Formation Of Socially Responsible Relations System As Condition Of Growth In Well-Being

Social responsibility of state

The social responsibility of the state reveals itself in social policy pursued by the state, which at the core should ensure human rights to well-being and social security in a given society. At that, as the experience of developed countries demonstrates, the social responsibility of the state reveals itself not only and not so much in the ability to distribute social benefits and support the social area, as in the ability to provide the conditions necessary for economic growth, for unlimited activities of individuals able to create goods and take care of themselves and their close ones.

The development of effective social policies is one of the most important tasks of Russian officials in modern conditions. Not only the living conditions of ordinary people depend on how this challenge is addressed, but also prospects for social and economic development of the country as well as national security.

It is suggested that four main functions should be outlined in determining the optimal type of social policy for Russia: ensuring social and political stability; help to the poor; ensuring the competitiveness of the country in the international arena in the globalized world by means of its human capital assets; ensuring the integration of society, its internal solidarity and cohesion.

To implement each of the functions requires different types of resources in different volumes and, to a large extent, different techniques of their use. For example, if the dominant function of social policy is to ensure stability, then resources are primarily directed to assist those population strata that are able to conduct protest actions. If the second function prevails, then the targeting of social care is increased. When they say that in today's world, social policy has long ago turned into a powerful tool to improve the quality of the human capital assets of the country, and ultimately to ensure its competitiveness in the international arena, investments in human capital assets become a priority.

In recent years, budget system expenditures on the social sector have made more than a half of the overall budget expenses. Only over the last four years, they have grown 1.5 times in absolute terms, and in terms of the GDP share – from 18% to 21%. (Federal State Statistics Service, 2016). The level of social protection is growing. At that, it is higher in Russia than in countries with comparable labor performance levels and per capita income. Thus, the emphasis is placed on the implementation of the second function of social policy listed above. At the same time, dissatisfaction among the population about the current state of affairs remains.

The Russian Academy of Sciences' data indicate that the most relevant aim of social policy that also complies with ideas of Russian citizens about social justice is to enhance the quality of the human capital asset of the country. Research has shown that the ideals of a conservative model of a social welfare state with reasonable social differentiation, an active role of state in everything that is related to the equality of chances and state guarantees of the satisfaction of minimum basic needs as the basis of views about social justice are close to the views of Russian population. In many respects, it is such a state that is able to provide conditions for the continual well-being of its citizens.

Today, the development of continual well-being in Russian economy is hindered by such problems as difficulties for university and college graduates in job placement, low wages, shadow economy, and relatively low social payments (Gasanov & Zhironkin, 2014). In fact, social well-being can only be applied to the working-age Russian population with a stable income. Upon reaching advanced age and retirement, being provided with material benefits in Russia is greatly reduced.

Social responsibility of Russian businesses and civil society actors

Corporations often portray themselves as socially responsible members of society. These actions extend to, but are not limited to, the community where the firm operates; the environment; and the firm’s treatment of employees, suppliers, and customers. The last few decades have seen a surge in corporate social responsibility (CSR). In 2014, U.S. and U.K. firms in the Fortune Global 500 spent $15.2 billion on CSR. Investors increasingly appear to value CSR. According to a 2010 report on the trend in socially responsible investing, $3.07 trillion of the professionally managed U.S. assets was tied to socially responsible investing (Jha & Cox, 2015).

The social responsibility of businesses is a new phenomenon in the Russian economy. In general terms, it is a self-restriction of free enterprises in order to improve the social climate within the enterprise, create favorable conditions for attracting investments and motivating employees, and a growth in labor productivity. In these terms, it is common practice to distinguish between internal (enterprise staff-oriented, and including investments in human capital assets) and external (outside of an enterprise and local community-oriented) social responsibility. At that, corporate social responsibility is not only a management technology, pursuing purely market goals and results, but also an indicator of social activity, social functions, companies and should be aimed at continual human (employee) well-being in the organization (Karpova, Ardashkin, & Kabanova, 2015). It should also facilitate the development of a social environment inside the organization and outside it, the development and maintenance of social bonds and social relations.

