LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Grosser, Kate (2011)
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects:
There is a growing literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and gender issues, which draws upon a range of feminist theory and perspectives. However,research in this field appears to have been somewhat hampered by a lack of systematic engagement with ‘gendered organizations’ studies (GOS), and with a broad range of CSR theory, in particular that related to governance. This thesis sets out to address these gaps in the literature. It opens up new dialogue between the fields of GOS and CSR. Through a review of the GOS literature this study notes a number of organizational change strategies identified by feminist scholars. With reference to these it develops a set of research questions with which to investigate the possible contribution of CSR to organizational change with regard to gender equality. These are then employed in an exploration of CSR practice, focusing on CSR reporting and stakeholder relations. Through this analysis the thesis identifies several ways in which CSR might contribute to advancing the feminist organizational change agenda. Particular attention is paid to recent developments in political theories of CSR, which regard CSR as a governance process involving business, government and civil society. Thus, the thesis addresses organizational change and gender equality in the context of new governance, and particularly CSR, and by extending the literature both empirically and conceptually produces insights for feminist studies relating to CSR theory and practice. Noting that the private sector is playing an increasingly important role in employment, and more broadly in societal governance in many parts of the world, and the growth of CSR, research in this thesis critically engages with CSR literature and practice from a feminist perspective. The research presented assesses the importance of CSR for organizational change on gender equality through an investigation of two related questions, namely how gender equality issues are addressed within CSR practice, and how CSR might help advance organizational change on this agenda. These questions are explored through the use of nine secondary research questions in three studies involving document analysis of company reports, and semi-structured interviews with corporate managers, and with leaders of women’s NGOs. The thesis thus updates our knowledge of CSR reporting on gender equality issues, and explores the views of corporate managers about CSR and gender equality. It also investigates the views of leaders in women’s NGOs on private sector accountability for gender equality, and the field of CSR more broadly, thus engaging with a group of stakeholders not normally included in the CSR literature. The research suggests that, despite its limitations, CSR can contribute to the gender organizational change agenda in several ways, which revolve around the new governance systems which CSR presages. These include new organizational rhetoric and practices, new external drivers of change within business, and new kinds of regulation. The three studies are informed by, and contextualised with reference to the CSR literature on governance, and are ultimately brought together in a discussion of CSR as a governance process from a feminist perspective. From this vantage point the potential of CSR to facilitate organizational change suggested in this thesis appears to be underdeveloped at the present time. While recognizing many important critiques of the field, with reference to the research outcomes the thesis frames CSR as a political opportunity with regard to gender equality. The aim here is therefore to contribute not only to knowledge but also perhaps to feminist action.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Grosser, K. and Moon, J. 2005, 'Gender Mainstreaming and Corporate Social Responsibility: Reporting Workplace Issues', Journal of Business Ethics, 62 (4), pp.327-340.
    • 2. Grosser, K., and Moon, J. 2005a, 'The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Gender Mainstreaming', International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7 (4), pp.532-554.
    • 3. Grosser, K. and Moon, J. 2006. Best Practice Reporting on Gender Equality in the UK: Data, Drivers and Reporting Choices. ICCSR Research Paper Series. No. 35-2006 - ISSN 1479-5124.
    • 4. Grosser, K. and Moon, J. 2008, 'Developments in Company reporting on Workplace Gender Equality: A Corporate Social Responsibility Perspective'. Accounting Forum, Vol 32, pp.179-198.
    • 5. Grosser, K., Adams, C., and Moon, J. 2008, Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace: a study of corporate disclosure. Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants (ACCA), London.
    • 6. Grosser, K. 2009. CSR and Gender Equality: Women as stakeholders and the EU sustainability Strategy. Business Ethics: A European Review Vol 18 No 3, pp.290-307.
    • Hearn, J. 2000. On the Complexity of Feminist Intervention in Organizations. Organization, 7, 609-624.
    • Hemmati, M. 2002. Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability. Beyond Deadlock and Conflict, London, Earthscan.
    • Henderson 2002. Closing Britain's Gender Pay Gap. London: Henderson Global Investors.
    • Hendry, J. 2005. Stakeholder Influence Strategies: An Empirical Exploration Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 79-99.
    • Hillman, A. J. and Keim, G. D. 2001. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What's the Bottom Line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125-140.
