The Relationship Between
Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR Claire Moore | October 2012
Executive Summary
This paper explores the relationship between corporations and their stakeholders and how that relationship can have an impact on the ways that corporations design and implement their corporate social responsibility strategies. It explores theories of corporate social responsibility and how globalization has moved the emphasis from the stakeholder theory of maximizing profits into the realm of engaging in social responsibility that includes a larger stakeholder constituency.
We point out that corporations engage in CSR activities for a number of reasons which all culminate in the desire to accrue benefit to the company and its immediate stakeholders. Because corporate executives are not cognizant of the motives and desires of all stakeholder groups in their sphere, they have come to rely on various forms of stakeholder dialog as a means to drive and monitor their CSR activities.
2 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Friedman's Mandate ............................................................................................................................................... 4
New Corporate Citizenship (NCC) .................................................................................................................... 5
Definitions and Terminology ............................................................................................................................. 5
Stakeholders and CSR ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Reasons for Engaging in CSR .............................................................................................................................. 8
Corporate Legitimacy ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Stakeholder issues ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Stakeholder dialog ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Stakeholder dialog in various countries .................................................................................................. 12
Case Study: Nike ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
CSR Reporting .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 16
References ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
3 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
INTRODUCTION
The traditional role of the corporation was to maximize profits within the dictates of
the law. The only duty owed by corporate executives was to the shareholders and any other
actions taken with corporate assets were a violation of that trust. In recent years, however,
the changes brought about by globalization and the availability of information and
communication through the Internet have influenced investors to make choices based on a
broader spectrum of goals and values. These changes in shareholder attitudes come at time
where we see government retreating from some of its traditional activities in the social arena.
The void left by government is being filled by corporations fueled by the new dictates from
shareholders to be more socially responsible. Finally, we have seen a change in definition of
the corporation from that of an "artificial person" with no social responsibility to an actual
person endowed with many of the rights of individuals.
This paper seeks to bring together the concepts of how corporations can engage in
ethical practices that are socially responsible and how stakeholders can be the driving and
directing force in that process. The link that makes stakeholder engagement possible is the
dialog that can be engaged in between the corporation and its stakeholders. Key to enhancing
meaningful dialog are transparency, a uniform system of disclosure and multidirectional
communication.
4 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
FRIEDMAN'S MANDATE
Corporations exist primarily to serve their owners, the stockholders of the company.
According to economist Milton Friedman, it is the primary purpose of a corporation to
increase its profits. Any other consideration is at best, irresponsible and at worst,
communism. Friedman asserts that only people can have responsibilities and that a
corporation is an artificial person. A business, in Friedman's view cannot have
responsibilities. It is however, incumbent on the corporate board of directors, who are
employees of the corporation, to serve the needs of the corporation and to do all that is
within their power, and within the letter of the law, to further corporate goals in the form of
increased profits. For a corporate executive to use company assets for any purpose other
than to increase profits is in Friedman's view, a violation of their duties to the company.
It is Friedman's belief that when the corporate executive spends corporate assets for
a socially responsible purpose that he is essentially imposing a tax on corporate stakeholders
by:
• raising the price of products to the customer
• lowering wages paid to the employees
• lowering the profits that accrue to the stockholders
The fault lies, according to Friedman, in placing more value on the political mechanisms
rather than market mechanisms in deciding how corporate assets can best be used. Friedman
sees this view as problematical in that it places the decision in the hands of the corporate
executive as to how assets will be used and whereas the executive may be an expert in
running a company, he may not be well versed in the best ways to accomplish social change.
Friedman wrote his essay on corporate responsibility in 1970 where it was published
in the New York Times Magazine. At that time his view was "chapter and verse" for corporate
practices. Much has happened in the forty years that have transpired since the publication of
5 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
Friedman's article. Globalization has added layers of complexity to the relationship between
corporations and their stakeholders who can see the results of corporate choices in the
changes within the environment and in economies across the globe. The power of technology
has enabled stakeholders to gather and analyze information without the intervention of the
corporation. As a result, stakeholders are demanding more input regarding how corporate
assets are used.
