The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and …€¦ · The Relationship Between Stakeholders, ... Case Study: Nike ... The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations

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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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) .


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Documents

The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations and …€¦ · The Relationship Between Stakeholders, ... Case Study: Nike ... The Relationship Between Stakeholders, Corporations