    • Hoare, J. 2007. Editorial. Gender Research Methods. Gender and Development, 15, 177-185.
    • Hoffman, A. 1999. INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION AND CHANGE: ENVIRONMENTALISM AND THE US CHEMICAL INDUSTRY. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351-371.
    • Horkheimer, M. 1973. 'Forward' The Dialectical Imagination: A history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950 London, Heinemann.
    • Humphreys, M. and Brown, A. 2002. Narratives of Organizational Identity and Identification: A Case Study of Hegemony and Resistance. Organizaton Studies, 23, 421-447.
    • Humphreys, M. and Brown, A. D. 2008. An analysis of corporate social responsibility at credit line: A narrative approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 403.
    • Huse, M. 2008. Corporate innovations: Women on boards of directors - Lessons learnt from Norway. Norwegian School of Management.
    • IFC 2007. Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets. Washington: International Finance Corporation.
    • IFF 2009. Private Company Reporting of Workforce Diversity Data. London: IFF Research.
    • Jagger, A. (ed.) 1994. Living With Contradictions - Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics, Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.
    • Jahan, R. 1995. The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development, London, Zed Books.
    • Jayaratne, T. E. and Stewart, A. J. 2009. Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences: Current Feminist Issues and Practical Strategies. In: Jagger, A. M. (ed.) Just Methods. An Interdisciplinary Feminist Reader. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
    • Jenkins, H. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Mining Industry: Conflicts and Constructs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11, 23-34.
    • Johnson, H. L. 1971. Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.
    • Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C. and Symon, G. 2006. Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 131-156.
    • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. and Kelly, E. 2006. Best Practice or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589-617.
    • Kamenou, N. 2007. Methodological considerations in conducting research across gender, 'race', ethnicity and culture: a challenge to context specificity in diversity research methods. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1995-2010.
    • Kamenou, N. 2008. Reconsidering Work-Life Balance Debates: Challenging Limited Understandings of the 'Life' Component in the Context of Ethnic Minority Women's Experiences. British Journal of Management, 19, S99- S109.
    • Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation, New York, Basic Books.
    • Kaplinsky, R. 2005. Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Cambrige, Polity.
    • Kaptein, M. and Van Tulder, R. 2003. Toward Effective Stakeholder Dialogue. Business & Society Review, 108, 203-224.
    • Kilgour, M. A. 2007. The UN Global Compact and substantive equality for Women: revealing a 'well hidden' mandate. Third World Quarterly, 28, 751-773.
    • Kingsmill, D. 2001. A Review of Women's Employment and Pay. London: Women and Equality Unit, Cabinet Office.
    • Konrad, A., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J. (eds.) 2006. Handbook of Workplace Diversity, London: Sage.
    • Korten, D. C. 2001. When Corporations Rule the World,, London, Earthscan.
    • KPMG 2005. International survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG.
    • KPMG 2008. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Social Responsiblity Reporting. Amsterdam: KPMG.
    • Kurma, S. and Vinnicombe, S. 2008. A Study of the Promotion to Partner Process in a Professional Services Firm: How Women are Disadvantaged. British Journal of Management, 19, S65-S74.
    • Kurtz, L. 2008. Socially Responsible Investment and Shareholder Activism. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Kurucz, E. C., Colbert, B. A. and Wheeler, D. 2008. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., Carrasco-Fenech, F., Caro-Gonzalez, F. J., Correa-Ruız, C. and Paez-Sandubete, J. M. 2001. The roleof environmental accounting in organizational change. An exploration of Spanish companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14, 213-239.
    • Larson, A. and Freeman, R. E. (eds.) 1997. Women's Studies and Business Ethics: Towards a New Conversation, New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Lawson, T. 2007. Gender and social change. In: Browne, J. (ed.) The Future of Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Lee, M. D. P. 2008. A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 53-73.
    • Lee, R. M. 1993. Doing research on sensitive topics, London, Sage.
    • Leeson, R. 2004. Gender equality advocates speak: feminist issues and strategies in the future. In: Kerr, J., Sprenger, E. & Symington, A. (eds.) The Future of Women's Rights. Global Visions and Strategies. London: Zed Books, The Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) and Mama Cash.