NEW CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP (NCC)
More recently we have seen the creation of a theory known as the New Corporate
Citizenship (NCC) where the role of the corporation is expanded to include many of the
services that have typically been provided by government. However, it is the assertion of
NCC's creators that government has withdrawn from many of its traditional responsibilities
and so the corporation must step in to take over in the forms of privatization of essential
services, providing essential services to third-world countries, and dealing with the impact of
globalization and its effects on both the economic markets and upon the environment.
According to NCC theory, shareholders, especially those with the largest corporate
holdings, will have the power to influence corporate policy through the influence of their vote
and their choices in where they invest their dollars.
DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
The concept of CSR has continued to evolve since its inception in the 1950s. What has
resulted is a variety of approaches. Dow Votaw approached the issues of CSR noting that it
had different meaning to different people:
To some it conveys the idea of legal responsibility or liability; to others, it means
socially responsible behavior in the ethical sense; to still others, the meaning
6 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
transmitted is that of ‘responsible for’ in a causal mode; many simply equate it with a
charitable contribution; some take it to mean socially conscious; many of those who
embrace it most fervently see it as a mere synonym for legitimacy in the context of
belonging or being proper or valid; a few see a sort of fiduciary duty imposing higher
standards of behavior on businessmen than on citizens at large (Votaw, 1972, p. 25).
Clarification regarding one, generally accepted definition of CSR has yet to be developed. In a
review of the different theories of CSR Garriga and Mele (2004) concluded that the theories
focused on four areas:
(1) meeting objectives that produce long-term profits,
(2) using business power in a responsible way,
(3) integrating social demands and
(4) contributing to a good society by doing what is ethically correct.
Sometimes the simplest definition is best and for that we can turn to J.F. Vos who said:
"CSR is defined as the obligations or duties of an organization to a specific system
of stakeholders."
The demands of meeting CSR objectives require interaction with stakeholders.
Here, again, we find differing views as to who are the stakeholders. Broadly
speaking, stakeholders are groups or individuals who are able to affect or be
affected by the decisions and actions of the company. Based on this definition,
stakeholders can include: employees, customers, vendors, shareholders, supply
chain associates, governments, not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) and residents
who live near a company location. Broadly speaking, stakeholders can include the
planet and every living thing on it. However, when discussing the stakeholder -
company relationship, it is more meaningful to focus on those stakeholders with
the more immediate relationship.
7 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
One of the primary challenges in CSR strategy is to identify the different stakeholder
groups and describe the extent of the company's responsibility to each group. Different
stakeholder groups will have their own objectives and it is possible that the objectives of
stakeholder groups will conflict with each other. Most stakeholders deliberately form a
relationship with a company in order to receive benefits from the relationship. For its part,
the company seeks benefits that translate to the furthering of company objectives and
ultimately increased profits. Key to success in the practice of CSR is the establishment of
effective stakeholder dialogue where the company communicates its willingness to provide
some social benefit to the stakeholder group and in response receives the approval of the
stakeholders based on their understanding of the benefit to them.
Some stakeholders are vital to the company's continuation. This group includes:
employees, customers, investors, shareholders and suppliers. Other stakeholders have a
more peripheral relationship to the company including: non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), the media, trade associations and interest groups. However, the ability of a
stakeholder to assert its influence is not only based on its relationship to the company. The
power to influence comes from power, legitimacy and urgency of the issues.
STAKEHOLDERS AND CSR
The move toward CSR activities that encompass more than the maximization of
profits appears to have grown in relationship to the move toward globalization and more
advances in information technologies. As corporations have moved their operations into
developing nations entities such as the United Nations and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) have created standards that corporations can use to
assess their behaviors. Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) claim that
8 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
globalization is responsible for the growing gap between the rich and poor as manifested by
the lack of access to technological advances and environmental degradation.
