SUMMARY
The goal of this article is to analyse the influence of the
socially responsible instrumentation of key firms on the modes of
employment management of their partner businesses. Through examples of
International Framework Agreements (IFA) and of Codes of Conduct (CC),
we will simply try to show to what extent the problematic of the
management of inter-business relations cannot be exclusively
conceptualized, as the economy of transaction costs suggests, in an
institutional comparative approach where economic calculation plays a
predominant role. First, we will present a critical analysis of the
notion of social responsibility for the firm. Without being exhaustive
on this question, we will discuss five difficulties.
First of all, in keeping with its normative beginnings, it presents
all the characteristics of a natural normative
"anthropologized" order within a logic where equity, ethics
and morality almost take the place of legal rules of behaviour.
Considered from this perspective, it can lead to demanding of a private
operator that he become an active subject for the maintenance of public
order in his sub-contracting network, that is to say, that he replaces
the states in the handling of social and environmental risks. It can
also lead businesses to unduly adjust their practices to the fluctuating
normative demands of involved parties whose institutional legitimacy can
be inversely proportional to their capacity to damage their brand image
and their reputation.
A second difficulty comes from the absence of a normative and
substantive definition of SRE which leaves its meaning extremely vague
and ill-defined. It seems less constructed around the moral personality
of the business except in reference to its relations, its commitments
and/or its contracts. This shift is not neutral in character. It
reflects on the personalization of responsibility which distances itself
from a legally inspired retrospective vision to give a prospective
responsibility marked by an ethic of solicitude and a positive
commitment on the part of businesses. As well, academic definitions may
reduce SRE to a question of management of stakeholders without
considering the implications brought about by the usage of the term
"responsible." This reductionism, which finds a legitimation
in the politicized theory of governing, risks reducing it to aggregation
or to the equilibrium of the interests of the involved parties, while
supposing that these reflect the general interest.
A third difficulty arises from the breaking up of forms of
intelligibility linked to SRE. Pulled between doctrinal and scientific
aspects, it is part of an academic field which is particularly prolix
and vague. It is saturated with meanings which do not make it possible
to identify what makes up the theoretical unity of the field, even
formal and uncertain, of which it is a part.
A fourth difficulty arises from the supposed voluntary nature of
socially responsible involvement. In general, this chosen responsibility
appears as an echo to the legal deregulation movement which translates
into a shift from the production of heteronomy standards to autonomy.
This perspective is ambiguous for at least two reasons. First of all, it
leads to a neglect of the structuring influence of institutional
frameworks and the pressure of involved parties on the behaviours of
organizations. Next of all, in maintaining a confusion between a
voluntary standard, and a standard of private origin, it sometimes hides
the fact that a rule which is adopted voluntarily in the framework of
the exercise of a private power is not, and far from it, without
inevitable effects when put into practise.
A fifth and final difficulty comes from the numerous reasons for
involvement in socially responsible actions. Do these derive from ethics
or from morality? From a rational strategic instrumentalization? From a
search for legitimacy with reference to institutional pressures which
are as varied as they are many? The positions of authors on this
question appear very heterogeneous and not very integrated into a
federal theoretical space and create confusion on the justification
systems of businesses as concerns what is socially responsible.
With regards to socially responsible instrumentation, we will show
that the CCs and the IFAs, beyond their structural differences (type of
standards produced, conditions of their control, etc.), have points of
convergence relative, notably, to the choice of principles or of
referentials adopted by businesses so as to materialize their socially
responsible commitments (ILO declarations and conventions, etc.). These
instituted international suprastate standards necessarily provide a
certain degree of homogeneity, universality and stability to managers
according to which issuing transnational businesses regulate their
contractual cooperation relations. They also confer a strong legitimacy
while simplifying the arbitration of businesses in their choice of
normative referentials. Situated between public and private standards,
these tools prove to be instruments of regulation whose
institutionalization guarantees the domination of the strongest of the
private powers so as to impose the respect of the fundamental rights of
workers in the different links of the value chain. As concerns the
capacity of transnational business to go above and beyond national
social legislation in certain countries, these tools may signify true
progress for salaried employees further down the chain, placed in a
position of functional subordination (notably those implanted in
emerging countries.) Faced with incomplete national state rights, these
may make it possible to improve the social conditions surrounding the
relation. Since the law continues to consider businesses in an economic
network as legally autonomous entities, these regulation tools make it
possible to avoid a too definite break of the link between the economic
power of a key company and the responsibility associated with the social
consequences of its activity within its partner network.
L'objet de cet article est d'analyser l'influence
des normes socialement responsables edictees par les firmes-pivots dans
des accords-cadres internationaux et des codes de conduite sur les modes
de gestion de l'emploi de leurs entreprises partenaires. En
presentant une critique du concept de responsabilite sociale de
l'entreprise, nous verrons que ces dispositifs remettent en cause
la pertinence des categories d'employeurs et de salaries en
questionnant les frontieres des entreprises. Soulignant
l'importance structurante des pressions institutionnelles sur les
comportements organisationnels, nous montrerons dans quelle mesure
l'instrumentation socialement responsable est susceptible
d'enrichir la comprehension des modalites de coordination
interfirme ou l'analyse comparative institutionnelle inspiree par
l'economie des couts de transaction reste dominante.
El objeto de este articulo es de analizar la influencia de las
normas socialmente responsables dictadas por las empresas lideres de los
acuerdos tipo de nivel intemacional y de los codigos de conducta sobre
los modos de gestion del empleo de sus empresas colaboradoras. Se
presenta una critica del concepto de responsabilidad social de la
empresa y se ve que esos dispositivos cuestionan la pertinencia de las
categorias de empleadores y asalariados al cuestionar las fronteras de
las empresas. Insistiendo sobre la importancia estructurante de las
presiones institucionales sobre los comportamientos organizacionales, se
muestra en que medida la instrumentacion socialmente responsable es
susceptible de enriquecer la comprension de las modalidades de
coordinacion interfirma alli donde el analisis comparativo institucional
inspirado de la economia de costos de transicion sigue dominante.
**********
COPYRIGHT 2007 Relations
Industrielles Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.