The economic crisis has erupted when the discourse of the Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) in annual reports and in responsible business indices is buoyant. Was it cosmetic or ethics? Make-up for having good appearance or vitamins that strengthen? A smart company does not choose to an ethic of disinterest, impossible for a modern enterprise thing, but of common interest. It does not abandon the pursuit of profit and viability, but that it seeks to achieve its profit through the shared benefit. Why try to become that company citizen that people see as his own thing, because generated material wealth, work and intangible values in your environment. Commitment to transparency that generates confidence and forging the reputation, values without which it is difficult to maintain viability. The prudent company tries to meet the aspirations of its interest groups and respond to them.
Accountability, transparency and confidence are essential to achieving the good of the company. Provided that there is an institutional framework capable of ensuring reasonably fulfilled the rules of game. The institutional framework, responsible for controlling the financial performances, put on notice to investors and consumers has not worked in too many cases. But despite the conviction Leninist that trust is good, but control is better, both are essential. Without control, banks play to excessive risk, to the loan garbage a day and does not provide the following, councils are backed by recalificaciones, consumers borrow beyond what is reasonable and there comes a time in which the train of economic activity gives a sudden stop or crash. But without trust decay transactions, reduces investment, scarce loans, closed companies, increases unemployment and grows the suffering. Is that the discourse of the CSR is disconnected from the systems of corporate governance? Is it that it has not incorporated the core of a large part of companies, when it is innate for them? Perhaps it is that there are two types of incentives, which belong to the sportsmanship of the company and the spurious.
Accountability, transparency and confidence are essential to achieving the good of the company. Provided that there is an institutional framework capable of ensuring reasonably fulfilled the rules of game. The institutional framework, responsible for controlling the financial performances, put on notice to investors and consumers has not worked in too many cases. But despite the conviction Leninist that trust is good, but control is better, both are essential. Without control, banks play to excessive risk, to the loan garbage a day and does not provide the following, councils are backed by recalificaciones, consumers borrow beyond what is reasonable and there comes a time in which the train of economic activity gives a sudden stop or crash. But without trust decay transactions, reduces investment, scarce loans, closed companies, increases unemployment and grows the suffering. Is that the discourse of the CSR is disconnected from the systems of corporate governance? Is it that it has not incorporated the core of a large part of companies, when it is innate for them? Perhaps it is that there are two types of incentives, which belong to the sportsmanship of the company and the spurious.