Research Project âEU-Japan: Changing Corporate Governance & Wag

„EU-JAPAN: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & CHANGING WAGE SYSTEMS – THE ROLE OF TRADE UNIONS” PROF. DR. GYÖRGY SZÉLL INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH & EU INSTITUTE IN JAPAN, HITOTSUBASHI UNIVERSITY

KEYNOTE SPEECH GIVEN ON 26 NOVEMBER 2004 AT THE WORKSHOP WITH THE SAME TITLE AT SANO SHOIN CONFERENCE CENTRE, TOKYO

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Abstract

2

2.

State of research

3

2.1

Setting the Stage

4

2.2

Overview

6

2.3

The situation

8

2.4

Transnational Enterprises and Organisations as Actors

3.

Theoretical orientation

12

4.

Methodology

12

5.

Research Hypotheses

6

Summary

13

7.

References

14

11

12

2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8603, Japan Tel. +81-42-580-8356 & 8384; Fax +81-42-580-8333; [email protected] http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/English/research/member/szell

György Széll: „EU-Japan: Corporate Social Responsibility & Changing Wage Systems – The Role of Trade Unions”

2

1.

Abstract

Japan has dominated over many years the discussion on corporate governance, and has even served as best practice and benchmark in this regard until the end of the Bubble Economy. This model was characterised as “Lean Management” or “Toyotism” (Womack et al. 1990; Coriat 1993). On the other side, in Europe, has the model of the Rhenanian Capitalism, i.e. Germany, largely influenced the European corporate governance structure and debate. Its main feature is its participatory approach by codetermination, “Mitbestimmung”, which has found its European dimension in the European Works Council (EWC), the European Society (ES), the Social Dialogue etc. (Lammers/Széll 1989, Széll, Kesters/Pinaud 1996). Both models are now in dire straits. Those who world admired by its “Economic miracle” are now characterised as “ill man of Europe” – a term which was first coined for the U.K. – or as the problem case for the G7 group. The badly managed German unification process is certainly also one of the main reasons of the bad shape of the German economy and its welfare system. 1.5 trillion € have been transferred since the unification from West to East Germany, mainly to sustain the welfare system, rarely for productive investments. So, Germany as the economic motor of the European Union falls out. However, not withstanding both are still leaders in export surplus, and the respective currencies are as strong as before the economic crisis. On the other side the problems led to questioning both models of Corporate Governance and Wage Systems. So the following research questions stand in the foreground:                    

How did corporate social responsibility develop, and what are the future prospects? What is the link between new corporate governance concepts and strategies and new wage systems? What is the role of trade unions in shaping these new forms? What is the effect of workers’ participation in decision making? What are the common features between the EU and Japan, and What are the differences and specificities? Do small, medium resp. big companies/global players act differently? Which are the differences between the private and the public sector? Which are the differences between manufacturing and service sectors? What are the effects of flexibilisation? What effects have the change of qualification structures? Do gender differences play a role? Are today’s problems perceived? And if so: How and by whom? And if not: Why not? What are the reasons for the problems? What are the strategies to overcome the problems? Why were they chosen? How are the results to be measured? What will the future look like for the EU and Japan in this regard?

The paper will try to give an answer by empirical studies on the micro-level, mainly in form of qualitative research and case studies, covering the period from 1994 to 2003, and analysing future scenarios and prospects. It is part of an ongoing project, which started in April 2004, and of which this workshop is an essential part. At this project a


3 number of participants of this workshop are taking part: Hiroyasu Uemura, Mitsuharu Miyamoto, Shuji Yamada, Akihiro Suzuki on the Japanese side, and besides myself Stefan Hochstadt, Cécile Horstmann and Denis Wanke on the European side. In so far this paper is presenting work in progress.

2.

State of research

For social regulation as well as for the field of labour relations the nation-state is still the main framework. Employers associations and trade unions are therefore mostly limited in their action within this area. Multinational companies as global players were already active since the very beginning of modern capitalism – e.g. Siemens, GE, Ford, GM, Dupont, Suez etc. Also trade unions, as their counterparts developed since the end of the 19th century with their internationals first forms of trans-national co-operation. The International Labour Organisation has as its very task to be the institution to develop trans-national co-operation of social regulation in the form of labour standards and conventions. A recent activity by ILO is its “Decent work” campaign. However, even the number one economic power and the one, which even goes to war for human rights, i.e. the USA, have signed only a very few of the conventions. They are together with China and some rogue states at the bottom-line in this ranking. The main theses are: 1. Transnational co-operation on social regulation is an emerging trend and necessity in a globalising world. 2. Social rights and rights of labour, but also those of the consumers – who mostly are also producers –, citizens, the community up to the global level have to be taken care of. That means that there is corporate social responsibility inside and outside the corporation, which partly may overlap. 3. Within the corporation the respect of minimum labour standards is an essential social responsibility. 4. To the outside it is the respect of social sustainability (Agenda 21), which is a relevant criterion. 5. Social responsible investment may promote corporate social responsibility. 6. The main actors in this field are enlightened management and trade unions. 7. The central problems for a successful trans-national co-operation of social regulation are on the micro-level the competition between companies and language barriers as well as cultural differences. on the meso-level sectoral and regional egotism and on the macro-level (nation-state, continental regions, the globe) institutions like the WTO, IMF and competition between global players. 8. Corporate governance comprises decent work transparency participation accountability corporate social responsibility and sustainability. 9. The EU and Japan could be leaders in this endeavour. 10. The role of science is to support and assess critically these activities. The paper will elaborate the prospects, and show up the problems for the realisation of the development and problems of implementation of Corporate Social Responsib-


4 ility and changing wage systems comparing the EU and Japan, however, in a global perspective. 2.1

Setting the Stage

As a starting point I will present the following definition, taken from one of the most active organisations to promote CSR, especially in transition countries and the Third World: “CSR is defined as the integration of business operations and values, whereby the interests of all stakeholders including investors, customers, employees, and the environment are reflected in the company's policies and actions. To clarify the point and to demonstrate the complexity of the issue this figure my help:

Figure 1 : The interrelationship between CSR and its stakeholders Stakeholders Banks/Institutional Investors Shareholders

The State

Society/Politics (local, regional, national, continental, global) Corporate Governance

