公司治理與企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任相互協(xié)作【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯譯文</b></p><p><b>　　外文原文</b></p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Corporate Governance and Corporate Social</p><p>　　Resp

2、onsibility Synergies and Interrelationships</p><p>　　INTRODUCTION</p><p>　　Corporations have traditionally been conceived as self-centered, profit-maximizing entities constituting the central te

3、nets of capitalism and free market philosophies(Hg, 2007). Until recently, the connections between capitalism, economic growth, and self-interested corporation have largely gone unquestioned in policy circles (Hg, 2007).

4、 However, recent and monumental corporate scandals and failures have redirected attention to issues of good governance, ethics, trust, and accountability, height</p><p>　　While shareholder value maximization

5、 is still a major goal for corporations worldwide, the rise in social activism and the emergence of new expectations have indeed caused other aspects of corporate performance to be examined alongside financial results. A

6、s firms grow in size and influence, they are no longer expected to be mere contributors to the global economy, but rather to reconcile and skillfully balance multiple bottom lines and manage the interests of multiple sta

7、keholders (Jamali, 2006)</p><p>　　This is where the concepts of CG and corporate social responsibility (CSR) enter the picture. Under the umbrella of CG, companies are encouraged to promote ethics, fairness,

8、 transparency, and accountability in all their dealings. They are expected to continue generating profits while maintaining the highest standards of governance internally. A firm’s decisions should also be aligned with t

9、he interests of different within and outside the company (Freeman, 1984). Hence, businesses have to also ke</p><p>　　Much of the previous literature has researched and discussed CG and CSR independently, as

10、being unrelated accountability models, whose guidelines, reporting standards, and oversight mechanisms have evolved separately (Bhimani and Soonawalla, 2005). However, we feel that CG and CSR are strongly and intricately

11、 connected, and that previous literature has fallen short in capturing the nature and essence of this relationship. As Bhimani and Soonawalla (2005) put it, CG and CSR are two sides of the s</p><p>　　LITERAT

12、URE REVIEW</p><p>　　Corporate Governance Literature</p><p>　　This paper will focus on an important – and in no way simplistic – definition of CG as “the system by which companies are directed an

13、d controlled” (Cadbury, 2000: 8). The control aspect of CG encompasses the notions of compliance, accountability, and transparency (MacMillan, Money, Downing and Hillenbrad, 2004), and how managers exert their functions

14、through compliance with the existing laws and regulations and codes of conduct (Cadbury, 2000). The importance of CG lies in its quest at crafting/</p><p>　　A narrow view of CG portrays it as an enforced sys

15、tem of laws and of financial accounting, where socio environmental considerations are accorded a low priority (Saravanamuthu, 2004). There is, however, a broader CG conception, emphasizing every business’ responsibilitie

16、s toward the different stakeholders that provide it with the necessary resources for its survival, competitiveness, and success (MacMillan et al., 2004). As such, managers are primarily accountable toward stockholders wh

17、ose wealth</p><p>　　Other focal elements or ingredients of good governance include corporate leadership and strategy setting. These aspects involve defining roles and responsibilities, orienting management t

18、oward a long-term vision of corporate performance, setting proper resource allocation plans, contributing know-how, expertise, and external information, performing various watchdog functions, and leading the firm’s stake

19、holders in the desired direction (MacMillan et al., 2004; Cadbury, 2000; Page, 2005). The lea</p><p>　　Corporate Governance is also intimately concerned with honesty and transparency, which are increasingly

20、expected of the public both in corporate dealings and disclosure (Page, 2005). Investor confidence and market efficiency depend on the disclosure of accurate information about corporate performance. To be of value in glo

21、bal capital markets, disclosed information should be clear, consistent, and comparable (OECD, 1999). Moreover, transparency and disclosure of information between managers and e</p><p>　　While the above focus

22、es primarily on internal governance mechanisms and principles, a holistic view of CG needs to also account of external governance mechanisms, including the takeover market and the legal system (Denis and McConnell, 2003)

23、. Admitting that the legal system is a universally important CG mechanism, providing for the protection of investor rights and enforcement of rules (La Porta, Lopez de Silanes, Shleifer and Vishny, 1998), the market for

24、corporate control becomes salient when </p><p>　　In summary, CG thus generally revolves around a set of universal attributes, including ensuring accountability to shareholders and other stakeholders (Keasy a

25、nd Wright, 1997), creating mechanisms to control managerial behavior (Tricker, 1994), ensuring that companies are run according to the laws and answerable to all stakeholders (Dunlop, 1998), ensuring that reporting syst