In addition to their desire for low-cost, quality goods, consumers have, over the past
several years, begun to demand more socially responsible behavior from companies. Interest
has grown in asking that companies be more diverse in their hiring and promotion practices
as well as more aware of the impact that their practices have on the financial and ecological
environment. For their part, companies, ever aware of maintaining their brand, seek to
enhance their image with the public and so they have moved to comply with stakeholder
interests.
REASONS FOR ENGAGING IN CSR
Reasons for engaging in CSR include: enlightened self-interest, contributing to social
investment as a cost of business, satisfying expectations that the company will be more
transparent and accountable for its activities, and satisfying growing expectations that
corporations are to do more than provide jobs, pay taxes and turn a profit.
Interest in meeting stakeholder expectations has no doubt been influenced by the
power of Internet technologies to allow stakeholders to discover information about a
company's practices and then to share comments and opinions about the company with
others across the globe. Technologies such as web sites, blogs and social media including
Facebook and Twitter, also allows stakeholders to connect with companies directly. Their
comments may appear on the company's web site.
The traditional source of legitimacy for corporations, profit, is no longer enough to
satisfy the various groups of stakeholders who interact with and are affected by corporate
policies. Even investors seeking profits are beginning to turn toward the practice of socially
responsible investing (SRI) when choosing what companies will benefit from their
9 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
investment dollars. According to the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment
(USSIF), socially responsible investing presently includes an estimated $3.07 trillion out of
$25.2 trillion in U.S. investments. Those engaging in SRI investing seek to obtain long-term
wealth while building a better world. SRI investors come from all industries from religious to
corporations. Institutional investors comprise the largest segment of SRI investors (Socially
responsible investing facts, 2011) .
Corporations are having to address CSR because of the growing pressures being
placed upon them from a variety of stakeholders including: investors, NGOs, governmental
agencies, customers and employees. Scandals such as Enron and WorldCom over the past ten
years have done nothing to improve the reputation of corporations. Globalization combined
with the power of digital communication has created an environment where businesses are
subject to scrutiny as never before. They have lost the control they once enjoyed over crafting
their image.
CORPORATE LEGITIMACY
Corporations seek legitimacy in order to gain acceptance and to continue to operate
and grow. Corporations actively promote their own legitimacy in a variety of ways.
Legitimacy may be achieved based on providing the benefits stakeholders want. As long as
the stakeholders perceive that there is benefit in the relationship, the company continues to
have legitimacy. For legitimacy to continue, the corporation must engage in a campaign to
constantly market its benefits to the stakeholder. If there is an event that causes stakeholders
to doubt the continued value in the benefit, then the relationship is at risk.
Legitimacy can also result from a stakeholder relationship where it is assumed that
the corporation serves the needs of the stakeholders. The corporation does not need to
engage in a continuous information campaign but it must monitor its image at all times. If any
10 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
of its activities are perceived as being done solely to build the company image, then the
relationship may be harmed.
Corporations may also gain legitimacy by engaging in CSR activities because they are
the right thing to do. Choosing such activities requires communication and discussion
regarding the best actions to take and appropriate means of involvement.
Whatever method of legitimacy is used is based on assumptions made by corporate
executives. Each method is a strategy aimed at influencing how stakeholders perceive the
corporation. However, in a world that has become globalized, it is becoming more difficult for
executives to accurately identify and address stakeholder issues. Perhaps this is why one sees
corporations engaging in CSR rhetoric before one sees actual practice.
Castello and Lozano (2011) illustrated how Nike's CSR rhetoric has changed over a
period of years from a stakeholder theory approach stressing performance to a mood of open
dialog and willingness to address sustainability issues. Nike's 2005 annual report included a
statement from then Chairman, Phil Knight:
Our goal in writing this report has been to be as accurate, complete and honest as
we can be about how Nike performs. (Nike, 2005).
Then, in 2008, President and CEO of Nike Mark Parker took a less defensive position moving
instead toward a moral legitimacy:
We are designing for the sustainable economy of tomorrow, and the us that means
using fewer resources, more sustainable materials, and renewable energy to
produce new products (Nike, 2008) .