Corporate social responsibility suppliers internal Gender Welfare of employees

external clients Human rights

The environment

Wages Management

Works Councils/Company Unions Co-decision making

Employers associations

Trade unions

Civil Society Capital

Social Actors

Labour


5 Corporate responsibility is no longer a luxury for companies. In today's global economy, it is critical for companies to embrace social and environmental responsibility in order to meet the demands of their investors, consumers, employees, and communities they serve.” (http://www.csrwire.com/page.cgi/about.html )1 However, is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) not “one of the biggest corporate fads of the 1990s” (The Economist, 22 January 2004), a lip-service of companies to quiet down critique (Christian Aid, cited in the Economist, same date) or a real breakthrough for a new quality of corporate governance (UN, UNIDO, ILO, World Bank, EU, OECD, CSRForum etc.)2? Even the US State Department is very favourable, so in a lecture Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility Abroad: The Human Rights and Democracy Perspective. Remarks at the 2002 Surrey Memorial Lecture, National Policy Association, Washington, DC, June 18, 2002, given by Lane Croner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. When you browse through the Internet you come across a large number of organisations and publications, which document the dynamics and activities within this field. As The Economist mentions, it seems to have become an own industry – like with the issue of environmental protection –, where thousands of people make their living from.3 However, in this picture of a “Brave New World” or speaking in the words of the 41st President of the USA, George Bush father, a “New World Order”, there comes opposition from two sides: 1. Radical free-market proponents who – no surprise – rely again on Milton Friedman. They cite him as follows: ”One and only one social responsibility of business [is] to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” (in Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, 1962; cited in Nelson, 2004: 14 & Knautz, 1997: 1) You may summarise this position in relation to my topic as “Trans-national Competition on Social Deregulation”. The fundamentalist market proponents take the stand that it is a waste of shareholder’s money to invest into social responsibility by a corporation. A manager or owner can do that for philanthropic reasons out of his own fortune, but not in the name of the company. A similar line of argument is built up by Randall Frost (n.d.) and also by David Henderson, former head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the OECD, in his “Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility” (2001 & 2002). Actually both argue that CSR is an ideological (sic!) move, which leads to more political intervention by governments and NGOs, hence endangering the free market and freedom. However, the point comes: Is it then defendable to spent corporate money into political parties and election campaigns, into sports and culture by sponsoring them? It may be argued that this is a kind of marketing, and some of the business protagonists make just a case for CSR with that same argument. 2. But there is also a critique from the left, e.g. by Christian Aid. In their recent paper (2004) the take up three case studies of prominent pro-CSR compan1 2

3

I have no place to go into the details about what CSR includes and not. A selection can be found on the homepages listed below. For the debate cf. Emerson 2003/2004. And may even study now CSR, e.g. et the Yorck University in Toronto and acquire a CSR-certificate.


6 ies, Shell in Nigeria, BAT in Kenya and Coca-Cola in India. They demonstrate that the CSR-principles are more on paper than in reality. They argue for binding legal regulations instead of voluntary agreements to have really working CSR, and plead for corporate social accounting instead of responsibility. I will come back to this point later, because it is central for the issue of trans-national co-operation on social regulation. In the past couple of years there was much fuss about the so-called Shareholdervalue. This approach – based on the same neo-liberal ideology – sees only the capital-owners to whom the corporation has to be responsible. So, the debate and struggle is once again between Shareholder- vs. Stakeholder approaches. What can science in this context contribute to find the appropriate way for better life and a better society on a global scale? 2.2

Overview

Companies and organisations are embedded in their geographical, cultural, political, societal and economic environment. From there a social responsibility is a condition for their long-term survival and sustainability. To understand the relevance of the issue and its further prospects, I propose to have first a look backward, i.e. into history, because in my understanding without history we do not understand anything, and therefore also cannot explain the reasons for problems and conflicts. And so we also cannot then enhance to find solutions. Economic activities were always regulated for political, social, and cultural purposes. And it is not at all the so-called “Invisible Hand”, as Adam Smith formulated so nicely. On the contrary it was via law and legal action that public authorities looked for the well functioning of the economy, because the economy is not an end in itself – or at least should not be. But that’s where the problems of corporate social responsibility start all about. Although, like Fernand Braudel in his magnificent three volumes on the material civilisation, the economy and capitalism (1979) demonstrated, the market is a universal phenomenon since the beginning of human civilisation, it was always regulated differently, according to the divergent needs and stages of human development. And apparently the market regulates itself behaviour and produces its norms in a dialectical relationship. Karl Polanyi has very well described this process in his major treatise “The Great Transformation”. “The principles of the honest merchant” are also such rules. Notwithstanding that there always have been breaches of the rules, and certainly always will be – if we will not be transformed into angels. But this is the exception; otherwise the economic system will break down. Interestingly even criminal organisations like the Mafia or Yakuza have their clear rules to follow within their own economic system – although it may relate to another kind of social responsibility than in the main economic sectors. Guilds regulated within Europe in the pre-industrial period the economy, safeguarding quality, employment and sustainability. This role was more and more taken over afterwards, i.e. since the development of modern nation-states, by the modern state itself, which introduced welfare systems, to which the companies had to contribute. These welfare systems are often autonomous, independent structures comanaged by employers and workers, or by tripartite structures, including the state. The role of the state is to guarantee the infrastructure, law, and security to promote society and the economy. However, since the beginning of industrialisation public companies (health, education, water, energy, transport) where created to sup-


7 ply public goods. The organisation has been realised on the local, regional as well as on the national level. So, public corporations producing public goods are by their very conception practising social responsibility. Apparently in a socialist system all corporations are by their very definition already social responsible. I cannot extend this argument here – due to the restrictions of time but also of my topic. In really existing socialism at least some sort of trans-national co-operation on social regulation existed, as the principles of Soviet corporate social responsibility have been exported to the other COMECON-members. An interesting experiment is going on in this regard in China with its “socialist market economy”. At the moment it does not look like that these companies in the wake of privatisation practice a lot of social responsibility. Corruption is still endemic. The question arises, why has then the issue of corporate social responsibility come so much to the fore since a couple of years? 70 % of all leading managers in these companies of the recent scandal-ridden corporations like Enron, WorldCom, Vivendi, Mannesmann, nearly all Japanese banks, Nokamura investment etc. had an MBA. So, is this just a problem of false training – then the responsibility of academia would come in? But, Business ethics and CSR are taught in a number of business schools since a number of years – already apparently an indicator for the need.4 However, this does not seem to have had any great effect on business practices so far. So the problem with corporate governance and corporate social responsibility seems to me more deep lying and fundamental. My basic thesis in this context is that the ongoing outsourcing and privatisation of public goods, based on neo-liberal ideologies and practices is the reason for the necessity to introduce the concept and hopefully also the praxis of corporate social responsibility. I think it is worthwhile to come back here to the writings by Karl Marx, although for many he seemed to be completely outdated with the breakdown of really existing socialism in the Soviet Union and its satellites. I will try to demonstrate the validity of Marx’ main approach. There is now doubt that we are living in Really existing capitalism. Karl Marx phrased accurately as main principle of the capitalist system: “Enrichissez vous, enrichissez vous!” But not as a person, but for the corporation. Because it will go down within the competition if it does not accumulate the highest possible surplus value, i.e. profits to reinvest. Corporate social responsibility has no place in this logic of primitive accumulation and primitive capitalism. 2.3

