Abstract
The article examines the issues of comparison of private regulation and self-regulation of economic activity, highlights their types and features of means. Private regulation should be understood as: external (carried out by non-governmental organizations, business associations, self-regulatory organizations, business entities to resolve issues with third parties) and internal (created by business entities to regulate their own activities). Understanding the content of private regulation, self-regulation of economic activity has evolved from internal regulation within one state to cross-border international private regulation. Global support for self-regulatory tools is reflected in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and other universal initiatives for the business community. There was an expansion of understanding of the concept of “selfregulation” to a more capacious “private regulation” through the activities of non-governmental organizations, business associations, cross-border legal entities. The issue of regulatory control within private regulation remains open. Unlike external private regulation, internal self-regulation is aimed at the implementation of the internal organization of the entity, so the “undisputed” self-regulation is the individual level of a particular entity. Private regulation as well as self-regulation is carried out within the limits set by the state. Self-regulation should not be equated with private law regulation. The main emphases of CSR policies in wartime should be: protection of human rights, safety of workers (mobilization, evacuation), organization of the business entity (responsibility of each employee from the head of the company to the lower level of the executor, wages, taxes, etc.); assistance to the state, armed forces, employees and other citizens, termination of cooperation with resident counterparties of the Russian Federation and Belarus, withdrawal from the market of these states, etc. Saving human life must be a crucial CSR imperative in wartime.
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Co. LTD Ukrinformnauka) (Publications)
Reference42 articles.
1. 1. Honcharenko O.M. Teoretyko-pravovi zasady samorehuliuvannia hospodarskoi diialnosti: dys. … d-ra yuryd. nauk: 12.00.04. NDI pryvatnoho prava i pidpryiemnytstva imeni akademika F.H. Burchaka NAPrN Ukrainy. Kyiv, 2020. 489 p. [Гончаренко О.М. Теоретико-правові засади саморегулювання господарської діяльності: дис. … д-ра юрид. наук: 12.00.04. НДІ приватного права і підприємництва імені академіка Ф.Г. Бурчака НАПрН України. Київ, 2020. 489 с.].
2. 2. Overmars A.G.D. Effecten van gedragscodes: twee recente cases. Bestuurswetenschappen. No. 65-4. Augustus 2011. P. 14-31.
3. 3. Scott C. Cafaggi F. & Senden L. The Conceptual and Constitutional Challenge of Transnational Private Regulation. Journal of Law & Society. 2011. Vol. 38. Iss. 1. Р. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00532.x
4. 4. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. URL: http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/partners-stakeholders.htm (дата звернення: 10.04.2022).
5. 5. Schmitter P. Neo-corporatism and the State. In Wyn Grant (ed.), The Political Economy of Corporatism. London: Macmillan, 1984. P. 32-62.