11 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
STAKEHOLDER ISSUES
Corporations still lag in their CSR efforts compared to stakeholder expectations. The
Second Annual Corporate Social Responsibility Survey released in 2010 revealed that 75
percent of consumers thought that CSR is important. Fifty-five percent would choose a
product based on the CSR policies of its maker and 70 percent said that they would be willing
to pay more for a product from a company that they feel is socially responsible (The 2010
Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions Survey, 2010) .
STAKEHOLDER DIALOG
From the point of view of the corporation, stakeholders can be a source of resources
in the form of capital and information but they can also be a source of restrictions of the
companies strategies. The amount of power that a stakeholder group holds depends upon
how much the company depends on the stakeholders for resources and how much pressure
the stakeholders can bring to bear on the company. An example of stakeholder pressure
influencing corporate practice is the incident Shell Oil's Brent Spar crisis, an oil platform that
the company wanted to dump into deep ocean waters. Greenpeace opposed the move and
was able to secure the support of several media outlets prior to its offshore demonstrations
against Shell. The pressure of public scrutiny forced Shell to abandon its plan.
Since the 1990s companies have put more energy into conducting stakeholder
dialogue. The result has been the addition of a new property to the stakeholder - company
relationship, that of value creation. The highest level of stakeholder interaction as a process
where management decision making includes the input of stakeholders such as NPOs,
investors and personnel from government who are invited to share input, discuss and debate
problems such as environmental management and then collaborate in practical mutual
activities. The value derived from meaningful, multi-directional dialogue is that the company
12 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
executives gain a richer understanding of how their planned strategies may impact
stakeholders and what the consequent reactions might be. By gaining this information prior
to committing company resources to strategies, managers can integrate stakeholder input
into the decision process and fine-tune planned strategies. Von Krogh and Roos (1995) went
so far as to say:
Strategic conversations are also about the creation and acquisition of resources
for the future and how these resources should be allocated in the future. In short,
strategic conversations are the cradle of a company's strategy.(p.392)
If management does not engage in strategic dialogue with stakeholders it risks isolating itself
and limiting its capabilities just as it limits its perspective.
STAKEHOLDER DIALOG IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
Stakeholder dialog tends to take different forms in different countries. In Germany,
for example, CSR dialog focuses on initiatives that involve the employees while Italian firms
spread their attention among different groups of stakeholders. In the U.S., CSR dialog is split
between employees and social communities. In practice, U.S. firms tend to be more explicit,
communicating both actions and strategies to stakeholders while European countries take an
implicit approach where communication is rare and less complete.
Stakeholder dialog may be implicit in Germany due to the extensive regulation that
renders many CSR activities part of normal business operations. Additional efforts at CSR are
seen as good citizenship and CSR activities tend to focus on creating better relationships with
the community and business partners.
CSR activities in Italy mirror the national business system which experiences frequent
government intervention and an emphasis on discussion that is inclusive of differing
constituencies. Policies are usually developed after discussion and ultimately consensus is
13 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
reached. In 2004 the Ministry of Welfare developed a project that created CSR standards that
could be adopted by firms on a voluntary basis. The project worked to increase awareness of
CSR and to promote a culture of shared responsibility.
The U.S. approach to CSR tends to be that of enlightened self-interest where the
purpose of CSR is to both increase profits and promote social welfare. U.S. firms are more
explicit in communicating their CSR activities to shareholders because it serves their
interests to do so. Communication helps to inform and persuade stakeholders of the value
derived from the CSR activities. It is also hoped that the bond between the company and
stakeholders, especially stockholders, will be strengthened as common goals and interests
are seen to align.
CASE STUDY: NIKE
Nike was founded in 1964 as Blue Ribbon Sports with the aim to import athletic shoes
from Japan in competition with the industry leaders based in Germany. The company opened
its first retail location in 1972 and changed its name to Nike. The following years brought
significant and rapid growth until Nike became the world's largest manufacturer of athletic
supplies.
