代写被抓：企业社会责任

企业社会责任被视为企业对员工不信任的一种反应，因此需要更多的监管。英国一项调查显示，在接受采访时，大多数财务部门高管都表示，对企业规章制度的约束似乎存在问题，并表现出强烈的抵触情绪。组织进一步认为，当标准被设定到最低限度时，它们就会导致创新停止。除非组织获得竞争优势，否则企业社会责任的采用不能证明成本的合理性。组织必须持有政府来赎回监管问题，说明监管威胁到他们正在执行的积极工作。企业社会责任咨询公司支持企业游说，反对制定的监管规定，并辩称，监管规定只能防范不好的行为。他们从不提倡任何好的做法。然而，这些参数只是用来暴露CSR的假象。这可能意味着组织需要有选择性地选择哪些领域的坏实践是他们想要删除的，并想要利用他们的好实践来分散人们对坏实践的注意力。

代写被抓：企业社会责任
如果规章制度分散了良好实践的注意力，那么组织就不能以负责任的方式行事，因为他们相信道德上的正确可以帮助他们在竞争中获得优势。当涉及到限制公司权力时，那些热衷于逃避监管责任的政府已经接受了这样一种观点，即监管阻碍了本组织自愿为即兴行为所做的努力。英国国际发展部(International development department of UK)驳斥了为全球组织建立具有全球法律约束力的概念框架的想法，认为这将分散人们的注意力，并将削弱企业社会责任的激励作用，使其转向具有法律性质的过程。如本文所述，在没有任何有效性证据的情况下，政府只是简单地选择了CSR，将企业的任何剥削和由企业造成的滥用行为定为非法。

代写被抓：企业社会责任

CSR is adopted as a reaction of corporate to mistrust of people and calls for more regulations. According to a UK research poll, most executives from financial department depicted through an interview that binding to regulations for organizations seems to be problematic and shows strong resistance. Organizations further argue that when standards are minimally set, they lead towards stopping innovation. Unless organizations gain a competitive benefit, CSR adoption cannot justify cost. Organizations essential hold the government to ransom over the problem of regulation illustrating that regulation threatens the positive work they are performing. Consultancy businesses for CSR support lobbying of the corporate in opposition to the set regulations and argue that regulations only defend against practices that are bad. They never promote any good practices. Such arguments, simply serve, however, to expose the CSR sham. This implies perhaps that organizations need to be selective on what areas of bad practices they want to remove and want to utilize their good practise to distract attention from the bad practices.

代写被抓：企业社会责任
If regulations distract from good practises, then organizations cannot act in a responsible way due to the belief that being morally right can help in gaining advantage on the competitors. The argumentative perspective that regulation hinders the efforts of voluntary nature on the part of the organization to improvise the behaviour has been accepted through governments who are keen to avoid regulatory responsibility when it comes to curbing the power of the corporate. The International development department of UK dismissed the thought of a globally legal binding conceptual framework for global organizations arguing that this would distract focus and will take power away from motivating CSR and towards processes of legal nature. As depicted in this argument, without any proof for effectiveness, the government has simply selected CSR to make illegal any exploitation by corporate and abuse caused by them.