KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

Neden Şirketlerin Sosyal Sorumluluğu: 21. Yuzyilda Yeni Bir Kavram

“Why Corporate Social Responsibility: A New Concept In The 21st Century”

Meltem Tumay
Sayfa
63–72
Yayın Tarihi
2009-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bu makale kisaca Sirketlerin sosyal Sorumlulugu kavramini performans ve raporlama konularini ele alarak inceleyecektir

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:ile en cok gelir elde etmektir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Ote taraftan etik degerlere onem veren isadamlari halka ve kendilerine karsi sorumluluklarinin da bilincinde olurlar.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu makale kisaca Sirketlerin sosyal Sorumlulugu kavramini performans ve raporlama konularini ele alarak inceleyecektir
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Sirketlerin Sosyal Sorumlulugu · Sirketler · Performans

Özet

ile en cok gelir elde etmektir. Ote taraftan etik degerlere onem veren isadamlari halka ve kendilerine karsi sorumluluklarinin da bilincinde olurlar. Bu sorumluluklarin yerine getirilmesi ahlaki ve sosyal sorumluluk davranisini olusturur. Sirketlerin Sosyal performansi kavrami is ve toplum literaturunde yillarca kullanilmis ise de cogunlukla bu kavram Sirketlerin sosyal sorumlulugu, sirketlerin sosyal activiteleri ya da is dunyasi ve sosyal cevre arasindaki iletisim kavramlari ile esanlamli olarak kullanilmistir. Bu makale kisaca Sirketlerin sosyal Sorumlulugu kavramini performans ve raporlama konularini ele alarak inceleyecektir

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Tumay, M. (2009). Neden Şirketlerin Sosyal Sorumluluğu: 21. Yuzyilda Yeni Bir Kavram. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 63–72. https://ajindex.com/articles/935928

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (26)

  1. Banarjee, B., Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Critical Sociology, Vol. 34, No. 1, 51-79 (2008)
  2. BITC Workshop, “Trends in Reporting,” using data from www.CorporateRegister.com, access date 15.02.2005
  3. Bohlman, Herbert M. and Dundas, Mary J. (1999). The Legal Ethical and International Environment of Business. West Educational Publishing, Cincinatti et al.
  4. Campbell, J.L., ‘Why Would Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? An Institutional Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility’ Academy of Management Review, 2007, Vol. 32, No. 3, 946–967
  5. Daft, Richard L. and Marcic, Dorothy. (1998). Understanding management, Philadelphia et.al. The Dryden Press.
  6. Godfrey, P.C., Hatch, N.W., ‘Researching Corporate Social Responsibility: An Agenda for the 21st Century’ Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 70: 87-98
  7. Handy, C. ‘What’s a business for?’ (2003) Harvard Business Review on corporate social responsibility: 65–82. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  8. Hopkins, Michael. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: an issues paper. International Labour Organization, Geneva
  9. Jenkins, H. ‘Small Business Champions for Corporate Social Responsibility’ Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 67:241–256
  10. Kaku, R. ‘The path of Kyosei’ (2003) Harvard Business Review on corporate social responsibility: 105–130. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
  11. Parker, L. (1986), “Polemical Themes in Social Accounting: A Scenario for Standard Setting”, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 1, pp. 67 - 93
  12. Pierick, E. ten, Beekman, V. et.al. (2004). A framework for analysing corporate social performance Beyond the Wood model. The Hague, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI),
  13. Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., ‘Strategy & Society, The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, December 2006
  14. Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. ‘Serving the world’s poor, profitably’ (2003) Harvard Business Review on corporate social responsibility: 1–26. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
  15. Preston, L.E. (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy. Volume 10. JAI Press, Greenwich (CT), 1988.
  16. Seidler, L. & L. Seidler (1975), “Social Accounting: Theory, Issues, and Cases”, Melville Publishing Company, US.
  17. Sethi, S.P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17, (3), 58-64.
  18. Sethi, S.P. (1995). Introduction to AMR’s special topic forum on shifting paradigms: Societal expectations and corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, (1), 18- 81.
  19. Schermerhon, John R. (2002). Management. New York et al. John Wiley & Sons Inc
  20. Steg, L., C. Vlek, S. Lindenberg, T. Groot, H. Moll, T. Schoot Uiterkamp, and A. van Wit- teloostuijn, (2003).Towards a comprehensive model of sustainable corporate performance. Groningen:University of Groningen,
  21. Swanson, D.L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, (1), 43-64.
  22. Waddock, S.A. & Graves, S.B. (1997b). Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations, are they synonymous? Business and Society, 36, (3), 250-279
  23. Wartick, S.L. & Cochran, P.L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, (4), 758-769.
  24. Welford R, Frost S. ‘Corporate social responsibility in Asian supply chains’ (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(3): 166–176.
  25. Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, (4), 691-718.
  26. Steg, L., C. Vlek, S. Lindenberg, T. Groot, H. Moll, T. Schoot Uiterkamp, and A. van Wit- teloostuijn, (2003).Towards a comprehensive model of sustainable corporate performance. Groningen:University of Groningen,