The situation

A couple of decades ago the following slogan was well accepted in the United States of America: “What is good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A.!” And we can continue to day: “What is good for the oil-industry …”, “What is good for the militaryindustrial complex …” This logic led amongst others to the retreat of signing of the Kyoto protocol by the George W. Bush Administration, eventually to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars etc. The corporations, which financed the election campaigns of George W. Bush, have tripled their share value last year. However, corporate social responsibility applies also to future generations. To contribute to the survival of humankind is definitely the most important corporate social responsibility. 4

One third of MBA programmes in Europe already offer CSR modules, and 12 percent have dedicated CSR programmes. (Survey Teaching and Research in Europe on CSR. International Centre for corporate social responsibility/European Academy of Business in Society. Cited in Christian Aid 2004: 8)


8 That leads me to a differentiation within the concepts of corporate social responsibility: There is a corporate social responsibility inside the corporation – and there is a corporate social responsibility outside the corporation. These orientations may complement each other, but they may also contradict each other. I will follow here the Green Paper by the European Commission (EC 2001: 9ff.):5 The internal dimension:  Human Resources Management  Health and Safety at Work  Adaptation to change  Management of environmental impacts and natural resources The external dimension:  Local communities  Business partners, suppliers, consumers  Human rights  Global environmental concerns However, there is no explicit mentioning of the kind of decision-making, i.e. involving unions and employees. The Green Paper goes on in developing a holistic approach, which includes:  Social responsibility integrated management  Social responsibility reporting and auditing  Quality in work  Social and eco-labels  Social responsibility investment. Here we are at a very important point for realising corporate social responsibility. The pension funds have become the biggest world-wide investors. And they invest globally. And they invest the money of employees, not of corporations. They can and they do invest already more and more into companies with CSR-strategies. Two excellent indicators for corporate social responsibility are: 1. Tax payment and 2. Employment. Ad 1) Definitely every society needs some public authority, and this has to be paid by the community – corporations and citizens. So, tax evasion is the absolute contrary of corporate social responsibility, however, all kind of tax evasions are regarded by most companies as normal practice. So the part of taxes paid by companies had radically decreased over the last couple of decades in all OECD countries. E.g. 60 % of US companies did not pay any corporate tax between 1996 and 2000 (Pearlstein, 2004). In Third World countries companies practically never paid taxes, and the former socialist countries have enormous problems to establish a tax system – that is something, which the neo-liberal consultants did not teach them. 5

The Green Paper launched at the end a consultation process to which some 250 organisations responded. The results were presented one year later in another document entitled “Corporate social responsibility: A business contribution to Sustainable Development”. In the meantime the EC collected more reactions at different occasions with presentations all over Europe. This initiative should contribute to a new version still in 2004 of the document. (Cf. Bé, 2004) The UK is proud to have out of 250 reactions produced more than 80, and that it has nominated in 2000 the first Minister for CSR. (UK 2002)


9 Ad 2) In regard to employment it is for sure that a company does not exist to create employment, but goods and services. So, it can definitely not be the main target of corporations to create jobs. It is one of the biggest lies that they defend jobs when they are fighting against ecological and other restrictions. Again and again workers and their representatives go into this trap, not realising that this argument disappears in the wind under other circumstances. Fortunately the times seem to be over when share prices rose when a company made a larger number of workers redundant, because investors realise that then the situation must be very serious. However, again it is a different issue to practice a “hire-and-fire” policy by management, where all risk is born by the employees, and management after their mistakes even leave with a golden handshake. In really existing capitalism it is true that the corporation has to make at least no losses, because otherwise the costs have to be borne by somebody else. So, social policies have to be mainly done by public authorities, which may be complemented by subsidiarity and social networks. And for structural change public compensation and subsidies may be necessary. However, for that purpose you need public funds, i.e. tax revenues. One other important point: Corporate social responsibility cannot be practised in the long run by one or several corporations alone, it has to be shared by all corporations, otherwise as with ecological standards, social dumping may arrive. This brings me to the issue of ownership: Some corporations like the German Bertelsmann 6 and also Rockefeller, Ford or George Soros have transferred their main assets into foundations. Apparently these foundations are by their very definition already socially responsible. This holds also true for another form of ownership: the co-operatives. The biggest co-operatives in the world – Desjardins in Quebec and Mondragón in the Spanish Basque country e.g. – are economically and financially very well functioning corporations. They do not need a Code of Conduct, because it is built in into their ownership structure. More radically in this regard are even the Kibbutzim, although they are in some crisis now – not unrelated to the difficult political and with it the economic situation in Israel. Within a capitalist system the banks have a core function. It is not only that their representatives in two-tier governance sit in all supervisory boards, but they also exert an enormous influence on the main decisions of corporations, as these have only between 20-40 %, in average around 30 % of own capital. The rest has to be borrowed from banks. So, the banks could exert the decisive influence for the introduction of CSR. And there are in their eyes many good reasons for doing it, as they can then better control their investment and have a long-term perspective. In this line, since a number of years different indexes have been developed, which reflect social responsible investment. E.g. the FTSE4Good does not include companies, which produce tobacco, nuclear energy and arms. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index has no exclusions, but functions on a ‘best in class rationale’ with benchmarks sector by sector. These indexes have in average a 25 % higher yielding than the average Index. So, it seems it pays off to invest into CSR-companies. Coming back to the core issue – if CSR should be voluntary or obligatory – the historic experience shows as with the length of working day, health and safety, starting in the 19th century, all need legal, binding regulation, otherwise most companies will just not follow. The case of the optical producer Zeiss in Germany (which turned later into a foundation) is interesting so far. The philanthropic owner introduced voluntarily the eight-hour working day, and this set the example for the workers’ move6

The second biggest media-conglomerate in the world, and Europe’s biggest.