26、ems are structured in such a way that good governance is facilitated (Kendall, 1999), crafting an effective leadership/str</p><p>　　A variation of these core attributes is articulated in turn in the OECD Pri

27、nciples (1999), listed and described in Table 1. These principles, originally adopted by the 30 member countries of the OECD in 1999, have become a reference tool for countries all over the world (Jesover and Kirkpatrick

28、, 2005), providing an international benchmark for CG, and specific guidance for policy makers, regulators, and market participants in improving the legal, institutional, and regulatory framework that under</p><

29、;p>　　Corporate Social Responsibility Literature</p><p>　　CSR on the other hand is a concept that has attracted worldwide attention and acquired a new resonance in the global economy (Jamali, 2006). Height

30、ened interest in CSR in recent years has stemmed from the advent of globalization and international trade, which have reflected in increased business complexity and new demands for enhanced transparency and corporate cit

31、izenship. Moreover, while governments have traditionally assumed sole responsibility for the improvement of the living conditions of </p><p>　　The most common conceptualizations of CSR are those of Carroll (

32、1979) and Lantos (2001). Carroll (1979; 1991) differentiated between four types of CSR, namely, economic (jobs, wages, services), legal (legal compliance and playing by the rules of the game), ethical (being moral and do

33、ing what is just, right, and fair) and discretionary (optional philanthropic contributions), while Lantos (2001) collapsed these categories into three: ethical, altruistic, and strategic. According to Lantos (2001), <

34、/p><p>　　Many scholars also conceive of CSR as encompassing two dimensions: internal and external. On the internal level, companies revise their in-house priorities and accord due diligence to their responsibil

35、ity to internal stakeholders, addressing issues relating to skills and education, workplace safety, working conditions, human rights, equity considerations, equal opportunity, health and safety, and labor rights (Jones,

36、Comfort and Hillier, 2005). With respect to the external dimension of CSR – whi</p><p>　　Source: Dima Jamali, Asem M. Safieddine, Myriam Rabbath. Corporate Governance ,Volume 16, Issue 5, September 2008, pag

37、es 443–459</p><p><b>　　翻譯文章</b></p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　公司治理與企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任相互協(xié)作</p><p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　公司在傳統(tǒng)意義上被認(rèn)為是實(shí)現(xiàn)

38、自我價(jià)值以及利益最大化的實(shí)體，它是構(gòu)成資本主義的中心原則和自由市場(chǎng)的哲學(xué)（Hg,2007）。直到最近, 在政策上，資本主義與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)、利己主義之間的聯(lián)系在很大程度上是不容置疑的(Hg,2007)。然而,最近各種企業(yè)的丑聞和失敗,使得注意力轉(zhuǎn)移到改善治理,倫理問(wèn)題,信任和責(zé)任上,引起了有關(guān)公司治理（CG）和經(jīng)濟(jì)倫理的爭(zhēng)論(Marsiglia 和 Falautano,2005)。因此,在歷史上任何時(shí)候，企業(yè)的角色和力量更加受到注意和關(guān)心,純

39、粹的利潤(rùn)最大化的理論越來(lái)越受到質(zhì)疑。</p><p>　　在世界范圍內(nèi)，公司股東價(jià)值最大化仍是主要目標(biāo),隨著社會(huì)激進(jìn)主義的激升和新期望的出現(xiàn)，確實(shí)導(dǎo)致了需要依據(jù)財(cái)務(wù)結(jié)果對(duì)公司績(jī)效的其它方面進(jìn)行檢查。公司規(guī)模的擴(kuò)大和變化，將不再只是影響全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的因素,而是巧妙地平衡多種結(jié)果和進(jìn)行利害相關(guān)者的利益管理(Jamali, 2006)。有一些最新的證據(jù)表明, 現(xiàn)在組織一般傾向于在績(jī)效評(píng)估的基礎(chǔ)上，從短期的財(cái)務(wù)拓寬到長(zhǎng)期，包

40、括社會(huì)、環(huán)境、經(jīng)濟(jì)的影響和增值(Hardjono和van Marrewijk, 2001)。</p><p>　　這就是公司治理的概念和企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任(CSR)的框架。在公司治理的范圍內(nèi),公司被鼓勵(lì)在他們所有的交易中實(shí)行誠(chéng)信、正直、透明、問(wèn)責(zé)機(jī)制。他們?cè)诒３謨?nèi)部治理的最高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的同時(shí)繼續(xù)保持贏利。并且公司的決定也應(yīng)該對(duì)內(nèi)外不同的利益保持一致(Freeman,1984)。因此,企業(yè)必須也使他們的活動(dòng)符合社會(huì)的道德、法律