Therefore, when evaluating corporate social responsibility, it is important to take into account the contribution of business to the well-being of an employee and the continual well-being of the local community and society as a whole. An evaluation of well-being takes into account social responsibility at both macro and micro levels.

Social responsibility at the macro level assumes the participation of business in the implementation of social programs at the level of society. These programmes may relate to social investments in education, health care, security, environmental programs and environmental protection (Bhardwaj, Chatterjee, Dogerlioglu, & Ozge, 2017).

Social responsibility at the micro level assumes participation of businesses (represented by owners and managers) in the implementation of social programs aimed at enterprise employees; implementation of corporate social policies by businesses (Barrena, Lopez, Pedro, & Romero, 2015).

Both internal and external social programs are the most viable forms of the implementation of the social responsibility of businesses in Russia at the present stage. Costs associated with their implementation represent social investments and assume the achievement of a strategic social and economic effect by an enterprise. The prevalence of "internal" corporate social investments over "external" ones is a current trend in Russia: the ratio is approximately 60/40. This has been a sustainable, long-term trend. According to the Social investments fund, as for the amount of expenditures on the social area, the average index is 17% of the profits of companies, which is equal to about 1% of GDP (Anikeeva, 2012).

However, despite the favorable trends in the establishment and development of Russian socially responsible businesses, a number of factors that hinder the introduction of corporate social responsibility may be distinguished. Such factors include the following: the opacity of budgetary expenditures and corrupt officials, lack of a support policy from the authorities, lack of tax exemptions, the imperfection of the existing legislation, complexity of embezzlement prevention, as well as the weakness of the civil society and social partnership.

Businesses can only develop in a certain institutional environment formed by regulating rules, regulations, procedures, both in the economic and social area, which in turn opens the door for the institutionalization of entrepreneurship in the Russian society. In order to do this, businesses needs to interact with the organizational institutions of society, which are represented in Russia mainly by state government bodies. Thus, under modern conditions, the development of a socially responsible behavior in entrepreneurship is only possible with a purposeful support from the state and its active participation in the solution of social problems.

The state plays a significant role in the establishment and development of a civil society in Russia. The question of the development of a civil society in the context of our study is of special interest because it is the social area which has enough room to unleash its potential. The plurality of civil society subjects gives an opportunity to reduce the excessive social load on the state budget due to the ability of non-governmental institutions to accumulate a large amount of funds and resources needed to solve social problems on the grassroots level. Internal civil society institutions are quite diverse. In this paper, "civil society institutions" refer to the following: the local government (in the non-governmental sense of this phenomenon); public organizations (non-profit organizations); individuals and their families.

The civil society in Russia is not yet a completed democratic project. In many ways, its development is hindered by the current state of the Russian society itself: sociocultural characteristics (paternalism, traditional character); the poor social structure with an underrepresented middle class; material insecurity of the majority of the population, the nature of power (tendency for monopolization, irremovability, bureaucratization).

Today, Russia needs time in order to form institutions of civil society in this country, and the state plays an important role in this process. A civil society, as well as businesses, requires a certain level of social responsibility of the state, in this case, manifesting itself in the creation of optimal conditions for the implementation of their fundamental vital interests, support for various forms of citizen participation in the discussion and solution of social, economic, and other issues (Yakimova, 2014).

At the same time, the social responsibility of Russian citizens is a necessary component of an effective civil culture, whose growth begins when multiple requirements are met, as the experience of developed countries shows. First, an improvement in the economic and social situation of the population in accordance with the growth in business activity. Second, wide participation of citizens in the ownership and administration of property. Third, the provision of a justified differentiation of income and consumption depending on the results of the activity, including entrepreneurial activity, of citizens. Fourth, the society has reached an optimum ratio level of expenditures on social purposes, which are taken on by the state, its citizens with their income, and entrepreneurs.