    • Levy, D. L. and Kaplan, R. 2008. Corporate Scoial Responsibility and Theories of Global Governance: Strategic Contestation in Global Issue Arenas. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibilty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 2-38.
    • Lewis, P. 2008. Emotion Work and Emotion Space: Using a Spatial Perspective to Explore the Challenging of Masculine Emotion Management Practices. British Journal of Management, 19, S130-S140.
    • Lewis, R. and Rake, K. 2008. Breaking the Mould for Women Leaders: could boardroom quotas hold the key? A Fawcett Society think piece for the Gender Equality Forum. London: The Fawcett Society.
    • Lewis, R. and Smee, S. 2009. Closing the gap: Does transparency hold the key to unlocking pay equality? A Fawcett Society think piece for the Gender Equality Forum. The Fawcett Society.
    • Liedtka, J. 1996. Feminist Morality and Competitive Reality: A Role for an Ethic of Care? Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, 179-200.
    • Liff, S. 1999. Diversity and Equal Opportunities: Room for a Constructive Compromise. Human Resource Management Journal 9, 65-75.
    • Lister, R. 2003. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, 2nd edition, London, Palgrave.
    • Locke, K. 2008. Grounded Theory. In: Thorpe, R. & Holt, R. (eds.) The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research. London: Sage.
    • Lockett, A., Moon, J. and Visser, W. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility in Management Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of Influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115-136.
    • Lounsbury, M. 2001. Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 29 -56.
    • Maccarthy, J. and Moon, J. 2009. CSR consultancies in the United Kingdom. In: Galea, C. (ed.) Consulting for Business Sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
    • Maddison, S. and Partridge, E. 2007. How well does Australian democracy serve Australian women? In: Australia, F. T. D. A. O. (ed.). School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University.
    • Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research London, Sage.
    • Marshall, J. 1984. Women Managers, Travellers in a male world, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    • Marshall, J. 2000. Revisiting Simone de Beauvoir: Recongnizing Feminist Contribution to Pluralism in Organizational Studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 166-72.
    • Marshall, J. 2007. The gendering of leadership in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 165-181.
    • Marshall, J. and Reason, P. 2007. Quality in Research as "Taking and Attitude of Inquiry". Management Research News, 30, 368-380.
    • Martin, J. 1990. Deconstructing Organizational Taboos: The Suppression of Gender Conflict in Organizations. Organization and Science, 1, 339-59.
    • Martin, J. 1993. Inequality, Distributive Justice, and Organizational Illegitimacy. In: Murnighan, K. (ed.) Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
    • Martin, J. 1994. The Organization of exclusion: Institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organization theory and research. Organization, 1, 401-32.
    • Martin, J. 2000. Hidden Gendered Assumptions in Mainstream Organizational Theory and Research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 207.
    • Martin, J. 2003. Feminist Theory and Critical Theory: Unexplored Synergies. In: Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (eds.) Studying Management Critically. London: Sage Publications.
    • Martin, J. and Knopoff, K. 1997. The Gendered Implications of Apparently GenderNeutral Theory: Rereading Max Weber. In: Larson, A. L. & Freeman, R. E. (eds.) Women's Studies and Business Ethics Towards a New Conversation. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Martin, J., Knopoff, K. and Beckman, C. 1998. An Alternative to Bureaucratic Impersonality and Emotional Labor: Bounded Emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469.
    • Martin P.Y. 2003. “Said and Done” versus “saying and doing”. Gendering practices, and practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17, 342-366.
    • Martin P.Y. 2004. Gender As Social Institution. Social Forces, 82, 1249-1273.
    • Martin P.Y. 2006. Practicing Gender at Work: Further Thoughts on Reflexivity. Gender, Work & Organization, 13, 254-276.
    • Martin P.Y. and Collinson, D. 2002. Over the Pond and Across the Water': Developing the Field of 'Gendered Organizations'. Gender, Work & Organization, 9, 244-265.
    • Mathieu, C. 2009. Practising Gender in Organizations: The Critical Gap Between Practical and DIscursive Consciousness. Management Learning, 40, 177- 193.
    • Matten, D., Crane, A. and Chapple, W. 2003. Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 109- 120.
    • Matten, D. and Crane, D. 2005. What is stakeholder democracy? Perspectives and issues. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14, 6-13.
