Corporate social responsibility cost

There are three viewpoints to analyze the significance of corporate social responsibility cost to corporate social responsibility: economic responsibility theory, non-economic responsibility theory and multiple responsibility theory. The former, represented by Friedman, believes that corporate social responsibility is an economic responsibility to investors; China people, represented by Bowen, believe that corporate social responsibility is an act of promoting social progress and improving social welfare in addition to corporate economic responsibility. The latter, represented by Carol, thinks that complete corporate social responsibility is diversified, including economic responsibility, legal responsibility, moral responsibility and charitable responsibility. The author believes that the simple theory of economic responsibility can not meet the requirements of enterprises to promote scientific development and social harmony; The multiple responsibility theory and the non-economic responsibility theory explain the broad and narrow sense of corporate social responsibility respectively. Constructing the broad and narrow sense of corporate social responsibility cost theory system is conducive to exploring the occurrence and compensation law of corporate social responsibility cost from the perspective of integration and independence. The generalized corporate social responsibility cost is based on the theory of multiple responsibilities, and its specific categories and contents depend on different fields and levels of corporate social responsibility practice activities. Broadly speaking, the practice of corporate social responsibility mainly includes four areas: production and operation, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of stakeholders, ecological environment protection and governance, and internal system construction of enterprises, which will correspondingly produce four types of corporate social responsibility costs: management responsibility cost, rights protection responsibility cost, environmental responsibility cost and institutional responsibility cost. Moreover, the social responsibility cost of each type of enterprise is hierarchical, from "bottom" to "top", followed by economic responsibility, legal responsibility and moral responsibility. The three levels are in a progressive relationship: first, we must ensure economic responsibility, which is the bottom line for enterprises to survive in market competition; Secondly, legal responsibility should be guaranteed, which is the bottom line for enterprises to fulfill their compulsory social responsibility obligations; Finally, we must ensure moral responsibility and self-discipline the bottom line of social responsibility. The narrow sense of corporate social responsibility cost is based on the theory of non-economic responsibility. The difference between it and the broad corporate social responsibility cost is that it does not include the operating responsibility cost, but only includes the rights protection responsibility cost, the environmental responsibility cost and the system responsibility cost. Each kind of cost also includes three progressive levels: economic responsibility, legal responsibility and moral responsibility. Because the broad corporate social responsibility cost includes the narrow corporate social responsibility cost, we can analyze the specific content of corporate social responsibility cost from a broad perspective: 1, operating responsibility cost. Including product production costs, operating costs, period expenses and other necessary expenditures in the process of enterprise production and operation, enterprises should ensure the rationality, legality and morality of their expenditures in accordance with the requirements of the Accounting Law and the Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises. 2. Responsibility cost of rights protection. It mainly includes the expenses incurred in safeguarding the rights and interests of consumers and workers. The former includes the expenses incurred to ensure the safety, quality, applicability and humanization of the products or services purchased by consumers, and the expenses incurred according to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law and the Product Quality Law and the moral supervision of the public media. The latter includes the expenses incurred to ensure employees' living welfare, production safety, occupational health, skills training and social insurance, as well as the expenses incurred in accordance with the mandatory and ethical labor standards stipulated in the labor law and SA8000 certification. 3. Environmental responsibility cost. Refers to the environmental responsibility costs incurred by enterprises according to the requirements of building a resource-saving and environment-friendly society in Scientific Outlook on Development, such as pollution control costs, resources and environmental protection costs, environmental impact assessment costs, emission rights purchase costs, environmental protection project investment costs, and internal environmental supervision and inspection costs. 4. The cost of institutional responsibility. Including the responsibility cost of formal rules and the responsibility cost of informal rules, the former is the cost of designing, implementing and innovating internal rules such as division of responsibilities, action guidelines, incentives and constraints, performance measurement, etc. On the premise of observing national laws and regulations; The latter is the cost of guiding, cultivating and supervising the values of patriotism, harmony, honesty and loyalty of all stakeholders. Can the cost of corporate social responsibility be compensated economically through the market? Theoretical researchers have two opposing views on this: Friedman, who is only an economic responsibility theorist, believes that taking social responsibility will increase the operating cost of enterprises, and will eventually be passed on to consumers, laborers or investors for compensation in a way that harms their interests, so it is difficult for the cost of corporate social responsibility to be compensated economically through the market; Payne, a multi-responsibility theorist, believes that although taking social responsibility will reduce the short-term economic performance of enterprises, it can obtain long-term indirect benefits such as improving work efficiency and improving corporate image, and obtain non-economic compensation, but it is not clear whether it can obtain economic compensation. Since 1970s, many western scholars have tried to find out whether the cost of corporate social responsibility has been compensated economically through empirical research. Scholars mainly use the correlation analysis method between corporate social responsibility rating indicators and corporate financial performance, and draw three conclusions: positive correlation, negative correlation and irrelevant, among which the positive correlation conclusion accounts for the majority, which supports the view that corporate social responsibility costs can be compensated economically through the market. A few domestic scholars also draw lessons from this method to reach the above conclusions. Based on the panel data of 370 companies in mining, electricity and gas, construction, wholesale and retail, transportation, information technology, etc.1/industries (except financial and cultural communication) in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets from 2003 to 2006, the author mainly sets explanatory variables based on the index system of corporate social responsibility survey released by Peking University Institute of Private Economy in 2006 to measure the broad and narrow sense. At the same time, the revised Tobin Q value defined by China Economic Research Center of Peking University according to the characteristics of China's capital market is taken as an explanatory variable to measure the overall financial performance of enterprises. The results show that the narrow social responsibility cost of most industries in the current year and the previous year is negatively correlated with the financial performance of that year, while the narrow social responsibility cost of the previous two years is positively correlated with the financial performance of that year, indicating that the narrow social responsibility cost can be compensated economically, and the compensation period is about two years; The generalized social responsibility cost of that year was not related to the financial performance of that year, but the generalized social responsibility cost of the previous year was positively related to the financial performance of that year, indicating that the generalized social responsibility cost can be compensated economically, and the compensation period is about one year. The reason why the compensation period of generalized social responsibility cost is shorter than that of narrow social responsibility cost may be that the operating responsibility cost in generalized social responsibility cost can be compensated in the same year, thus offsetting part of the time. Reasonable expenditure and efficient compensation of corporate social responsibility cost need to be realized by all stakeholders: the government should speed up the legalization process of corporate social responsibility cost accounting, disclosure, incentive and supervision; All industries should explore the implementation of corporate social responsibility certification and evaluation system suitable for industry characteristics; The media should strengthen the correct guidance and public opinion supervision of corporate social responsibility behavior; Enterprises should incorporate the cost of social responsibility into the overall strategic development framework and provide expenditure and salary information to stakeholders through the preparation of corporate social responsibility reports. Website:/%D5% DC% d1%D4% CB% e9% D3% ef/blog/item/41f 51baf890881fead5060.html.