Observing corporate social performance empirically through the acceptability concept: A global study

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 183-196

  Mikkilä, Mirja ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^b University of Joensuu ^*  (Finland)

Author keywords

Business ethics; Cross cultural comparison; Environment; Globalization; OSR NVivo program; Pulp and paper industry; Qualitative analysis; Stakeholder

Indexed keywords

EID: 29344462175     PISSN: 15353958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/csr.84     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Alasuutari P. 1996. Researching Culture. Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. Sage: London.
2. Carroll AB. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 4: 497-506.
3. Carroll AB. 1995. Stakeholder thinking in three models of management morality: a perspective with strategic implications. In Understanding Stakeholder Thinking, Näsi J (ed.). Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy: Jyväskylä; 47-74.
4. Eskola J, Suoranta J. 1998. Johdatus Laadulliseen Tutkimukseen. Vastapaino: Tampere.
5. Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: London.
6. Frederick WC. 1995. Values, Nature, and Culture in the American Corporation. Oxford University Press: New York.
7. Glaser B, Strauss A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine: New York.
8. Greenwood M. 2001. The importance of stakeholder according to business leaders. Business and Society Review 106(1): 29-49.
9. Halme M. 1997. Environmental Management Paradigm Shifts in Business Enterprises, Acta Universitas Tamperensis 542. University of Tampere: Tampere.
10. Harrison JS, Freeman RE. 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 479-485.
11. Hellström E. 2001. Conflict Cultures - Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Environmental Conflicts in Forestry, Silva Fennica Monograph 2, doctoral thesis, Department of Environmental Economics, University of Helsinki.
12. Jeurissen RJM, van Luijk HJL. 1998. The ethical reputation of managers in nine EU-countries: a cross-referential survey. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 995-1005.
13. Luomanen J, Räsänen P. 2002. Tietokoneavusteinen Laadullinen Analyysi ja QSR NVivo-Ohjelmisto, Sociological Research A25, Department of Sociology, University of Turku.
14. Mikkilä M. 2003. Acceptability of operations as an indicator of corporate social performance. Business Ethics: a European Review 12(1): 78-87.
15. Mikkilä M, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T. 2005. Multi-attribute assessment of acceptability of operations in the pulp and paper industries. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 227-243.
16. Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage: London.
17. Quazi AM, O'Brien D. 2000. An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 25: 33-51.
18. Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill: New York.
19. Uimonen A-M. 1998. Nätti-Jussin Uudet Seikkailut, Suomalainen Metsäteollisuus Ympäristöpaineissa 1990-luvun Saksassa [Nätti-Jussi's New Adventures, Finnish Pulp and Paper Industries under Environmental Pressure in Germany in the 1990s], Lisensiaattitutkimus, Taloustieteellinen osasto, Julkaisuja No. 113/1998. Jyväskylän yliopisto: Jyväskylä (in Finnish).
20. Yin RK. 2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5. Sage: London.