    • Maurer, M. and Sachs, S. 2005. Implementing the Stakeholder View. Learning Processes for a Changed Stakeholder Orientation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17, 93.
    • Mayo, A. 2001. The Human Value of the Enterprise, London, Nicholas Brealey.
    • Mccrudden, C. 2007. Buying Social Justice. Equality, Government Procurement and Legal Change, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    • Mcinnes, P., Hibbert, P. and Beech, N. 2007. Exploring the complexities of validity claims in action research. Management Research News, 30, 381-390.
    • Mcvittie, C., Mckinlay, A. and Widdicombe, S. 2003. Committed to (un)equal opportunities?: 'New ageism' and the older worker British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 595-612.
    • Mcwilliams, A. and Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
    • Mcwilliams, A., Siegel, D. S. and Wright, P. M. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1-18.
    • Mead, M. 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa.
    • Mead, M. 1935. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies.
    • Meyerson, D. E. and Kolb, D. M. 2000. Moving out of the `Armchair': Developing a Framework to Bridge the Gap between Feminist Theory and Practice. Organization, 7, 553-571.
    • Meyerson, D. E. and Scully, M. A. 1995. Tempered Radicalism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change. Organization Science, 6, 585-600.
    • Meyerson, E. and Fletcher, K. 2000. A Modest manifesto for Shattering the Glass Ceiling. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 127-136.
    • Millington, A. 2008. Responsibility in the Supply Chain. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Milne, J. and Adler, R. 1999. Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12, 237-256.
    • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and 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, 853 - 888.
    • MMSD. 2002. The mining, minerals and sustainable development final report. International Institute for Environment and Development.
    • Mohanty, C. T. 2002. "Under Western Eyes" Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through Anticapitalist Struggles. Signs, 28, 499-535.
    • Molyneux, M. 1998. Analysing Women's Movements. Development and Change 29, 219-245.
    • Moon, J. 2002. The Social Responsibility of Business and New Governance. Government and Opposition, 37, 385-408.
    • Moon, J. 2002a. Corporate Social Responsibility: On Overview. International Directory of Corporate Philanthropy. London: Europa Publications.
    • Moon, J. 2003. Socializing Business. Government and Opposition, 38, 265-273.
    • Moon, J. 2004. CSR in the UK: An Explicit Model of Business-Society Relations. In: Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M. & Schmidpeter, R. (eds.) CSR Across Europe. Springer-Verlag.
    • Moon, J. 2004a. The institutionalizaton of Business Social Responsibility: Evidence from Australia and the UK. The Anahuac Journal, 5, 40-54.
    • Moon, J. 2004b. Government as a driver of corporate social responsibility: The UK in comparative perspective. Working Papers International Centre for Corporate Social Respons, Nottingham University.
    • Moon, J., Crane, A. and Matten, D. 2005. Can Corporations be Citizens? Corporate Citizenship as a Metaphor for Business Participation in Society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 249-453.
    • Moon, J., Crane, A. and Matten, D. 2006. Corporate Power and Responsibility: A citizenship Perspective. Responsible Organization Review, 1, 82-92.
    • Moon, J. and Muthuri, J. 2006. An Evaluation of Corporate Community Investment in the UK Charities Aid Foundation.
    • Moon, J. and Vogel, D. 2008. Corporate social responsibility, government, and civil society. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • moosa, z. and Rake, K. 2008. Harnessing the power of difference - race, gender and the future workplace. A Fawcett Society think piece for the Gender Equality Forum. London: The Fawcett Society.
    • Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. 1980. The Case for Qualitative Research. Academy of Management Review, 5, 491-500.
    • Murphy, D. and Bendell, J. 1999. Partners in Time? Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development. Discussion Paper. United Nations Research Institute for Sustainable Development (UNRISD).
    • Newell, P. 2005. Citizenship, accountability and community: the limits of the CSR agenda. International Affairs, 81, 541-557.
    • O'dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Bradley, J. 2005. Perceptions on the emergence and future development of corporate social disclosure in Ireland. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18, 14-43.
    • O'dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Hession, E. 2005a. User Needs in Sustainability Reporting: Perspectives of Stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review, 14, 759-787.
    • Oakley, A. 1972. Sex, Gender and Society, London, Temple Smith.