Nike's strategy for dealing with the growth in sales was to move its operations from
one supplier to the next in search of lower costs. Its first contracts were with operations in
Japan but succeeding moves led to Taiwan, Korea and then to less-developed labor markets
in China, Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam where protections for labor are fewer and
regulations more lax. Because of its attention on growth, Nike's executives lost sight of the
impact that its practices were having on its labor force until the situation was brought to its
attention in an incendiary article in the New York Times in 1996. The terms "slave labor" and
"sweat shops" were used to describe Nike's business practices. Nike executives were
14 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
portrayed as "uncaring multimillionaires" at the top of a "pyramid of exploitation" while Nike
workers were being crushed beneath the weight of the pyramid.
More attention was heaped on Nike until finally demonstrations broke out at Nike
locations resulting in arrests at one venue. Nike's first response was to rally its PR
department to do damage control by creating a marketing campaign based on spreading
word that factory conditions were in fact, equitable and that laborers were being paid fairly.
Much like its sales campaigns Nike expected that this would accomplish its objectives.
A complaint was filed by Marc Kasky alleging that Nike had made several
misrepresentations in its PR statements and that these statements were intentional and
reckless. Nike cited its first amendment rights to free speech and the trial court was left to
decide on the difference between commercial and noncommercial speech. The California
Supreme court ruled against Nike for failure to uphold truth in communications. The case
made its way to the U.S.
Supreme Court and was sent back to a lower court. After five years the parties reached a
settlement in September 2003 to the dismay of human rights activists who had hoped to
expose Nike's practices through legal discovery procedures.
The Nike case is interesting because of the issues that it raises pertaining to CSR. First,
the company attempted to defend itself based on asserting its first amendment right to free
speech (as opposed to commercial speech which is subject to strict regulation), a right
allowed to individuals. Nike, by taking its stand, was asserting its position as a person with all
the rights of personhood allowed by our Constitution. The issue of whether or not the
statements made by Nike were commercial speech were based on the motive for making the
statements. If the motive was to increase sales and profits then it could be deemed
commercial.
15 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
Nike has made efforts to improve its image if not its labor practices as evidenced by
its CSR reports on its web site (Nike Corporate Responsibility Report, 2010). However,
interest groups such as Oxfam's Nike Watch still assert that Nike has a long way to go in
improving workers rights at its hundreds of factories in Asia.
CSR REPORTING
Some experts posit that companies doing business in the U.S. be required to disclose
practices relating to CSR activities such as labor and sustainability practices. Moreover, they
suggest that such disclosures adhere to a specified reporting standard, be presented in their
10-Ks and balance sheets and be subject to independent audit. This social auditing would
provide companies with metrics and measures that could be used to assess their behaviors
and activities. It is the opinion of some experts that pressure from stakeholders will force
companies to engage in CSR reporting just as companies were forced to comply with
Sarbanes-Oxley in their financial reporting after the financial scandals of 2001. In fact,
according to the 2009 SIRAN report, 93 out of the Standard and Poor's 100 now include
sustainability information on their web sites. SIRAN also cited a marked increase in the
number of companies that have adopted the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for their
reporting procedures. According to SIRAN, the GRI standards provide a comprehensive and
consistent framework for measuring and comparing sustainability measures.
Engaging in CSR activities has become an imperative rather than a choice for
companies. Rather than meeting the CSR obligation defensively, companies would better
serve themselves and their stakeholders if they embrace the process and the benefits that it
can bring in return. While not all monetary costs can be recouped, with attention, they can be
managed. In return for their efforts, companies will find a return on investment of another
kind -- stakeholder support and an enhanced reputation among all stakeholder groups.
16 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
CONCLUSION
Corporations engage in CSR because they realize that they must. Corporations need
their stakeholders, especially the stockholders, and stockholders need the corporations.