41、的共同愿望。這符合“企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任”的范疇, 并且近年來(lái)，公司與各種利益相關(guān)者的互動(dòng)日益受到人們的關(guān)注，他們的互動(dòng)從提供優(yōu)質(zhì)的產(chǎn)品及服務(wù)擴(kuò)展到從事慈善活動(dòng)。</p><p>　　許多以前的文獻(xiàn)曾經(jīng)對(duì)公司治理和企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任進(jìn)行了獨(dú)立的研究與討論,作為相關(guān)的指南、報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則的范例,監(jiān)管機(jī)制已經(jīng)另行規(guī)定了(Bhimani和Soonawalla, 2005)。然而,我們覺(jué)得公司治理和企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任之間有錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的聯(lián)系,并且以前

42、的文獻(xiàn)缺乏捕捉自然與實(shí)質(zhì)之間的關(guān)系。就像Bhimani和Soonawalla(2005)提到的一樣, 公司治理和企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任就像一枚硬幣的兩面。本文中將深入探討這種關(guān)系。首先,從理論上講,通過(guò)回顧文獻(xiàn)來(lái)推斷公司治理和企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的關(guān)系。通過(guò)黎巴嫩背景下的實(shí)證研究,本文也將對(duì)公司治理和企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任進(jìn)行管理調(diào)查解釋和實(shí)際應(yīng)用，以及努力整合兩種范例在日常操作中的每種情況。</p><p><b>　　文獻(xiàn)回顧

43、</b></p><p><b>　　公司治理文獻(xiàn)</b></p><p>　　本文中將公司治理定義為“公司的指示和控制系統(tǒng)” (Cadbury, 2000:8)。公司治理的控制方面包含合規(guī)理念、責(zé)任和透明度(MacMillan, Money,Downing和Hillenbrad, 2004)，以及管理者們?cè)谧袷噩F(xiàn)有的法律、法規(guī)和的行為規(guī)范的情況下如何發(fā)揮

44、他們的作用 (Cadbury, 2000)。公司治理的重要性就在于它制定/精煉法律、法規(guī)、合同的同時(shí)，管理公司的業(yè)務(wù)并確保股東權(quán)利,協(xié)調(diào)利益相關(guān)者和管理者的利益,雙方各自所能承擔(dān)自己的責(zé)任有助于保持一個(gè)良好的的環(huán)境,并且有助于公司的成長(zhǎng)和價(jià)值的創(chuàng)造(Page, 2005)。因此治理為如何產(chǎn)生力量和如何達(dá)成決策奠定了基礎(chǔ)。</p><p>　　公司治理的狹義概念描述了它是一種的法律、財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)的執(zhí)行體系，而且社會(huì)環(huán)境

45、可能給予它一個(gè)基本優(yōu)先權(quán)(Saravanamuthu,2004)。然而, 公司治理更廣泛的概念則強(qiáng)調(diào)每個(gè)企業(yè)的責(zé)任是向不同的利益相關(guān)者提供生存、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和成功所需的資源(MacMillan等人，2004)。這樣,管理者主要對(duì)股東危在旦夕的利益負(fù)責(zé)。但是在另一些重要的方面，他們也對(duì)員工、供應(yīng)商、客戶和社區(qū)在企業(yè)的投資負(fù)同樣重要的責(zé)任。因此,在這個(gè)廣泛的概念中，考慮和確定所有利益相關(guān)者的利益和股東的權(quán)利為管理行為約束條件(Kendall，199

46、9；Page, 2005)。</p><p>　　良好管理的其他重要元素包括公司的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和策略的制定。這些方面包括角色和責(zé)任, 以長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的眼光創(chuàng)造公司績(jī)效, 需要搜集有用的專家意見(jiàn)、外部信息，制定正確的資源配置計(jì)劃，進(jìn)行各種監(jiān)督職能,并領(lǐng)導(dǎo)公司的利益相關(guān)者向預(yù)期的方向發(fā)展(MacMillan等人,2004；Cadbury, 2000； Page, 2005)。公司治理的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和控制方面并沒(méi)有相互排斥；相反, 他們聯(lián)系起