10 ments to ask for a generalisation of this rule. But this historic experience also exemplifies that all these regulations could only be won through organised, collective efforts by social movements and their political organisations. Which by the way is also true for all other fundamental, human, social rights. And a similar argument holds true for environmental protection. “In most cases, factors other than the given voluntary approach seem to explain the major part of any environmental improvement that has taken place.” (OECD, 2003: 62)7 After all, for social regulation as well as for the field of labour relations the nation-state is still the main framework. Employers associations and trade unions are therefore mostly limited in their action within this area. But today in the Age of Globalisation, as the title of this conference formulates, financial speculation is one of its main driving forces. 1.3 trillion US$ are everyday circulating around the globe in the search of profitable investment, 95 % is for speculative purpose, the rest to settle commodity and service moves.8 20 years ago it was the other way around. And the main actors in this computerised world are the banks, hedge and pension funds, collective investors. And all this happens without any political or social regulation. Actually, one of those who profited most of these deregulated financial markets, the Hungarian-American George Soros, wrote in 1998 a book with the title “The crisis of global capitalism”.9 In this book he claims that these unregulated markets are more dangerous for freedom than Stalinism has been. 2.4

Transnational Enterprises and Organisations as Actors

The Illinois Institute of Technology has since a number of years a Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, and has collected and documented 850 Codes of Conduct. The Center differentiates between four groups: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Professional and Trade Associations Business Organisations Government Organisations Others

I will follow their system in the discussion. Transnational companies (TNE) as global players were already active since the very beginning of modern capitalism – e.g. Siemens, GE, Ford, GM, Dupont, Suez etc. Today there are some 63,000 TNEs with some 800,000 subsidiaries world-wide – up from 7,000 in 1970. However, it is estimated that only 3,000 of them are active within the field of CSR. The TNEs are at the forefront of global CSR, may it also be because they are most visible and became also therefore targeted in the first place by NGOs, although there are most SMEs, which have a much worse record. But you cannot stage a boycott against them. Also trade unions, as their counterparts developed since the end of the 19th century with their internationals first forms of trans-national co-operation. However, since a couple of years this new dimension of trans-national co-operation really has been opened more substantially. Actually in the 1960s first initiatives of sectoral unions, first of all the International Federation of Chemical Workers, started to initiate global works councils. But the time seemed not yet ripe, and – the two so-called oil-crises 7

8

9

Cited after Christian Aid (2004: 8). The American economic Nobel-prize winner, James Tobin, proposed some 25 years ago a tax on all capital transfer to be invested in the Third World. So, at least it would have some social benefits. The introduction would definitely be a form of trans-national co-operation on social regulation. (Cf. for on overview on the ongoing debate http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/ ) But for sure also the trade unions are in a crisis. The one may be linked to the other.


11 helping – these institutions did not sustain. So far the trade unions have been very slow to catch up with the debate on CSR. An exception is the recent publication by UNI, the Union Network International, the world-wide confederation of the national service unions. They start their analysis with the crisis of corporate governance, referring to the recent scandals. They ask for “fair shares” and “worker friendly regulations”, develop an action plan and designate themselves as a “global stakeholder”. But as the World Bank reported, all this is still in the very beginning. More successful seem to be the textile campaigns, which struggle for decent work and the suppression of Child labour. Within the OECD a Working Group has formulated Codes of Conduct since 1997. (OECD 1999, 2000) The European Union has first of all just been an Economic Community, creating a Single Market for free trade and free movement of capital and labour. However, it has been soon been complemented by the European Social and Regional Funds to promote social justice and solidarity to help less favoured regions. I referred already to the Green Paper from 2001, which documents that the EU strives to become the world leader not only in regard to the knowledge based economy, but also in regard to CSR. It has established in 2003 a Multi-Stakeholder Forum on CSR, which is co-ordinated by the European Foundation for the Improvement for the Living and Working Conditions, itself an organisation which promotes since more than a quarter of a century transnational co-operation on social regulation by social dialogue, consulting and research. (Krieger, 2002) On the EU-level a Social Charter has been voted in 1992 together with the Maastricht Treaties. And in 1994 the Directive for European Works Council was finally introduced after many years of preparations. Similar initiatives are starting within Mercosur. In the meantime some companies like VW, Siemens, DaimlerChrysler have even established World Works Councils. In this regard, European companies, and foremost German ones are in the lead. Japanese companies are much more reluctant. However, recently the Keidanren Committee on Management and Labor Policy published in his Summary of Position Paper 2004 in Part 3 “Employers in the Future” the following statement: “All enterprises should be aware that careful observance of corporate ethics indicates respect for social responsibility and is part of risk management at the same time.” (2003: 5) They also argue “Management and labor are a stabilising force in society. … Enterprises do not merely exist for the purpose of generating profits through fair competition; they must also be socially useful.” (2003: 6) The main actor on the global level are still – or ate .least should be – the United Nations – although they are often systematically weakened by the USA. Already in 1977 the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations put a draft for a „Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations“ forward. It contained all the elements we are discussing today. (Christian Aid, 2004: 6 & UNCTAD, 2001: 5-7) But it has never been adopted due to the resistance by the USA and the UK – in stark contradiction to the words by Lane Croner. The same fate happened to a proposal for the Rio UNConference on Environment and Development. However the example on the OECD/UN conventions on bribery, which have been signed by all OECD-members and by 100 UN-members shows that binding conventions can be passed – when it is in the US-interest. (Christian Aid 2004: 3) And another initiative, UN Global Compact launched by General Secretary Kofi Annan in 2000, gives also hope for some breakthrough. The International Labour Organisation has as its very task to be the institution to develop transnational co-operation on social regulation in the form of labour standards and conventions. A recent activity by ILO is its “Decent work” campaign. And in 1998 the ILO decided the “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at


12 Work”, which establishes internationally core labour standards. There are eight core conventions, which can be regarded as the basics for CSR. However, the number one economic power and the one, which goes to war for human rights, i.e. the USA, have signed only a very few of these conventions. The USA are together with China and some rogue states at the bottom-line in this ranking. However, another problem remains the one of implementation in the case of the “good ones”. Quite a few countries, which even have signed most or many of the conventions, do not look after their realisation. Italy is in this regard quite a bad example. On the global level the ILO and trade unions try to introduce Minimum labour standards into the WTO-agreements, although until now in vein. And finally a last initiative of transnational co-operation on social regulation is the working group on an ISO CRS-norm. (IISD n.d.)

3.

