The nature of nature as a stakeholder

Journal of Business Ethics

Volumn 96, Issue , 2010, Pages 73-78

  Laine, Matias ^a  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Natural environment; Nature; Stakeholder

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901610622     PISSN: 01674544     EISSN: 15730697     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0936-4     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ahlstedt, L., & Jahnukainen, I. (1971). Yritysorganisaatio yhteistoiminnan ohjausjärjestelmänä [in Finnish: The organization of a firm as a management system for co-operation]. Helsinki: Weilin and Göös.
2. Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55-73.
3. Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 879-888.
4. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113-135.
5. Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715-730.
6. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.
7. Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88-106.
8. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. K., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874-907.
9. Haigh, N., & Griffiths, A. (2009). The natural environment as a primary stakeholder: The case of climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(6), 347-359.
10. Haila, Y. (2000). Beyond the nature-culture dualism. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 155-175.
11. Haila, Y., & Dyke, C. (Eds.). (2006). How nature speaks? The dynamics of the human ecological condition. Durham: Duke University Press.
12. Haila, Y., & and Lähde, V. (2003), Luonnon poliittisuus: mikä on uutta? [in Finnish: The political nature of nature: what is new?]. In Y. Haila & V. Lähde (Eds.), Luonnon politiikka [in Finnish: Politics of nature]. Tampere: Vastapaino.
13. Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 131-154.
14. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
15. Lähde, V. (2008). Rousseau’s rhetoric of ‘nature’. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1344. Academic Dissertation, University of Tampere.
16. Macnaghten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested Natures. London: Sage.
17. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
18. Näsi, J. (1979), Yrityksen suunnittelun perusteet [in Finnish: The basis of corporate planning]. Tampere: University of Tampere, School of Business Administration, Series A1: 15
19. Näsi, J. (1980). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for scientific research. A paper presented at the Turku Conference on Social Responsibility in Marketing, May 1980.
20. Näsi, J. (1982). Towards a deeper comprehension of the social responsibility firms: Some philosophical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for scientific research. In Social responsibility in marketing. Turku: Publication of the Turku School of Economics, Series A-2.
21. Näsi, J., Näsi, S., & Savage, G. T. (1998). Nature as a stakeholder: One more speculation. In J. Calton & K. Rehbein, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual meeting of the international association for business and society (pp. 509-512). Kailua-Kona, HI.
22. Orts, E. W., & Strudler, A. (2002). The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 215-233.
23. Phillips, R. A. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(1), 51-66.
24. Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479-502.
25. Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 185-197.
26. Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Towards an ecocentric organization paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053-1089.
27. Rhenman, E., & Stymne, B. (1965). Företagsledning I en föränderlig värld [in Swedish: Corporate management in a changing world]. Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers.
28. Shrivastava, P. (1994). CASTRATED environment: GREENING organization studies. Organization Studies, 15(5), 705-726.
29. Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 118-137.
30. Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207-217.
31. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1996). Management for a small planet (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32. Stead, J. G., & Stead, E. (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 313-329.
33. Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the natural world. Changing attitudes in England 1500-1800. London: Allen Lane.
34. Wheeler, D., & Sillanpää, M. (1997). The stakeholder corporation. London: Pitman Publishing.
35. Williams, R. (1980). Ideas of nature. In R. Williams (Ed.), Problems in materialism and culture. London: Verso.