47、來(lái), 根據(jù)不同的利益相關(guān)者來(lái)定義不同程度的權(quán)力，包括行政主管、管理者、員工、較小部分的外部投資者（Macmillan等人,2004年）。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在這方面應(yīng)該行使他們的權(quán)力，使他們的公司得到提升,，而且根據(jù)他們的責(zé)任充分考慮到向股東和利益相關(guān)者的需要(Mallin, 2005)。</p><p>　　公司治理也與誠(chéng)實(shí)和透明度密切相關(guān)，在公司交易的披露中存在著越來(lái)越多的公眾預(yù)期(Page, 2005)。投資者的信心和市

48、場(chǎng)效率取決于關(guān)于公司績(jī)效披露的準(zhǔn)確信息。對(duì)于有價(jià)值的全球資本市場(chǎng)，信息披露應(yīng)明確、一致和相關(guān)(OECD, 1999)。此外，關(guān)于管理者和員工之間的透明度和信息披露，員工必須獲得信任和承諾。這些因素能夠確保一個(gè)準(zhǔn)確及時(shí)的報(bào)告活動(dòng), 因此提供必要的基礎(chǔ),便于建立健全的管理機(jī)制(Cadbury, 2000)。</p><p>　　盡管上述主要聚焦于內(nèi)部治理機(jī)制和原則，但從歷史發(fā)展的角度看，公司治理也需要考慮外部環(huán)境治理

49、機(jī)制，包括市場(chǎng)收購(gòu)和法律制度(Denis 和McConnell, 2003)。它承認(rèn)法律制度是一項(xiàng)普遍重要的公司治理機(jī)制，為投資者的權(quán)利和執(zhí)行規(guī)則提供保護(hù)（La Porta,Lopez de Silanes,Shleifer和Vishny, 1998）。對(duì)于公司控制的市場(chǎng)來(lái)說(shuō),當(dāng)有足夠的動(dòng)機(jī)去外界尋求公司控制，換句話說(shuō)，當(dāng)內(nèi)控機(jī)制在很大程度上失敗時(shí)是引人注目的(Denis 和McConnell, 2003)。在各種公司治理機(jī)制中體現(xiàn)了動(dòng)

50、態(tài)的相互關(guān)系，結(jié)合考慮外部因素，有必要對(duì)內(nèi)部特有的公司治理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)提供一種情境化理解。</p><p>　　總之，公司治理的范圍具有普遍性，包括向股東和其他利益相關(guān)者負(fù)責(zé)(Keasy 和 Wright，1997)，創(chuàng)造機(jī)制來(lái)控制管理行為(Tricker, 1994)，確保公司根據(jù)法律運(yùn)行并且確保所有利益相關(guān)者的利益(Dunlop, 1998)，確保報(bào)告系統(tǒng)以這樣的結(jié)構(gòu)能夠方便地進(jìn)行良好的治理(Kendall, 199

51、9)，制定一個(gè)有效的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)/戰(zhàn)略管理的過(guò)程,該過(guò)程包含了創(chuàng)造利益相關(guān)者的價(jià)值以及股東的價(jià)值(Tricker,1994；Kendall, 1999)，提高公司績(jī)效和責(zé)任（Keasy 和 Wright, 1997）。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)、方向、控制、透明度、問(wèn)責(zé)屬性就這樣成為了核心問(wèn)題并且對(duì)公司治理產(chǎn)生影響(Huse，2005；Van den Berghe 和 Louche,2005)。</p><p>　　這些核心屬性的變化反而體現(xiàn)

52、了經(jīng)合組織的原則(1999)，這些在表1中進(jìn)行描述列舉。1999年，這些原則被經(jīng)合組織的30個(gè)成員國(guó)所采用，已成為世界各國(guó)的參考標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(Jesover 和Kirkpatrick, 2005)，為公司治理提供一個(gè)國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，給予法律方面的政策制定者、監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)和市場(chǎng)參與者具體指導(dǎo)，并且維持公司治理的監(jiān)管體系。這些原則適用于不同的法律, 經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化環(huán)境，而且它們可以作為不同國(guó)家的政府和私營(yíng)部門改革的依據(jù)(Jesover和Kirkpatrick,

53、2005)。</p><p><b>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的文獻(xiàn)</b></p><p>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任從另一方面來(lái)說(shuō)是一種概念, 指的是它在全世界引起了廣泛關(guān)注并且獲得了全新的涵義(Jamali, 2006)。在近幾年，高度關(guān)注企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任主要是由于全球化時(shí)代和國(guó)際貿(mào)易的到來(lái)，這反映在提高業(yè)務(wù)的復(fù)雜性，提高透明度和企業(yè)公民的新需求。此外，傳統(tǒng)上假定政府承擔(dān)改善人們的生