Theoretical orientation

The theoretical foundations lie in a critical social theory, based on historical-materialistic approach, combining macro- and micro by oscillating between the general and specific. For further details cf. Marx (1969, 1973), Marx & Engels (1968), Ortmann (1995), Polanyi (1957), Soros (1998), Széll (2002a).

4.

Methodology

The methodology is a mixed one, as it is best described by Flyvbjerg (2001). The main form will be case studies of selected companies, approximately 10 – equally from Japan and Europe. They will be complemented by a number of interviews with experts from industry and academia – approximately 15 to 20.

5.

Research Hypotheses

As Corporate Social Responsibility and Wage Systems are very large areas, and for a one year research project too broad we focus on the issue of corporate social responsibility and changing wage systems, with a special focus on the role of trade unions. The main theses are: 1. Transnational co-operation on social regulation is an emerging trend and necessity in a globalising world. 2. Social rights and rights of labour, but also those of the consumers – who mostly are also producers –, citizens, the community up to the global level have to be taken care of. That means that there is corporate social responsibility inside and outside the corporation, which partly may overlap. 3. Within the corporation the respect of minimum labour standards is an essential social responsibility. 4. To the outside it is the respect of social sustainability (Agenda 21), which is a relevant criterion. 5. Social responsible investment may promote corporate social responsibility. 6. The main actors in this field are enlightened management and trade unions. 7. The central problems for a successful trans-national co-operation of social regulation are on the micro-level the competition between companies and language barriers as well as cultural differences. on the meso-level sectoral and regional egotism and on the macro-level (nation-state, continental regions, the globe) institutions like the WTO, IMF and competition between global players. 8. Corporate governance comprises decent work


13 transparency participation accountability corporate social responsibility and sustainability. 9. The EU and Japan could be leaders in this endeavour. 10. The role of science is to support and assess critically these activities.

5

Summary

We may summarise as follows: There are many activities in regard to CSR going on, thousands of leading companies, besides unions and NGOs are involved as the main global organisations as well like the UN with their sub-organisations ILO, UNCTAD, UNIDO, UNEP, UNRISD, the World Bank – however, not the International Monetary Fund –,the OECD, the EU and many others. So, it seems that CRS is be more than just a fad, as it has now a history of more than 25 years, and the conservative, market-radical critiques seem to be more and more marginalised. However, the critique from the left I am sharing: Corporate social responsibility demands transnational co-operation and it demands social regulation. Voluntarily followed guidelines are not sufficient in the long run. They are a good beginning; however, they have to be made sustainable – not to be an object of the ups and downs of the economy and the markets, and changing leaderships as well as political majorities. Corporate social responsibility is best exercised by co-management and co-determination; otherwise it remains a paternalistic, but not a democratic responsibility. This leads directly to the issue of participation and economic democracy (Kester & Pinaud 1996; Lammers & Széll 1989; Széll 1988, 1992, 2002). CSR in the words of some protagonists is a question of survival of capitalism. Marc Benioff and Karen Southwick plead for a “Compassionate Capitalism”.10 Much more clear are the words of Sir Geoffrey Chandler, the Shell CEO, who was responsible for its much lauded first General Business Principles in 1976: “Doing right because it is right, not because it pays, needs to be the foundation of business, with principle, not profit, the point of departure. There does have to be a choice about priorities. … If we are to preserve the most effective mechanism the world has known for the provision of goods and services – that is the market economy with the public limited company its main instrument – then it has to be underpinned by principle. Financial failures can destroy individual companies. Moral failure will destroy capitalism.” (Nelson 2004: 10) Is this then neo-capitalism? However, for the more critical CSR proponents, CSR is at best a step forward into the direction of a post-capitalist society. Let us have trust, as trust is the basis of society, and let us have hope, because without it, life would be dull. The innovative approach of the project is the link between changing wage systems and the role of trade unions into the debate of corporate social responsibility. There is a lot of research going on in the three fields, however, it lacks integration. The wage system is regarded as central for the internal corporate social responsibility, i.e. to give the employees a fair share of the added value. In the past and probably also in the future the trade unions played a central role in the process of sharing the revenues of economic activities via collective bargaining. 10

This sounds very near to George W. Bush’s 2000 election campaign slogan "compassionate conservatism."


14 There is a broad literature on this, however, little comprehensive one in regard to Europe. The book edited by Linda Clarke, Peter de Gijsel and Jörn Janssen from 2000 may still be regarded as the main publication in regard to changing wage systems. For Japan Tsuyoshi is just finishing two research projects on this topic. More recent summaries can also be found for Europe by Marcel Bolle De Bal and Jörn Janssen in György Széll’s “European Labour Relations”, vol. 1.

6.

References

Auer, Frank von (ed.) (1997): Industrielle Beziehungen in Europa. Mitbestimmung – Partizipation – Wirtschaftsdemokratie. Talheimer, Mössingen-Talheim. Bé, Dominique (2004): Corporate social responsibility. http://www.eujapan.com/japan/presentation_BE.pdf Benioff, Marc & Karen Southwick (2004): Compassionate Capitalism. How corporations can make doing good an integral part of doing well. Franklin Lakes, NJ, Career Press. Bolle De Bal, Marcel: The double games of Participation. Pay, Performance and Culture. Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Bolle De Bal: ‘Wage Systems and Industrial Relations’, in György Széll (ed.), European Labour Relations. Aldershot, Gower, 2001: 27-44. Braudel, Fernand (1979): Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIe siècle. Paris, Armand Colin. Braverman, Harry (1974): Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York, Monthly Review Press. Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA http://www.iit.edu/departments/csep/PublicWWW/codes/index.html Christian Aid (21 January 2004): Behind the Mask: The Real Face of corporate social responsibility. www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/0401csr/index.htm Clarke, Linda/Peter de Gijsel/Jörn Janssen (eds.) (2000): The Dynamics of Wage Relations in the New Europe. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Coriat, Benjamin: Penser à l´envers : travail et organisation dans l´entreprise japonaise. Paris: Bourgois, 1992. Corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. Review edited by Wiley since 1994 (4 volumes/year). Coulmas, Florian: Japan außer Kontrolle. Vom Musterknaben zum Problemkind. Primus, Darmstadt (1998). Croner, Lane (2002): Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility Abroad: The Human Rights and Democracy Perspective. Remarks at the 2002 Surrey Memorial Lecture, National Policy Association. Washington, DC, June 18. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/11405.htm CSR Europe (2000): Invitation to the First European Business Convention on CSR. Brussels, CSR Europe. CSR Europe (2001): The European Survey on Socially Responsible Investment and the Financial Community. Brussels, CSR Europe. Deutsches Institut für Japanstudien (ed.): Die Wirtschaft Japans. Strukturen zwischen Kontinuität und Wandel. Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer Verlag. Dorow, Wolfgang (ed.) (1986): Die Unternehmung in der demokratischen Gesellschaft/The Business Corporation in the Democratic Society. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter. Ehlert, Wiking (2002): Unternehmen und betriebliche Umweltschutzverbände. Frankfurt/Bern/New York, Peter M. Lang. Emerson, Jed & Sheila Bonini (2003/2004): The Blended Value Map: Tracking the Intersects and Opportunities of Economic, Social and Environmental Value Creation. http://www.blendedvalue.org European Commission (1993): Growth, competitiveness, employment. The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century, White Paper, 700 final. Brussels. European Commission, DG Emplyoment and Social Affairs (2001): Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Green Paper. Brussels. http://www.Europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/csr_index.htm


