**8. Conclusions**

Through this work, we have tried to bring some order to a subject characterized by a strong and constant evolution, in need of certain points of reference, from which to start for a better and more rigorous methodological definition. First, it emerged quite clearly how, at least in the medium to long term, the assumption in the field of social communication of a superficial, or even elusive, attitude toward the expectations of stakeholders can determine unfavorable consequences not only in terms of image but also from an economic/financial point of view, especially in large companies. Based on these considerations, it is necessary to ask what the most effective tools are for communicating the assumption of responsibility of the company. The ongoing debate on the methods and tools most suitable for representing and disseminating corporate responsibility in the social, environmental, and economic fields is going through a crucial phase. After a series of effective initiatives by public or private organizations, the impression is that among business representatives there is a real desire to collect the disjointed results produced so far in an organic project. At an international level, efforts are being made to re-organize the various standards and models developed in the context of economic, environmental, and social sustainability (the so-called "triple bottom line"). The broad process of involvement and consultation of stakeholders is fundamental, as they are the real arbiters of corporate success. Some of these initiatives (such as the AA 1000 of the ISEA or the "Guidelines" of the GRI) are characterized by an appreciable dynamic character, of a "work in progress" one could say, since "they do not foreshadow a final and definitive solution," but rather involve a voluntary and continuous process of verification and review. This is more important the more one reflects on the problematic, and perhaps uncertain, the definition of the areas of responsibility of the company. The hope for the coming years is that principles and general criteria can be defined in a univocal or widely shared way, which can guide any organization, regardless of geographic location, size, and activity, in accounting processes, auditing, and reporting. If the various initiatives in progress converge into a single project, which integrates them efficiently, the dispersion of efforts and ideas on the subject, as happened in the past, could be avoided [90]. It is with this spirit that the study group for the establishment of the principles of drafting the social report (GBS) is working in Italy [91]. Founded in 1998, bringing together the main scholars and operators in the sector, the study group is still working to disseminate and improve social communication, based on certain principles and procedures for creating the social report [92]. The document presented in last May represents only the first step toward a more organic definition of the controversial subject under consideration. However, we can affirm that some critical problems in the field of social reporting have already been identified; these are the following aspects: a) *poor standardization in content and subsequent difficulty in making inter-company and inter-temporal comparisons; b) poor reliability and credibility of social reporting tools; and c) difficulties for SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises) in adopting these tools due to the scarce economic convenience in drafting them.* About the first point, the solution could be to start from a single aspect (e.g., through the creation of thematic balances), normalize their content by pursuing certain guidelines, and then progressively incorporate the other aspects, to arrive at a more complex and complete tool such as the social report [93]. In this process, the guidelines defined by the GBS and the GRI should be followed: In this way, companies would be stimulated and incentivized to adopt a single reporting model, while those that intend to depart from it would at least be required to explain their reasons. As regards the low credibility and reliability of corporate documents, which for a long time have been translated into simple "books of good intentions," it is necessary to proceed in the direction of certification (auditing). Both are based on standards recognized by international organizations and by these certificates (HDE index, SA 8000, etc.), and by having external auditing firms certify the social financial statements. About the latter, an important role is played by the added value, which allows the social balance to be anchored to certain accounting data, as it derives from the financial statements. Finally, as regards the last point outlined above, it will be appropriate for SMEs to prepare a simple social report formed, for example, by the added value account and the surplus account; these are immediate processing that even the smallest company can conduct with very low costs since it simply requires a reprocessing of accounting data already collected. In conclusion, it is appropriate to clarify how the various social reporting tools and the social report serve not only to bring out the issues discussed so far in a public and transparent way but also to verify how they have been dealt with (through the comparison of subsequent documents) and what steps have been taken to resolve them. Specifically, it is necessary to encourage correct disclosure among companies of the principles and purposes of the social report, to avoid distortions in its interpretation [94]. It cannot be seen as a simple means of protecting or promoting the corporate image, but rather as an effective communication, management, and control tool that renders an effective service to the management of the company and its stakeholders. From these premises and other observations relating to the issues analyzed during this work such as CSR, sustainable development, and social ethics, *Telefónica* has built within it a "system of values," based on a structure capable of fully merit understanding and responding to the new economic and environmental challenges of the international scene. The *Telefónica* case, therefore, represents a successful example of the integration of commercial, social, and environmental policies that find their strategic position within the group. This does not create critical issues but becomes the basis for building the "new competitive proposal," where natural and energy resources tend to run out inexorably; in the not-so-distant future, the only way to be able to compete will be in social and environmental performance.
