Reading Essay # 3 - Conley and Williams (2005)The article indicates the beginning of "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) movement that was the most important development in business world. The authors of this article have employed the techniques of anthropology and linguistics to assess the behavior of corporations, NGOs, and other principals who contributes to this worldwide movement to improve the social and environmental strategies of multinational companies. While, on a theoretical level, the article interprets the corporate social responsibility movement as an exercise in the new governance (the new governing paradigm) which is a term to describe a recent trend toward spreading regulatory authority between governmental agencies, NGOs, and regulated companies themselves. On this level, the responsibility of a corporation extends beyond typical objective of generating money for shareholder. The advocates of CSR emphasized that the reasonable concerns of a corporation should include broader objectives such as "sustainable growth, equitable employment practices, and long-term social and environmental well-being" (Conley and William, 2001, p. 2). Corporate managers should not only favor the shareholders but also consider their stakeholders (i.e. employees, residents of that community, government, organizations favoring social and environmental interests) while making decisions. The CSR movement became obvious and prominent in several ways. On legal side, even this movement left limited impacts on country. However, Enron and related disasters helped in making transparent corporate conduct especially in financial matters. While in Europe and the United Kingdom, CSR movement became a big reason in moving corporate disclosure in stakeholders' favor. There was a great awareness regarding stakeholders' interests in continent. Several European countries started to pay direction attention on stakeholders' interests through highly great disclosure of social and environmental threats and effects. Countries with most expensive disclosure regulations were the countries where the stakeholder concept of a firm became prominent, those countries includes France, Germany, the Netherland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. At the European Union level, even the development was not that great but this trend did not change its direction. Moreover, EU's own shift towards the mandatory disclosure clearly indicates the European penetration of the stakeholder concept. United States (US) and the UK share some corporate law values such as broad based dispersed share ownership as compared to Europe and Japan. The CSR movement gave birth to another new code regarding the disclosure of environmental and social issues. According to that code, the British companies were required to publish an annual operating and Financial Review and Directors Report (OFR). According to the OFR, the companies were required to reveal social and environmental risks. However, the Blair government removed that regulation later on.The CSR movement can be seen as a voluntary behavior of the corporation, especially in the area of reporting. A large number of firms started to report their social and environmental issue. Corporations started to publish social and environmental sustainability reports, which combine social, environmental, and financial information in addition to their financial reports. Most of the corporations that were issuing such reports also changed their ways of interaction with their stakeholders, especially the non- governmental organizations (NGOs). This article evaluates and indicates the participation of multinational companies in this global movement to improve the social and environmental behaviors. As a representative from a leading British scientific research organization put it in a recent interview, "multinational businesses have had to respond to a changing paradigm"(Conley and William, 2001, p. 5). Later on, everyone can see the engagement and partnership with NGOs that are trying to help corporations to identify issues, produce and audit reports, communicate with stakeholders and address their issues throughout the world. The authors believe that even there is a critical question whether these developments are just corporate communication, and the new behaviors demanded by CSR advocates are amount to substance or mere form. However, multinational companies have significantly changed their ways of operations over the last decade. The contemporary CSR community was come into existence due to the participants of changing paradigm. They have a new class of CSR professionals within for profit corporations, in addition to them there is another class of outsiders who audit non financial reports; executives at pension funds, insurance companies and institutional investment organizations who believe in socially responsible investment. The CSR movement can be taken as new governance and the new governing paradigm. However, the new governance theory is complicated and its framework is not developed fully. A vital formulation element is the idea of post regulatory state. According to Colin Scott, the prior concept of the regulatory state was developed to contrast a distinctive and emergent form of governance from the practices and institutions of the welfare state (Conley and William, 2001, p. 31). While the welfare state was described by the dependency on instruments of public ownership, direct state provision of benefits and services, [and] integration of policy making and operational functions"(Conley and William, 2001, p. 31). A regulatory state occupies the concept of separation of operational from regulatory actions in some policy areas. The regulatory state asserts on top-down command and authority, however, it exercises its power in a diffuse manner. The post regulatory state has indicated an incline from government to governance that is a further diffusion of regulatory power between state and non state actors.The CSR movement can be seen as emerging governance due to a large global information network. The new governance has some critics too; a major concern is democratic accountability. The debate is that the nodes of decision making become numerous, less defined, and harder to locate, they are away from people and institutions are under direct electoral control. But the advocates of network governance proponent claim that the process will eventually improve democracy. I am doubtful about the actual success of CSR movement as the authors of this article had tried to collect large amount of information on CSR movement. However, they could not reach at a final conclusion whether that movement is actually succeeding or not? That is why, their conclusion is mixed. No doubt, the CSR movement has definitely brought more transparency to the non-financial performance of large corporations; it also taught and helped corporations to handle criticism and debates which ultimately helped them to enhance their power. However, there are some major concerns regarding new governance that are difficult to manage especially the problems regarding representation and accountability. I believe that CSR movement is still progressing; it advocates ensuring such decision makings where corporate mangers consider and deal with social and environmental issues. But unfortunately, some times, it just serves as a complex public relation charter and nothing else, and companies continue to operate their businesses as usual. I believe at this stage, it is difficult to say something about the future of CSR movement because this movement is still under continuous progress, but we are hopeful.

Conley, M.J. & Williams, A.C. (2005).Engage, embed, and embellish: Theory Versus Practice in the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement. UNC Legal Studies Research Paper, 05 (16), 1-38.