You are here

Mechanisms of providing institutional structures of social responsibility

The desire of businesses to maximize profits in the short term creates significant negative externalities which increase the differentiation of social groups in the country. It can force to pay more attention to development of socially oriented institutions that are designed to bring together the views of different social groups about the public good.
Issues of social responsibility, actively investigated by the scientific community, especially Western. However, the significant theoretical developments of the social responsibility of business remains one of the most controversial modern concepts, which still has not received its final recognition as an attempt to harmonize the intent and result of capitalism. In this regard, in the framework of the economic science there is a need for research models of socially oriented economic behavior of economic entities that correspond to the situation that has developed in the specific socio-economic conditions and aspiration of the whole society.
The aim of the study is the formation of institutional structures of social responsibility. A manifestation of necessary and sufficient conditions (institutional boundaries), in which economic agents will tend to the implementation of socially responsible behavior. Search of mechanisms that will create a strong link between the economic development of the state and welfare of its citizens, business interests and socio-environmental living conditions of the population.
Methodological basis of research are the main provisions of the neoclassical and institutional economic theories of public choice theory and concepts of socio-political networks and management. The study used general scientific and special methods, in particular: scientific abstraction, theoretical generalization, comparison and morphological analysis.
The article is devoted to problems of formation the Institute of social responsibility, which forms the matrix of economic behavior, the defining restrictions for entities within the system of coordination of economic activities. Focuses on the consideration of necessary and sufficient conditions under which economic operators will be inclined to implement socially responsible behavior, the study of the institutional mechanism of social responsibility, which creates a strong link between the economic development of the state and welfare of its citizens, business interests and socio-environmental living conditions of the population.
It has special significance for the countries with transitive economy, economic and social institutions which are in the process of modernization. Because of , first, creates the foundation and is a liaison for technical-technological, organizational and social transformation, as creating the institutional conditions for their implementation; second, compensates for the risk of destruction of the modernization efforts associated with the implementation of pre-defined transformations under the influence of intensification of the process of individualization; third, integrate the new contents of institutions in economic activity, offsetting the expansion of technical and technological, organizational and social values of modernization.
In the process of upgrading the norms and rules of social responsibility are interiorizes and implemented in everyday economic behavior. They form prosocial value (people are more likely to help when their "self – concept" is directly linked to beliefs and values) is the basis of socially oriented behavior. Among them special place is occupied by "responsible freedom" and "responsible cooperation". First as the choice in all situations, voluntarily restricted so as not to cause harm to others. Second as the propensity to cooperate and the willingness to compromise .
Institute for social responsibility with other social, economic and political institutions of a society forms a coherent institutional structure. It is usually regarded as a particular ordered set of institutions that forms the matrix of economic behavior that define constraints for entities in the framework of one or another system of coordination of economic activities. The specifics of the institutional arrangement of social responsibility is determined by the peculiarities of the Institute of social responsibility, the dependence on the level of implementation (micro, meso, macro) composite and methods of the usage (interiorista, stimulation, support, and adaptation).
Institute of social responsibility is of special economic Institute which generates a complete institutional framework of social responsibility. Its further development should be directed to the development of mechanisms and procedures to update and consolidate the socially important values, the formation of socially oriented daily routines related to ensuring the cultural context of economic behavior. A new driving force in this direction have become the open platform of civil society, allow diverse economic agents through interaction to achieve a common goal, to increase the competitiveness and growth significantly.
Ideally, a socially responsible company can only be considered as one of the actions which there are rules and regulations to all aspects of responsible behavior. However in any combination of the types of social responsibility is becoming an effective instrument of increase the competitiveness only under condition of the mutual interest of all stakeholders in its implementation: in this case, all entities will be able to get their benefits from social responsibility, which simultaneously will act as incentives for all participants in this process.
Keywords: trust, institutional structure, profit, social responsibility, social dilemmas, values.
  1. Knight, F. H. (1935) Th e ethics of competition and other essays . New York: Harper & Bros. Th e ethics of competition. Originally published in Quarterly Journal of Economics 37(August, 1923), pp. 579–624
  2. Knight, Frank Hyneman (1939) Ethics and economic reform. Economica. Vol 6, pp. 1-29.
  3. Carroll, A. (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. [Online] Business Horizons, No. 34 (4). pp. 39-48. URL: http://faculty.wwu.edu/dunnc3/rprnts.pyramidofcsr.pdf
  4. Schwartz M., Carroll А. (2003) Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain ap-proach [Online] Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol, 13(4). pp. 503-530. – URL: http://www.academia.edu/405805/Corporate_Social_Responsibility_A_Three-Domain_Approach
  5. Drucker Р. (1999) Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Harper Business.
  6. Beckmann M., Pies I. (2004) Sustainability by Corporate Citizenship: The Moral Dimension of Sustainability. [Online] Wittenberg-Center for Global Ethics Discussionspaper No. 04-12. URL: http://www.wcge.org/download/ DP_04-12_Beckmann_Pies.pdf
  7. Giddens A. (1998) The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
  8. Philip Kotler and Nancy Lee (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility – Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 307 p.