15 European Commission, DG Emplyoment and Social Affairs (2002): Corporate social responsibility: A business contribution to Sustainable Development. Brussels, COM (2002) 347 final. http://www.Europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/socdial/csr/csr_index.htm European Commission, DG Emplyoment and Social Affairs (2003): Mapping Instruments for Corporate Social Responsibility. Luxembourg. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2003): Towards a sustainable corporate social responsibility. Dublin. http://www.euro-

found.eu/int/publilcations/EF0317.htm European Metalworkers Federation (2001): EMF position paper on corporate social responsibility. Dopted by EMF Executive Committee 3-4 December 2001, Luxembourg. European Parliament (1999): Report on EU Standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries: towards a European Code of Conduct. A4-0508/98. European Parliament (2002): Report on the Commission Green Paper on Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Committee on Employment and Social Afairs. A5-0159/2002. Fisscher, Olaf; Looise, Jan Kees; Nijhof, André & Stephan Cludts (n.d.): Implementing Corporate Social Responsibbility: A self-evaluation method for embedding codes of conduct. Enschede, University of Twente [ms.] Flyvbjerg, Bent: Making Social Science Matter. Why Social Inquiry Fails and how it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Fontenau, Gerard (2003): ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: envisioning its social implications’, in The Jus Semper Global Alliance, Living Wages of North and South. A TJSGA/TLWNSI issue essay. Frost, Randall: Corporate Social Responsibility and Globalization: A Reassessment. http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php?id=524 Ganßmann, Heiner & Michael Haas: Arbeitsmärkte im Vergleich, Bd. 1, Deutschland, Japan, USA. Schüren Presse, Marburg (1999). Garibaldo, Francesco & Volker Telljohann (eds.) (2000): The role of intermediate institutions: The case of Research Institutes Concerned with Work and Labour, Milano, Franco Angeli. Garibaldo, Francesco & Volker Telljohann (eds.) (2004): Globalization, Company Strategies and Quality of Working in Europe. Peter Lang - Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main. Grebing, Helga & Werner Wobbe (1993; eds.): Industrie- und Arbeitsstrukturen im europäischen Binnenmarkt. Die große Gleichmacherei? Köln: Bund Verlag. Haak, René (2004): Theory and management of collective strategies in international business. The impact of globalization on Japanese-German business collaboratrion in Asia. Basingstoke & New York, Palgrave & Macmillan. Haak, René & Hanns Günther Hilpert (2003) (eds.): Focus China. The New Challenge for Japanese Management. München. Iudicium. Hax, Herbert et al. (1995): Economic Transformation in Eastern Europe and East Asia. A Challenge for Japan and Germany. Springer-Verlag New York. Henderson, David (2001): Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility. New Zealand Business Round Table, June. http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/publications/publications-2001/misguided_virtue.pdf [Also published as a book with Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 2002] Hilpert, Hanns Günther & René Haak (2002) (eds.): Japan and China. Cooperation, Competition and Conflict. Basingstoke & New York, Palgrave & Macmillan. Hoffmann, Jürgen (ed.) (2002): The solidarity dilemma: globalisation, Europeanisation and trade unions. Brussels: ETUI. Hoffmann, Reiner; Jacobi, Otto; Keller, Berndt & Manfred Weiss (eds.) (2003): European Integration as a Social Experiment in a Globalized World. Düsseldorf, Hans Böckler Stiftung. Holzhausen, Arne: Das japanische Beschäftigungssystem in der Krise. Industrial Democracy in Europe (IDE) International Research Group (1981a): Industrial Democracy in Europe. Oxford, Oxford University Press.


