The original provision in the article is the notion that transformational socioeconomic processes in Russia resulted from the formation of business by one of the major subjects of socially responsible relationships, the effectiveness of which is provided by communication with the authorities and civil society, or social partnership. The article analyses approaches to understanding social responsibility in domestic and foreign traditions, summarizes the implementation of business practices of its social responsibility, and analyzes and summarizes the results of sociological research. The conclusion is made that the social partnership of business, authorities and the population are not always required by social practice. A hypothesis is formulated, the essence of which is that justification of the population in the sphere of protecting habitation and taking responsibility correlates with the level of trust in structures of power and decision-makers.

The object of research, the results of which are analyzed in the article, are employees of a number of industries with harmful production, where the risks are fixed at the legislative level. This category is commonly referred to as «risk consumers». The empirical base consists of data 27th «waves» (2018) «The Russian Monitoring of Economic Situation and Population Health, HSE (RLMS-HSE)». The purpose of the study was to identify factors that may be related to, or even determine, interaction strategies with changes in the social environment of employees of harmful industries. In the aggregate of employees of industries with harmful working conditions, two target groups were formed: those who actually experience harmful effects of risk factors and-conditionally, after working in an industry with harmful production («real» and «conditional» risk consumers). The methodological approach to data analysis in the article is based on the basic attitude of respondents about the strategy of behavior in a situation of risk imposed by the external environment. The preferred strategy of respondents’ behavior in each target group is determined. Further analysis is devoted to identifying signs and factors that can explain the fact that «real risk consumers» are mainly passive adaptants, «conditional risk consumers» are not just active, but actionly-active adaptants. The main conclusion that the analysis allows to make is that the level of adaptation of employees of harmful industries in the social environment and in the sphere of work to a greater extent than personal factors affects the choice of passive or active behavior in a situation of risk imposed by the environment.

Аннотация. В статье раскрывается методологический потенциал концепции ответственности в сфере регулирования экологических рисков в сообществах, проживающих в непосредственной близости от предприятий, производственный процесс которых характеризуется технологическими рисками. Вводится понятие эколого-экономического противоречия, раскрываются условия его формирования, субъекты, способы проявления. Анализируются зарубежные и отечественные подходы к пониманию ответственности бизнеса, стратегии и практики реализации принципов социальной ответственности бизнеса. На материалах конкретного социологического опроса проводится сравнительный анализ позиций градообразующего предприятия и местного сообщества в отношении сохранения окружающей среды и здоровья населения. Ключевые слова: экологические риски, эколого-экономическое противоречие, социальная ответственность, бизнес-сообщество. Постановка проблемы Социология риска имеет существенные достижения как в области теоретической рефлексии, так и в сфере эмпирических исследований. Методологические принципы таких концепций, как устойчивое развитие и стратегические риски, успешно выполняют свою объяснительную и прогностическую функцию при анализе процессов на глобальном и региональном уровнях. Концепция устойчивого развития

In the subject area of risk sociology, one topical direction is the study of the phenomenon of social responsibility of enterprises, the production process of which is characterized by technological risks, and contains a probability of damage to human health and threats to the environment. For workers in hazardous industries and emergency response services, risk as a probability of damage to health is a factor that in one way or another determines lifestyles. In Russia, almost half of those working in various industries work in hazardous conditions. The article compares the main indicators of everyday lifestyles of workers engaged in hazardous industries and working at safe production facilities. The empirical base is the data of the 25th wave (2016) of the Russian Monitoring of the Economic Situation and Health of the Population of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (RLMS-HSE). Target groups were formed for comparative analysis in order to obtain reliable information about the presence and nature of differences in the form and subjective self-assessment of respondents’ satisfaction with everyday life related to hazardous or safe working conditions. The indicators are grouped into several blocks: working environment; satisfaction with various aspects of life; socio-psychological well-being; health; attitude to risk. Comparative analysis of empirical data in general confirms that there are a number of specific parameters that characterize the daily life and adaptation practices of workers in hazardous industries, along with general parameters. The specifics identified require further in-depth research within the subject area of risk sociology.

No abstract