries not yet regulated by law, if put into use or tested, may result in
irreparable damage to health.
·
It
may be legal to close a factory or dismiss the labour force, but there is an
ethical question involved.
(4)
Some
authors like to speak of ‘responsiveness’ rather than responsibility.[33]
This concept seems to stress the leadership role that business can take in
social transformation; business is thus looked upon as a part of society, as
having a civic responsibility. By being pro-active, by trying to foresee the
effects of their decisions, business becomes co-responsible with other actors.
Responsiveness does not imply an increase in the list of stakeholders; it is
not a matter of introducing a few ‘changes’ but of moving into a new paradigm.
(5)
Following
this line of approach, others want to develop a certain empathy to resolve
negotiations among various stakeholders. Quite often negotiations fail because
an action benefiting all may not succeed; this may be because each group wants
to minimise their individual costs.[34]
The move from voluntarism to a demand for
accountability may also have important consequences for Jesuit Business
Schools. As reflected in the Spiritual Exercises, Jesuit spirituality and
tradition have always relied on the freedom of the individual to change the
course of her life. Ignatius was also insistent that good intentions ought to
be checked against the determination of the will and to be validated by the
accountability to the
While accepting that a fierce sense of independence
has always guided the development of each
I propose that, if it has not been already
developed, the IAJBS could develop a system of external certification in what
concerns the Jesuit character of a business school, its characteristic of being
focussed in justice. The development of such certification may be a great step
towards accountability. Jesuit excellence, to be credible, needs to be accountable,
to be perceived as such by society, and to be independently confirmed.
6.
Conclusion
Let me express my gratitude for the patience you
have shown in listening to me. I want to remember all those Jesuits, lay
partners and institutions that have played an important role in developing
business ethics and have contributed to making Jesuit Business Schools
different.
My questions today have only aimed at fostering your
efforts and at reminding you about the urgency of the theme. I have also
proposed that while accepting a definition of ‘excellence’, the Ignatian magis, based on
solid academic standards, needs to be blended with a Jesuit understanding of
excellence. I have put forward the idea that Jesuit excellence must incorporate
the ability to
look compassionately at the whole reality;
have an inclusive approach (solidarity);
and to be accountable.
I believe that we, working with other people of good
will, have the capacity to change the values that govern society. We need to
change a narrow understanding of business success. Jesuit Business Schools need
to face the fact that teaching social responsibility and being focussed on
justice has a cost. The call of the magis is a
beacon calling us to face the challenges squarely, to take advantage of the
opportunities offered by globalisation.
Thank you
[1] Social Justice Secretariat, Globalisation
and Marginalisation: Our Global Apostolic Response, (
[2] Globalisation op cit. p. 9.
[3] Globalisation, op cit. n. 38
[4] The quotation relies heavily on
the following analysis: “The ‘melting of solids’, the permanent feature of
modernity, has therefore acquired a new meaning, and above all has been
redirected to a new target--one of the paramount effects of that redirection
being the dissolution of forces which could keep the question of order and
system on the political agenda” (Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid
Modernity, Polity: Cambridge, 2001, p.6).
[5] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in
[6] Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, (Città del Vaticano: 2004).
Numbers in brackets indicate the numbers of the text.
[7] John Paul II, Message for the 1998 World
Day of Peace, 3, AAS 90, (1998), 150.
[8] John Paul II, Address to the
[9] European Commission, Directorate-General
for Employment and Social Affairs, Promoting a European framework for corporate
social responsibility, Green Paper (
[10] Editorial, ‘La
Responsabilidad social de la empresa, ¿El coste de tener conciencia?’, Revista
de Fomento Social, 244, 61, (Octubre-diciembre 2006), 501.
[11] Christian Aid, Behind the Mask. The Real Face of
Corporate Responsibility, (
[12] Christian Aid, ibid, p. 5
[13] The Scorched Earth: Oil and War in
[14] Ibid. p. 1
[15] Hooked on Tobacco ( place of publication,
2002)
[16] “There is considerable evidence of
farmers suffering illnesses associated with exposure to pesticides including
depression, anxiety, neurological dysfunction, muscle aches and Parkinson's
disease-like tremors. Farmers also suffer from exposure to high levels of
nicotine and experience an annual catalogue of sickness coinciding with the
tobacco-growing calendar.”
(http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0201bat/batsum.htm)
[17] Behind the Mask, op cit. See also the report Fuelling Poverty: Oil, War and Corruption, (place of publication, 2003) which examines the curse of oil on poor communities in resource-rich developing countries.
[18] Spiritual Exercises, n. 106
[19] J. Burnham, The Managerial Revolution,
John Day Co. (New York, 1941)
[20] Milton Friedman, ‘The Social
responsibility of business is to increase its profits’, New York Times,
[21] R. Freeman, Strategic management: A
Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing Co, (
[22] M. Hopkins, The Planetary Bargain:
Corporate Social Responsibility Comes of Age, MacMillan
Press (
[23] John Paul II, Encyclical Setter, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 17,39,45; AAS (1988), 532-533, 566-568.
[24] GC 34, D. 3, n. 7
[25] Behind the Mask, op.cit. p.
5.
[26] http://www.worldbank.org/privatesector/csr/
[27] The Caux
Round Table was founded in 1986 by Frederick Phillips, former President of
Philips Electronics and Olivier Giscard d'Estaing,
former Vice-Chairman of INSEAD, as a means of reducing escalating trade
tensions. It is an international network of principled business leaders
working to promote a moral capitalism. The CRT advocates implementation of the
CRT Principles for Business through which principled capitalism can flourish
and sustainable and socially responsible prosperity can become the foundation
for a fair, free and transparent global society. (http://www.cauxroundtable.org/about.html)
[28] The Declaration emerged from a
series of consultations between distinguished Christians, Muslims, and Jews,
which took place under the patronage of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, HRH Crown
Prince Hassan Bin Talal of
Jordan, and Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Discussion of the Declaration’s terms
began in 1988 and concluded in 1993.
[29] Shortly after the disaster of the Exxon
Valdez , CERES announced the creation of the Valdez Principles. Later renamed
the CERES Principles, this statement represents an environmental ethic for
corporations.
[30] SA8000 is intended to overcome the
difficulties associated with monitoring internal corporate codes of conduct. It
offers (1) a standard for workplace conditions, and (2) a system for
independently verifying a factory’s compliance with this standard. Its social
accountability requirements address nine areas: Child Labour; Forced Labour;
Health and Safety; Compensation; Working Hours; Discrimination; Discipline;
Free Association and Collective Bargaining; and Management Systems. SAI
accredits firms to act as external auditors that certify whether manufacturing
facilities are in compliance with SA8000.
(http://www.cepaa.org/SA8000/SA8000.htm)
[31]Fundación
Ecología y Desarrollo, Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, mimeo 2003.
[32] Editorial, Revista
de Fomento Social, 244, 16, octubre-diciembre 2006, p. 515
[33] Pedro M. Sasia, La empresa a contracorriente. Cuestiones de ética
empresarial, Alboan-Mensajero, (Bilbao, 2004).
[34] M. Olson, The Logia of Collective
Action,