**2.1 Theoretical contribution**

The first official input in this regard comes from the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and the ILO (International Labor Organization), international organizations that, since the second half of the seventies, define the first guidelines for companies' multinationals. In 1992, the Rio De Janeiro Earth Summit was held to discuss the planet's environmental problems and their links with the problems of social development. Here, various documents are approved for the commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development, including Agenda 21, or an action program for the international community (UN, States, Governments, NGOs, and the private sector) and the sustainable development of the planet. From 1994 to 1999, various resolutions of the European Parliament followed one another on specific issues relating to CSR: transparency of company relocations and restructuring and the introduction of social clauses in international agreements, social labels for categories of products, human rights, fair trade and supportive, etc. In 1998, the EU itself defined the first guidelines for large companies operating in its Member States, for more socially responsible

### *Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Report: A Case Study in the Basque Country DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105511*

management. The first major codification of guidelines for large companies operating in UN member states dates to 1999, with the birth of the Global Compact, an international initiative in support of nine universal principles relating to human rights, work, and the environment [11]. In 2000, the OECD drew up guidelines aimed at multinationals that contain the main cornerstones of CSR, and that involve the social partners and national governments. Through the guidelines, 30 governments require multinationals to operate in harmony with social and environmental [12] policies and expectations. In March 2000, the extraordinary European Council of Lisbon was held, dedicated to the economic and social issues of the European Union, capable of achieving sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. With the publication of the Green Book1 *"Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility,"* in July 2001, following the European Council of Gothenburg in June of the same year and the Communication of the European Commission relating to *"Corporate social responsibility: a contribution of companies to sustainable development"* of July 2002, the challenge is officially launched in determining how CSR can help achieve the Lisbon objective, opening a wide debate at international level on the very concept of CSR [13], defining the procedures for establishing a partnership aimed at encouraging the development of a European structure to promote this concept and the Community strategy for promoting it, illustrating proposals for actions aimed at the European institutions, the Member States, the social partners, business and consumer association actors, as well as to individual companies and other interested parties. Concerning the ethical notion of company economy, it is possible to identify different theoretical approaches, among which it is necessary first to mention the ethical theory and the utilitarian one [14–16]. According to the ethical orientation, the company should subordinate its behavior to ethical rules, even at the expense of profit [17]. The utilitarian perspective, on the other hand, argues that profit maximization contributes to better achieving collective well-being. The ethical doctrine puts in order the needs of competitiveness and profitability concerning the much nobler aims of a social nature [18]. On a diametrically opposite level, there is the utilitarian theory that refers to the iron laws of the market economy. According to this approach, it is the social ends that must be subordinated this time to economic ends. The pursuit of profit is always and in any case a duty and deserving of approval, regardless of the social repercussions it determines. It is true that the company essentially plays an economic role, consisting in producing wealth, that is, goods and services having a value greater than that of the factors used in the production process; however, for this value to be positive, the company must serve the needs of customers by enhancing and developing the resources at its disposal; otherwise, the value may also be negative, thus giving rise to the destruction of wealth. Thirdly, it would be possible to identify a logic of reconciliation based on a compromise between economic and social issues. Thirdly, it would be possible to identify a logic of reconciliation based on a compromise between economic and social issues. However, even this approach does not seem suitable for correctly identifying the corporate finalism, because it ends up not fully satisfying either type of request. Given that the knowledge first stated is now part of the cultural baggage of management, it is the

<sup>1</sup> The Green Paper is communication with which the European Commission illustrates the state of a particular sector to be regulated and clarifies its point of view regarding certain problems; it is part of the so-called "atypical acts" envisaged but not governed by the EEC Treaty, and this type of communication can have an informative, decision making, declarative, or interpretative nature, and is subject to the advertising regime.

last to be able to constitute a real competitive advantage for the modern company. In conclusion, it seems that the road to take is that of *"an idea of business development to be pursued continuously over long periods, because only in the long term does it become possible to synergistically combine needs that appear to be conflicting in the short term"* ([19], pp. 792, 795; [20], p. 95).