16 Industrial Democracy in Europe (IDE) International Research Group (1981b) European Industrial Relations. Oxford, Oxford University Press. International Institute for Sustainable Development/IISD (n.d.): ISO CSR Standards. http://www.iisd.org/standards/csr.asp International Labour Organisation (2002): World Employment Report. Genf. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/publ/wer/overview.htm International Labour Organisation (2002): World Labour Report. Geneva. Isa, K. and T. Tsuru (eds.): Making Economies More Efficient and More Equitable: Factors Determining Income Distribution (Industrial Relations, October 2002). Ishikawa, Akihiro; Martin, Roderick; Morawski, Witold & Veljko Rus (eds.) (2000): Workers, Firms and Unions, Part 2: The Development of Dual Commitment. Frankfurt/M., Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien. Janssen, Jörn: ‘The Form of Wages or the Composition of the Wage Package’, in György Széll (ed.), European Labour Relations. Aldershot, Gower, 2001, Vol. 1: 45-67. Jenkins, Rhys; Utting, Peter & Renato Alva (2002): Voluntary Approaches to corporate Responsibility: Readings and a Resource Guide. Geneva, UNRISD. Kester, Gérard & H. Pinaud (eds.), Trade unions and democratic participation in Europe. A scenario for the 21st Century. Aldershot etc., Avebury, 1996. Klenner, Wolfgang & Hisashi Watanabe: Globalization and Regional Dynamics. East Asia and the European Union from the Japanese and the German Perspective. Berlin/Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag. Knautz, Robert: ‘Corporate social responsibility’, in Policy Spotlight, Vol. I, Number 7, August-September 1997. http://www.free-market.net/features/spotlight/9708.html Köpke, Ronald & Wolfgang Röhr (eds.) (2002): Codes of Conduct. Verhaltensnormen für Unternehmen. Köln, PapyRossa. Krieger, Hubert (2002): ‘The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions’, in György Széll & Gian Primo Cella (eds.), The Injustice at Work – An International View on the World of Labour & Society. Frankfurt/Bern/New York, Peter M. Lang: 172-194. Kuruvilah, Sarosh (2003): Social dialogue for Decent Work. Geneva, International Institute for Labour Studies (Discussion Paper DP/149/2003). Lammers, Cornelis J. & György Széll (eds.): International Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Vol. I: Organisational Democracy – Taking Stock. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989. Lanciano-Morandat, C., Maurice, M., Nohara, H. and Silvestre, J.-J. (eds) (1998), Les acteurs de l’innovation et l’entreprise France-Europe-Japon. Paris, L’Harmattan (coll. Dynamiques d’entreprises). Legewie, Jochen & Hendrik Meyer-Ohle: Corporate Strategies for Southeast Asia After the Crisis: A Comparison of Multinational Firms from Japan and Europe. London, Palgrave MacMillan, 2001. Liberatore, Angela & Nikolaos Christoforides (eds.): Global Trade and Globalising Society. Challenges for Governance and Sustainibility: the Role of the EU. Brussels: European Commission, November. Lutz, Burkhard: Der kurze Traum immerwährender Prosperität. Frankfurt-New York, Campus, 1984. Makó, Csaba & Chris Warhurst (eds.) (1999): The Management and Organisation of Firm in the Global Context. Gödöllö: St. Stephen University/Budapest: Economic University. Martin, Roderick; Ishikawa, Akihiro; Makó, Csaba & Francesco Consoli (eds.) (1998): Workers, Firms and Unions – Industrial Relations in Transition. Frankfurt a.M. et al., Peter Lang. Marx, Karl (1969): Das Kapital. Berlin, Dietz, 3 vols. (MEW 23-25) Marx, Karl (1973): "Grundrisse". Foundations of the critique of political economy (18571858). Harmondsworth/Penguin & London/New Left Review. Marx, Karl & Frederick Engels (1968) Selected Works in One Volume. London, Lawrence & Wishart.


17 Nelson, Jane: The Public Role of Public Enterprise. Risks, Opportunities and New Models of Engagement. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, March 2004. Nicolaou-Smokoviti, Litsa & György Széll (eds.) (1994): Participation, Organisational Effectiveness and Quality of Working-Life in the Year 2000. Frankfurt/Bern /New York, Peter M. Lang. Nippon Keidanren, Committee on Management and Labor Policy (2003): Summary of Position Paper 2004 on Management and Human Resources. Creating Higher Added Value, Utilizing Diverse Human Resources – Employers Sense of Duty and Aspirations are the Key. Tokyo. Odaka, K. & T. Tsuru (eds.) Dejitaruka jidai no soshiki kakushin – kigyou shkuba no henyou wo kenshou suru (Organisational Restructuring in the Age of Digital Innovation: Tracing the Evolution of Japanese Workplace and Firm; in Japanese) Yuhikaku, 2001. OECD (2000): The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Revision 2000. Paris. OECD (2003): Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy. Effectiveness, Efficiency and Usage in Policy Mixes. Paris. OECD Working Party of the Trade Committee (1999): Codes of Corporate Conduct: An Inventory. 29 April. Paris. OECD Working Party of the Trade Committee (2000): Codes of Corporate Conduct: An Expanded Review of their Contents. Paris. Ohno, Taiichi (1988): Workplace Management. Cambridge, Mass., Management Ass. Ortmann, Günter (1995): Formen der Produktion. Organisation und Rekursivität. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag. Oshige, Kotaro (1999): Konvergenz der Interessenvertretung durch Globalisierung? Frankfurt a.M. et al., Peter M. Lang. Oshige, Kotaro: Convergence of the interest representation systems in advanced countries? A case study of the electronics industry in Germany and Japan. Osnabrück, University, Japan Research Centre, 1999. Pearlstein, Steven: ‘Easy laws + tax dodges = zero corporate tax’, in Japan Times, 13 April 2004 [originally Washington Post]. Polanyi, Karl (1957): The great transformation: [the political and economic origins of our time]. Foreword by Robert M. MacIver. Boston: Beacon Press [c1944]. Sandberg, Åke (Hrsg.) (1995): Enriching Production. Perspectives on Volvo’s Uddevalla plant as an alternative to lean production. Aldershot et al., Avebury. Scherrer, Christoph & Thomas Greven (2001): Global Rules for Trade. Codes of Conduct, Social Labeling, Workers’ Rights Clauses. Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot. Schwengel, Hermann (1999): Globalisierung mit europäischem Gesicht. Berlin, Aufbau Verlag. Soros, George (1998): The crisis of global capitalism. The open society endangered. New York, Public Affairs Publisher. Stamer, Manfred (1999): Strukturwandel und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Deutschland, den USA und Japan. München, Shaker Verlag GmbH. Széll, György: 'Le siècle de l'entreprise?', in M. Legrand, J.-F. Guillaume & D. Vrancken (s.l.d.), La sociologie et ses métiers, Paris, L'Harmattan, 1995: 121-128. Széll, György (2000): ‚Developing competitiveness and social justice: The interplay between institutions and social partners‘, in Debi S. Saini & Sami A. Khan (eds.): Human Resource Management. Challenges in the New Era. London et al., SAGE: 270-279. Széll, György (2000a): ‘Globalisation in East Asia – A View from Europe’, in Y. Kawasaki & S. Sonoda (eds.), Globalization in East Asia – Past and Present, Tokyo, Chuô Daigaku: 33-41. Széll, György (2002): ‘Japanese Joint Ventures in China – some preliminary findings of a research project’, in Ulrich Teichler & Gisela Trommsdorff (eds.), Challenges of the 21st Century in Japan and Germany, Lengerich etc., Pabst Science Publishers: 215-228. Széll, György (2002a): ‚Sociology and Industrial Democracy’, in Nikolai Genov (ed.), Advances in Sociological Knowledge, Paris, International Social Science Council, p. 396-418.