  9. Howard R. Bowen (2013) Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, / by Howard R. Bowen; foreword by Peter Geoffrey Bowen; introduction by Jean-Pascal Gond. University of Iowa Press, 248 р.
  10. Bukovyns'ka M.P. (2015) Korporatyvna sotsial'na vidpovidal'nist' biznesu Kiev: CP "Komprint"[in Ukrainian].
  11. Kolot A. M., Hrishnova O. A. (2012).  Sotsial'na vidpovidal'nist': teoriia i praktyka rozvytku Kiev KNEU. [in Ukrainian].
  12. Novikova O.F., Dejch M.Ye., Pan'kova O.V. (2013) Diahnostyka stanu ta perspektyv rozvytku sotsial'noi vidpovidal'nosti v Ukraini (ekspertni otsinky) Donetsk National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Institute of Industrial Economics.. [in Ukrainian].
  13. Kollock P. (1998) Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation / Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24. pp. 183-214.
  14. Sugden R. (1991). Rational choice: a survey of contributions from economics and philosophy. Economic Journal, vol. 101, no. 407, pp. 751-785.
  15. Hausman D. (2012) Filosofija jekonomiki. Antologija Moscow: Publishing house of Gaidar Institute. [in Russian].
  16. Blaug M. (1994) Jekonomicheskaja mysl' v retrospektive 4-e izd. Moscow: "The Case of Ltd" [in Russian]. 
  17. Kolot A.M. (2011) Sotsial'na vidpovidal'nist' liudyny iak chynnyk stijkoi sotsial'noi dynamiky: teoretychni zasady Ukraina: aspekty pratsi : nauk.-ekon. ta susp.-polit. zhurnal Vyd-vo «Pratsia». No 3,  рр. 3-9. [in Ukrainian].
  18. Kitzmueller M., Shimshack J. (2012) Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility [Online] Journal of Economic Literature, No. 50 (1),  рр. 51-84. URL: http://pubs.aeaweb. org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.50.1.51
  19. M. Palazzi, G. Starcher (2006) Corporate social responsibility and business success [Online] European Bahai Business Forum, France 1997, revised, 41 р. URL: http://bahai-library.com/pdf/p/palazzi_starcher_responsabilite_entreprises.pdf
  20. Corso P.S., Mercy J.A., Simon T.R., Finkelstein E.A., Miller T.R. (2007) Medical Costs and Productivity Losses Due to Interpersonal and Self-Directed Violence in the United States pages. [Online] American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Volume 32, pp. 474-482. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/medical_costs.pdf
  21. Frolov D.P., Shulimova A.A. (2013) Institucional'naja sistemnost' social'noj otvetstvennosti biznesa (priroda, institucii, mehanіzm) [Institutional systemic social responsibility of business (nature, institutions, mehanism)] Zhurnal institucional'nyh issledovanij. Vol 5, No 1, pp. 124-144. [in Russian].
  22. Vol'chik V.V., Oganesjan A.A. (2012) Instituty, informacija i institucional'naja struktura jekonomiki. [Institutions, information and institutional structure of the economy] Voprosy regulirovanija jekonomiki. Vol 1, No 2, pp. 30-42. [in Russian].
  23. Gricenko A.A. (2006) Institucional'naja arhitektonika: predmet, osnovnye zakony, metodologija [Institutional architectonics: subject, basic laws, methodology] Naukovі pracі DonNTU. Vip. 103-1, pp. 31-37. [in Ukrainian].
  24. Pashaver A. (2016) Pochemu ukraincy sejchas ne mogut stat' bogatymi [Why Ukrainians can not now become rich] Obozrevatel'.  URL:  https://www.obozrevatel.com/ finance/analytics-and-forecasts.htm. [in Ukrainian].
  25. Frolova E.A. (2015) Institucional'naja sistema social'noj otvetstvenosti jekonomicheskih sub#ektov [Institutional system of social responsibility of economic entities] Zhurnal institucional'nyh issledovanij. Vol. 7, No 4, pp. 100-111. [in Russian].
AttachmentSize
PDF icon zagurskyy_2-2017.pdf622.71 KB