Corporate social responsibility has been a subject of broad public and academic discussion in Russia for several years now. The author argues that the key criterion for CSR is direct cooperation among all stakeholders, cooperation that to a large extent shapes the behavior of the firm and therefore includes ethical and social concerns in the decision-making process. On the basis of this criterion, three levels of CSR are distinguished. The main factors that are gradually shaping the Russian model of CSR (...) are emphasized. It is shown that lack of state social expenditure and a coherent system of benefits for socially responsible firms, coupled with the persistence of paternalistic relations, hinder and bias the development of socially responsible behavior at all levels.The author argues that CSR practices can be effectively realized only if accompanied by a coherent state social policy. (shrink)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been a subject of broad public and academic discussion in Russia for several years now. The author argues that the key criterion for CSR is direct (non-market-based) cooperation among all stakeholders, cooperation that to a large extent shapes the behavior of the firm and therefore includes ethical and social concerns in the decision-making process. On the basis of this criterion, three levels of CSR are distinguished. The main factors that are gradually shaping the Russian model (...) of CSR are emphasized. It is shown that lack of state social expenditure and a coherent system of benefits for socially responsible firms, coupled with the persistence of paternalistic relations, hinder and bias the development of socially responsible behavior at all levels.The author argues that CSR practices can be effectively realized only if accompanied by a coherent state social policy. (shrink)

The paper is focused upon the relations of key inside stakeholders—managers and employees whose interests are supposed to be represented by trade unions while shaping internal CSR practices. It discusses real, perceived and desired role of TU in the process and the outcomes of internal CSR in the fields of work related security and access to social benefits. It is demonstrated that the internal social policy of corporate management pursues pragmatic goals seeking the least costly way to compete for skilled (...) manpower and accumulate human capital. The role of TU is chiefly limited to assisting the management in distribution of social benefits. As a result the benefit distribution contributes to social inequality patterns inside corporation. It is safe to conclude that so far the internal CSR patterns in Russia are formed under a mixture of pragmatic and paternalistic reasons with minor traces of social dialogue. (shrink)