18 Széll, György (2003): ‘Éthique des Sciences et mondialisation’, in L. Koch-Miramond & Gérard Toulouse (s.l.d.), Les scientifiques et les droits de l’Homme. Paris : Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, p. 185-192. Széll, György (ed.) (1992b): Concise Encyclopaedia of Participation and Co-Management. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter (Studies in Organization 38). Széll, György (ed.) (2001): European Labour Relations. Aldershot, Gower, 2 vols. Széll, György (ed.) (2004): China and the WTO: Effects on Employment, Labour Relations, Intercultural Management & Economic Welfare – Papers of the German-Chinese Seminar in August 2003. Osnabrück, University, Dept. of Social Sciences [aepi papers # 5]. Széll, György (2004a): ‘Transnational Co-operation on Social Regulation’, Contribution to

the 10th International Euro-Asia Research Conference “Corporate Social responsibility in the Age of Globalisation”, 28-29 May 2004, Yokohama. (CDR) Széll, György; Bösling, Carl-Heinrich and Johannes Hartkemeyer (eds.) (2004): Labour, Globalisation and the New Economy. Frankfurt et al., Peter Lang. Széll, György, D. Chetty & A. Chouraqui (eds.) (2002): Participation, Globalisation & Culture. Frankfurt/Bern/New York, Peter M. Lang. Széll, György & Gian-Primo Cella (eds.) (2002): The Injustice at Work: an International View on the World of Labour and Society. Frankfurt/Bern/New York, Peter M. Lang. Széll, György & Wiking Ehlert (eds.) (2001): New Democracies and Old Societies in Europe. Frankfurt/Bern/New York, Peter M. Lang. Széll, György & Ken’ichi Tominaga (eds.) (2004): Environmental Challenges for Japan and Germany – Interdisciplinary and Intercultural Perspectives. Frankfurt et al., Peter Lang. Takahashi; Yoshiaki (2003): ‘Formation and Changes of Japanese Employment Practice: The disappearance lifetime employment and seniority system?’, of the ShogakuRonso, Vol. 44, Nr. 3. Telljohann, Volker (1997): Globaler Wettbewerb – lokale Entwicklung. Frankfurt a.M. et al.: Peter M. Lang. The Copenhagen Centre (2003): It simply works better! Campaign report on European CSR Excellence. Copenhagen. The Economist (2004): ‚Corporate social responsibility – Two-faced capitalism’, 22 January. Toyota (1990): Production at Toyota – Our Basic Philosophy. Tokyo. Transfer (2004): Corporate Social Responsibility: A threat or an opportunity for the Trade Union Movement in Europe?, Autumn Vol. 10, Number 3. Tsuru, Tsuyoshi (2002): Roushi kankei no non yunionka – mukuroteki seidoteki bunseki (The Nonunionization of Labor Relations: Micro and Institutional Analysis; in Japanese). Tokyo, Toyo Keizai Shinposha. Tsuru, Tsuyoshi (ed.) (2001): Seisan sisutemu no kakushin to shinka – nihonkigyou niokeru seruseisan houshiki no shintou (The Evolution and Refinement of Production Systems: The Diffusion of Cell Production in Japanese Enterprises; in Japanese). Nihon Hyoron Sha. Uemura, Hiroyasu (2000): ‘Growth, Distribution and Structural Change in the Post-war Japanese Economy’, in Boyer, R. & Yamada, T. (eds.), Japanese Capitalism in Crisis, London, Routledge: 138-161, Uemura, Hiroyasu (2003): “Institutional Analysis and the Reconstruction of Distribution Theory: A Synthesis of Surplus Approach and Bowles-Gintis Theory”, .Sato,Y. (ed.) The Myth of the Market Economy and Its Alternative: Recasting “the Social”, Hosei University Press. Uemura, Hiroyasu (2004): ‘The “Selection and Concentration” of Businesses and the Employment System: An Analysis of Employment and Internal Labour Market with Changing Value Chains’, Tsuru, T. (ed.) The Selection and Concentration of Japanese Firm, Yuhikaku, (forthcoming). Uemura, Hiroyasu; A. Ebizuka & A.Isogai (1997) : "L'hypothèse de la relation hiérarchisée marché-firme et l'économie japonaise de l'après guerre : une analyse en termes d'incitation et de flexibilité", Année de la régulation, pp. 297-315.


19 Uemura, Hiroyasu; A. Isogai & A. Ebizuka (1998): The Institutional Analysis of Socio-economic Systems: Beyond Marx and Keynes. Nagoya University Press. Uemura, Hiroyasu; A. Isogai and A. Ebizuka (1999): ‘The Hierarchical Market-Firm Nexus and the Institutional Analysis of the Recent Japanese Economy’, in Schober, F.; Kishida, T. & Arayama, Y. (eds.), Restructuring the Economy of the 21st Century in Japan and Germany, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot: 77-120. Uemura, Hiroyasu; A. Isogai & A. Ebizuka (2000): ‘Hierarchical Market-Firm Nexus as the Japanese Mode of "régulation" ‘, in Boyer, R. & Yamada, T. (eds.), Japanese Capitalism in Crisis, London, Routledge: 32-53, UK Department of Trade and Industry (2002): Business and society. corporate social responsibility report 2002. London. UNICE (2002): UNICE comments to the Communication from the EC concerning CSR: a business contribution to sustainable development. 2002/109.07/UNICEcomments_final_en Union Network International (UNI) (n.d.): Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility: Building the Links. Nyon. http://www.unionnetwork.org/uniindep.nsf/0/0240de313e8f1a64c1256e5a0043fa88 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2001): Social Responsibility. New York & Geneva. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/22. United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Corporate Social Responsibility and Developing Country SMEs. http://www.unido.org/fr/doc/5162 United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (2003): http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BE6B5/(httpNews)/1495A94CBECABC3BC1256E4C00343D96?OpenDocument Winkelmann, Olaf (2002): Entwicklung in der Mitbestimmung: Industrial Relations, Industrial Districts und Netzwerke; das Beispiel Betriebsräte-Netzwerk im Industrial District Ostwestfalen-Lippe. Frankfurt am Main et al., Peter Lang. Womack, James P., Daniel T. Jones & Daniel Roos (1991): The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production. New York, Rawson Associates, 1990. World Bank (n.d.): Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington, DC. http://www.Worldbank.org/wbi/corpgov/csr/index.html HOMEPAGES http://www.corp-gov.nl/ http://www.corporateeurope.org/ http://www.rieti.go.jp/cgj/en/ CSRwire (News service), Brattleboro, VT 05301, USA http://www.csrwire.com/ Databases The Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), 15-16 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, London, UK: Corporate Social Responsibility Forum: http://www.csrforum.com/csr/csrwebassist.nsf http://www.Europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/csr_index.htm

Research Project âEU-Japan: Changing Corporate Governance & Wag

Research Project âEU-Japan: Changing Corporate Governance & Wag

Research Project âEU-Japan: Changing Corporate Governance & Wag

Research Project âEU-Japan: Changing Corporate Governance & Wag