No description available

No description available

Even today, the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility does not find a unique application in companies, despite the fact that the topic has been debated, with different levels of intensity, since the early 1900s, also in response to the social question. The useful question to face a reflection on the theme is: why does Corporate Social Responsibility not find uniquely identifiable methodologies to be applied? A fundamental variable to answer this question is that Corporate Social Responsibility is exercised with deeply different motivations and objectives according to the historical and social contexts where the company operates. The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility has been translated over time in many ways functional to different objectives: protection of the psycho-physical health of workers, improvement of the quality of the production process and marketing intended as sharing of well-being and, more recently, of defense of the natural balance of the planet. This evolution was possible because thanks to social and economic development, first of the industrialized countries and then more and more globalized, citizens were able to have the economic and cultural possibilities to be able to progressively change their purchasing behavior and businesses have consequently had economic convenience in implementing Corporate Social Responsibility policies and activities.

What makes the innovative process going on in our companies different from great innovations such as Taylorism? At the center of the innovative process we are experiencing is not primarily the optimization of the times and efforts dedicated to production, but creativity. The innovation most desired by companies today no longer has as its main objective the reduction of the costs of the production process or the increase in the quantity of goods / services produced with the consequent lowering of the unit cost for potential customers, but the increase in the desirability of products obtainable by increasing the usefulness, instrumental or status, of the goods and services offered. This increase in desirability can be obtained almost exclusively, in particular for the most radical innovations where computers cannot yet replace us, only through human (creative) brain. In this context, teleworking can certainly become an opportunity, both for companies and for workers, but, equally certainly, an instrument of alienation. If on the one hand this way of working can offer greater opportunities for reconciling professional needs with personal ones, facilitate creative processes thanks to the non-fixed exposure of the individual, to the same organizational context, on the other the separation between the worker and the environment corporate can involve processes of exclusion psychology, as well as physical, which could negatively impact on health, as well as on his working well-being. This paper aims to try to answer the question: How can we prevent the negative consequences of teleworking and facilitate the positive aspects for the human person?