Corporate social responsibility and requisite holism--supported by tradable permits.(Research Paper)(Report)

INTRODUCTION

Systems Research and Behavioural Science (Cordoba and Campbell, 2008b) provides information, that systemic thinking supports Corporate Social Responsibility (SR). Before this, another edition of it was devoted to ethics, paving the road for the topic on SR (McIntyre-Mills, 2008). Both editions follow European Union's suggestions (See: EU, 2000b, 2001; on 28 November 2008 we detected 1400000 publications on 'EU--social responsibility' in Google). We will do a further step in the same direction by discussing the ability of SR to support the requisite holism (RH; Table 1) as the crucial attribute of human behaviour to be attained by systemic thinking/behaviour. There are four major streams of defining SR: (1) EU covers an honest organizational/corporate behaviour towards co-workers, other stake holders, wider society, and humans' natural environment, on a free will basis (EU, 2001, 347 final: 5); (2) other authors see in SR an up-grading of total-quality and business-excellence models (for overview see: Gorenak and Mulej, 2009); (3) further authors see in SR a way from human one-sidedness to requisite holism, our-selves included; (4) 'peace may also result from SR' (Crowther and Caliyurt, 2004). We will illustrate SR's capacity to support RH behaviour in many situations/processes with a new global model of tradable C[O.sub.2] emissions permits. Thus, we will make a synergy of the approaches (1) and (3) to support business excellence with a new chance to apply SR--the RH environmental responsibility. SR reaches far beyond charity and philanthropy (Laszlo, 2008). This is especially crucial in current times of crisis resulting from one-sided rapid development leading to the blind alley of affluence (James, 2007; Knez-Riedl and Mulej, 2008; Bozicnik et al., 2008; Tatarkin, 2007; etc.). The Nobel Laureate for economics Gary Becker was one-sided when saying: 'The right to work and environment protection became exaggerated in most advanced countries. Free trade will destroy some of these extremes because it will force everyone to remain competitive when importing from developing countries' (Halimi, 2008). He mixed up development and growth and forgot about the longer-term and broader effects (Rihtaric, 2008).

ONE-SIDEDNESS VERSUS REQUISITE HOLISM

The humans' one-sided approach to running lives so far has put humankind's survival in danger. Data from e.g. climate research are clear: C[O.sub.2] emissions are not local, but worldwide/ global problem. Environmental problems are mental rather than natural problems. Sustainability depends on human ability rather than nature. The planet Earth will survive, like it has for billions of years, but will humankind with its current civilization, survive if humans do not practice RH/SR in their behaviour, i.e. monitoring, perception, thinking, spiritual and emotional life, decision making and action? (Ecimovic et al., 2002; Stern, 2006; Stern, 2007; Bozicnik et al., 2008; Ecimovic, 2008; Ecimovic and Mulej, 2008; etc.). Partial solutions, such as trading of C[O.sub.2] emissions limited to traffic or to the area of European Union only, are not RH in authors' approach and hence do not lead to requisite wholeness of insights, analysis and outcomes; they can therefore solve the problem fictitiously. RH/SR is needed to solve society-wide problems (e.g. McIntosh, 2003; Kubka, 2007; Waddock and Bolwell, 2007; Lahovnik, 2008; Mulej et al., 2007; Toth, 2008; Waddock, 2008; Wall, 2008); it may help the market and its regulators act less one-sidedly (Hrast et al., 2006, 2007, 2008; Bochko, 2007; Kozakov, 2007; Arias, 2008; Cordoba and Campbell, 2008a; Maclagan, 2008; Maon et al., 2008; Porter, 2008; Prasnikar and Cirman, 2008; Reynolds, 2008; Strovsky and Belyaeva, 2008; etc). A totally, i.e. really, holistic model and practice would be the best solution, but real holism reaches beyond human natural capabilities (e.g. Mulej, 2007). The realistic best solution is provided by RH (Mulej and Kajzer, 1998), with which a dialectical system, i.e. a synergetic network of all and only essential professions/viewpoints (Mulej, 1974, and later, incl. Mulej et al., forthcoming) is applied; Table 1 (Mulej, 2007).

Both parts of economic, individual and social activities that are one-sidedly done due to market rules and/or due to deliberate deceiving causing economic injustice (Bochko, 2007: 51), need regulation by SR/RH. Results depend on the prevailing values, culture, ethics and norms (Andreeva, 2007; Potocan and Mulej, 2007; etc.), including SR and aimed at RH.

In other words, the name of the searched innovation is a new economy, based on RH attained by SR and including sustainability, rather than on viewing the humankind's natural environment as an externality of the humankind's economy and survival, 'while the nature is deemed free rather than a very costly input in the economic and social processes, and waste is not considered their crucial output' (Tintor, 2008).

THE REQUISITE HOLISM, NEW ECONOMY, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY

If the current problems and complexity concerning sustainability have resulted from one-sidedness, the way out cannot be attained by specialists working in separation from each other, but rather as an innovation that is matching the European Union's definition of systemic behaviour (EU, 2000A, p. 6):

   The Action Plan (1) was firmly based on the
   'systemic' view, in which innovation is seen as
   arising from complex interactions between
   many individuals, organizations and environmental
   factors, rather than as a linear trajectory
   from new knowledge to new product. Support
   for this view has deepened in recent years.

This is what SR/RH and the new economy must be based on for humankind to survive, including the aspect of the natural preconditions for human survival called sustainable future or environmental care etc. (e.g. Prasnikar and Cirman, 2008). It must reach beyond superficial and one-sided 'solutions' of the worldwide financial crisis surfacing in 2008 as only a symptom of the one-sidedness of the current economic/ social theory and practice.

A discussion about the 'new economy' (Ing, 2008) brought several insights that can be summarized as follows: the new economy faces property revolution (because ownership of knowledge and creativity differs from ownership of tangible properties), information revolution (due to information/communication technology, and enormous quantity of potential information, etc.), serious new problems (due to one-sided piling up rather than covering cost of care for natural precondition of humankind's survival beyond the cost of both world wars combined or even much more), the need for much more transparency and participatory democracy in all organizations from families via enterprises, countries, to international associations (for RH/SR in human behaviour and less of the detrimental abuse/misuse of Adam Smith's concepts of self-interest and invisible hand, of the economic laws, and trust). On the basis of economics and economy of so far, namely, according to official data, 15-20% of humankind--the so called West and Japan and Pacific Rim …