Although, corporations need stockholders more. Stockholders have exercised their CSR
choices by investing their dollars in companies that align themselves with the same issues
that interest them. In order for this relationship to be effective, corporations have to engage
in meaningful dialog with stakeholders. Such dialog is most productive when it is
multidirectional allowing for an exchange of views and information. This exchange has been
enhanced by technological advances, most of which are Internet based, the allow for
stakeholders to discover information and share it instantly. Stakeholders are also able to
voice their views in more public forums than before. Even though corporations still persist in
activities that are not in keeping with the spirit of CSR, the fact that stakeholders are
discovering and using their power to influence policy give one hope that in time, corporations
will continue to move toward behaviors that are not only profitable but socially responsible.
17 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
REFERENCES
ASOCIO. (2004, June). Corporate Social Responsibility. ASOCIO Policy Paper: Corporate Social Responsibility . ASOCIO.
Castello, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics , 100, 11-29.
Citizenship, C. f. (2002). International corporate social responsbility (CSR) standards and norms:Present situation, future challenges. Nippon Keidanren.
DeSimone, P. (2009, December 17). Press Release: Number of S&P 100 Firms Producint Sustainability Reports Jumps by More Than a Third; Nearly All Offer Sustainability Information. Retrieved October 17, 2011, from US SIF: http://ussif.org/news/releases/pressrelease.cfm?id=148
DeTienne, K. B., & Lewis, L. W. (2005). The pragmatic and ethical barriers to corporate social responsibility disclosure: The Nike case. Journal of Business Ethics , 60, 359-376.
Friedman, M. (2010). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In L. H. Newton, E. E. Englehardt, & M. Pritchard, Taking sides: Clashing views in business ethics and society (pp. 56-61). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics , 53, 51-71.
Habish, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., & Schwartz, C. (2011). Different talks with different folks: A comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S. Journal of Business Ethics , 100, 381-404.
Herbert, B. (1996, June 10). In America; Nike's Pyramid Scheme. Retrieved October 17, 2011, from New York Times Opinion: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/10/opinion/in-america-nike-s-pyramid-scheme.html
Hewett, A. (2008, January 23). Letter to Mark Parker CEO of Nike. Retrieved October 17, 2011, from Oxfam Australia: Nike: http://www.oxfam.org.au/site-media/pdf/OAus-Nike-0108.pdf
Kasky v. Nike Inc. Settled. (2003, September 12). Retrieved October 17, 2011, from ReclaimDemocracy.org: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/nike_settles_lawsuit.html
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing , 39 (9/10), 956-1219.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review , 166-179.
Miles, M. P., Munilla, L. S., & Darroch, J. (2006). The role of strategic conversations with stakeholders in the formation of corporate social responsibility strategy. Journal of Business Ethics , 69, 195-205.
18 White Paper | The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and CSR
Nike Corporate Responsibility Report. (2010). Retrieved October 15, 2011, from Nike Corporate Responsibility: http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/
Nike. (2005). Corporate Responsibility Report fy o4. Nike.
Nike. (2008). Nike Corporate Responsibility Report 2008. Nike.
O'Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics , 83, 745-758.
Savage, D. G. (2002, October 15). Nike Takes Ad Liability Case to High Court. Retrieved October 17, 2011, from Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/15/local/me-nike15
Socially responsible investing facts. (2011). Retrieved October 15, 2011, from US SIF: http://ussif.org/resources/sriguide/srifacts.cfm
The 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions Survey. (2010, March 29). Retrieved October 15, 2011, from The Burson_Marsteller Blog: http://www.burson-marsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=170
Tokoro, N. (2007). Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility (CSR): A new perspective on the structure of relationships. Asian Business & Management , 6, 143-162.
Von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1995). Conversation management. European Management Journal , 13 (4), 390-394.
Vos, J. F. (2003). Corporate social responsibility and the identification of stakeholders. Corporate Social - Responsibility and Environmental Management , 10 (3), 141-152.
Votaw, D. (1972). Genius became rare: A comment on the doctrine of social responsibility pt. 1. California Management Review , 15 (2), 25-31.
Wilhelm, K. (2009). Return on Sustainability. Indianapolis, IN: DogEar Publishing.