### **2.2 What is meant by social responsibility today?**

The term responsibility indicates the *"congruence to an assumed commitment or behaviour, as it matters and implies the acceptance of every consequence, especially from the point of view of the moral and legal sanction"* [21]. The responsibility, therefore, appears, even before being a category of law, as an ethical and moral category firmly linked to the human person. It must always be borne in mind that the violation of a written norm involves easily identifiable responsibilities, while the same cannot be said in the case of social responsibility where there are no probative norms. However, a plurality of meanings is attributed to the term social responsibility, since its definition changes depending on the historical moment and the environmental context in which the company operates; therefore, over time different configurations of sociality [22] have followed one another [23]. However, it should be emphasized that the problem of CSR does not consist in repairing the damage caused to the company in some way, in repairing those damages that benefit one's interests or even in implementing philanthropic actions [24], and so on; rather, in posing the problem of the interrelationships existing between their purposes, their structures and their organization and the purposes, structures, and organization of the other subjects of the social system considered as a whole. It is also necessary to distinguish the content of social responsibility from the tools that guarantee the morality of behavior, such as external legal regulation, self-regulation, or the creation of an ethical corporate culture [25]. These tools constitute the reference ethical system and based on the latter; the content of social responsibility is judged. Matacena [26] speaks of the life cycle of the social problem and expresses the gradual recognition of the social implications and therefore social responsibility. However, it is important to underline that the problem of CSR does not consist in repairing the damages caused to society in some way, in repairing those damages that benefit one's interests or even in implementing philanthropic actions, and so on, rather, in posing the problem of the interrelationships existing between one's aims, structures, and organization and the aims, structures, and organization of the other subjects of the social system considered as a whole [27]. It is also necessary to distinguish the content of social responsibility tools that guarantee morality from behavior, such as external legal regulation, selfregulation, or the creation of an ethical corporate culture. These instruments constitute the ethical system of reference based on the last one that judges the content of social responsibility. Social responsibilities can be seen under a double aspect, subjective and objective. The area of external responsibility centers on responsibilities toward external groups. In any case, given that the activity of the company is unique and unitary, its responsibility must also be this is how the concept of global corporate responsibility is introduced: The company obtains the consent and legitimacy of its work from its interlocutors based on both economic and social results. Matacena [28] rightly observes that *"if companies do not take on social responsibilities consistent with the intensity and extent of the existing interchange relationships with the environment, the companies themselves could be forced into spaces that are so narrow as to be non-vital. It follows that as the company's economic power grows, the level of the social objectives it pursues must increase."* Given the undertaking of social responsibility by the company, this must inform third parties

*Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Report: A Case Study in the Basque Country DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105511*

not only of the achievement of the economic objective, thus safeguarding its image as an effective economic transformer, but also of the pursuit of its social equilibrium, so *"to use the 'information as an instrument for the protection and maintenance of a correct social and societal climate, that is, of a state of controlled conflict that does not compromise its legitimacy and therefore its survival*" ([29], p. 76). Accurate mapping and definition of the so-called stakeholders already represent a significant contribution to the management of any organization. The stakeholder (evident the analogy with "stockholder" and "shareholder," which documents the terms the action terminate) comes from a dated 1963 of the Stanford Research Institute (USA) and defines those groups without whose support an organization ceases to exist [30]. Etymologically, the word stakeholder is composed of "stake," which means *"interest in a company,"* and "*holder,*" which means "*owner, holder*"; consequently, stakeholders indicate the bearers of the company, that is, those subjects, or groups, who depend on a single individual interest, be it cooperative or competitive, in the business of the company, and which must not necessarily be economic [31]. In essence, the stakeholders are direct and indirect to the overall business of the company, who are affected by the effects of its behavior in satisfying their needs and achieving its objectives [32]. Each organization, according to its nature, therefore, has a plurality of stakeholders, which can be divided into a) primary stakeholders, that is, those without whose continuous participation in the management the company cannot survive customers, capital holders, employees, investors, and suppliers; b) secondary stakeholders, that is, those who influence the company or are known by its but are not involved in transactions with the organization and do not jeopardize its survival [33]. It is possible to represent the relations between the company and the stakeholders in **Figure 1**.

The company, assuming a social responsibility, must therefore proceed as a preliminary step to the detailed identification of its stakeholders, to be able to reconcile their different legitimate interests, to resolve or at least mitigate the conflictual character that distinguishes the different requests put forward by the interlocutors. To this end, in the face of conflicting interests, it is appropriate to adopt a relational logic and negotiation and contractual method, which, by assigning "relative weights" to the requests made by the various stakeholders, allows them to be balanced in the conduct of the business [34].

#### **Figure 1.** *Company stakeholder's representation. Source: Own elaboration.*