54、活條件的唯一責(zé)任。但社會(huì)的需求已經(jīng)超出了政府的能力范圍(Jamali, 2006)。在此背景下，我們的注意力將轉(zhuǎn)向關(guān)注企業(yè)在社會(huì)中所扮演的角色，企業(yè)正試圖通過(guò)承擔(dān)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任來(lái)突顯自己。世界貿(mào)易委員會(huì)根據(jù)可持續(xù)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略(WBCSD)來(lái)定義企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，它作為企業(yè)的責(zé)任有助于經(jīng)濟(jì)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展，并且作用于員工，他們的家庭和當(dāng)?shù)氐纳鐓^(qū)（WBCSD, 2001)。更普遍的是, 企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任是一系列的政策、程序和慣例，它集中在經(jīng)營(yíng)和決策過(guò)程，并且

55、確保擴(kuò)大公司對(duì)社會(huì)經(jīng)營(yíng)的積極影響（企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，2003）。</p><p>　　最常見(jiàn)的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任概念是出自Carroll (1979) 和Lantos (2001)。Carroll (1979；1991)區(qū)分了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的四種類型，即經(jīng)濟(jì)上的（工作、工資、服務(wù)）企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，法律上的（遵守法律和游戲規(guī)則）企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，道德上的（符合道德規(guī)范并且做到公義、正確和公平）企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，任意的（適當(dāng)?shù)剡M(jìn)行慈善捐款

56、）企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任。但是Lantos (2001)把這些歸為三個(gè)類別：即為道德上的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任、利他主義的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和戰(zhàn)略上的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任。根據(jù)Lantos (2001) 的想法，道德上的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任是強(qiáng)制性的，超過(guò)履行公司的經(jīng)濟(jì)和法律的責(zé)任,其職責(zé)要避免傷害或社會(huì)傷害，即使企業(yè)不能直接受益。利他主義的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任是人道/慈善的, 涉及到真正的選擇,不論企業(yè)是否將獲得財(cái)務(wù)收益。包括為了提高社會(huì)福利和改善我們的生活質(zhì)量，努力緩解公眾問(wèn)題的事

57、例（例如窮困，文盲）。戰(zhàn)略上的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任另一方面是策略性的慈善事業(yè)，努力達(dá)成企業(yè)的戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo),同時(shí)也提升社會(huì)福利(Jamali,2007)。公司致力于識(shí)別活動(dòng)和行為被認(rèn)為是有利于企業(yè)以及社會(huì)的發(fā)展(Quester 和 Thom</p><p>　　許多學(xué)者也提出企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任包括兩個(gè)方面: 內(nèi)部的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和外部的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任。在內(nèi)在層次上, 公司修改他們的內(nèi)部?jī)?yōu)先權(quán)并盡職調(diào)查符合他們對(duì)內(nèi)部利益相關(guān)者的責(zé)任，解決

58、有關(guān)技能，教育,工作場(chǎng)所的安全，勞動(dòng)環(huán)境，人權(quán)，公平考慮，平等機(jī)會(huì)，健康和安全，勞動(dòng)權(quán)利的問(wèn)題（Jones, Comfort 和 Hillier, 2005）。關(guān)于企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的外部方面（無(wú)可否認(rèn)，更多的文獻(xiàn)上都有提到）(Deakin 和 Hobbs, 2007)，假定企業(yè)作為一個(gè)公民，把優(yōu)先權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移到他們所需要承擔(dān)的責(zé)任上去，盡力調(diào)查他們外部的（經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)）利益相關(guān)者和良好的自然環(huán)境(Munilla 和 Miles, 2005)。有關(guān)構(gòu)

59、成環(huán)境的因素主要影響環(huán)境的進(jìn)程，產(chǎn)物，服務(wù)，多樣性生物和人類健康，而社會(huì)產(chǎn)物包含社區(qū)問(wèn)題, 社會(huì)公平、公眾問(wèn)題和公眾爭(zhēng)論。履行企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任這兩個(gè)方面，往往意味著困難的調(diào)整并且需要自發(fā)地考慮多種結(jié)果(Elkington, 2006)，它也往往需要良好地溝通企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的目標(biāo)和行動(dòng)(Hancock, 2005)，新的控制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和性能指標(biāo)(Lantos, 2001) 成功地把企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任整合到組織</p><p>　　出