    • Oakley, A. 1974. The Sociology of Housework, London, Martin Robertson.
    • Olsson, S. and Pringle, J. K. 2004. 'Women executives: public and private sectors as sites of advancement?'. Women in Management Review, 19, 29-39.
    • ONS 2009. Gender Pay Gap Narrows. Office of National Statistics.
    • Opportunity Now 2001. Equality and Excellence: the Business Case London: Business in the Community.
    • Opportunity Now 2004. Diversity Dimensions, Integration in to Organisational Culture Business in the Community.
    • Opportunity Now 2004a. Opportunity Now Benchmark Questions. London: Business in the Community.
    • Opportunity Now 2006. Line managers and diversity: making it real. London.
    • Opportunity Now 2007. Measuring Progress, Meeting Challenges. Benchmarking Summary and Analysis 2006/2007. London: Business in the Community.
    • Opportunity Now 2008. Opportunity Now Benchmark Questions. London: Business in the Community.
    • Opportunity Now 2009. Measuring Progress, Meeting Challenges. Benchmarking Summary and Analysis 2008/2009. London: Business in the Community.
    • Opportunity Now and Women's Aid 2003. Domestic Violence and the Workplace. Good practice guide for employers. London: Business in the Community.
    • Orlitzky, M. 2008. Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Research Synthesis. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1992. Re-Inventing Government, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
    • Ougaard, M. 2006. Instituting the Power to Do Good In: May, C. (ed.) Global Corporate Power. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
    • Owen, D. 2003. Recent Developments in European Social and Environmental Reporting and Auditing Practice - A Critical Evaluation and Tentative Prognosis. Research Papers. International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Research.
    • Owen, D. and O'dwyer, B. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Reporting and Assurance Dimensions. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Oxfam 2004. Trading Away Our Rights Women Working in Global Supply Chains. Oxford: Oxfam International.
    • Oxfam. 2007. Gender Inequality: Key Facts [Online]. Available: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/issues/gender/introduction.html [Accessed June 6 2010].
    • Oxfam 2009. Women, communities and mining: The gender impacts of mining and the role of gender impact assessment. Melbourne: Oxfam.
    • Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A. 2006. Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71-88.
    • Parent, M. and Deephouse, D. 2007. A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1-23.
    • Pearson, R. 2007. Beyond women workers: gendering csr. Third World Quarterly, 28, 731-749.
    • Peters, G. 1996. Shouldn't Row, Can't Steer: What's a Government to Do? Public Policy and Administration, 12, 51-52.
    • Petschow, U., Rosenau, J. and Von Weizsacker, E. U. 2005. Governance and Sustainability. New Challenges for States, Companies and Civil Society, Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.
    • Pettigrew, A. M. 1997. What is Processual Analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13, 337-348.
    • Pfeffer, J. 1981. Management as Symbolic Action. In: Cummings, L. & Staw, B. (eds.) Research on Organizational Behaviour. Greenwish, CT: JAI Press.
    • Phillips, R., Freeman, E. and Wicks, A. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 479-502.
    • Pidgeon, N. and Henwood, K. 1996. Grounded theory: practical implementation. In: Richardson, D. (ed.) Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: British Psychological Society books.
    • Pollack, A. and Hafner-Burton, E. 2000. Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union', Journal of European Public Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 7, 432-456.
    • Porter, M. and Kramer, M. 2002. The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
    • Schepers, D. H. and Sethi, S. P. 2003. Do Socially Responsible Funds Actually Deliver What They Promise? The credibility gap between the promise and performance of socially responsible funds. Business & Society Review (00453609), 108, 11-32.
    • Scherer, A. and Palazzo, G. 2008. Globalization and Corporate Social Responsibility. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Scherer, A. G. and Palazzo, G. 2007. TOWARD A POLITICAL CONCEPTION OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY: BUSINESS AND SOCIETY SEEN FROM A HABERMASIAN PERSPECTIVE. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1096- 1120.
    • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G. and Matten, D. 2009. Introduction to the Special Issue: Globalization as a Challenge for Business Responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 327-347.
    • Scholte 2005. Globalisation: A critical introduction, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
    • Sealy, R., Vinnicombe, S. and Doldor, E. 2009. The Female FTSE Board Report 2009. Cranfield University School of Management.
    • Sethi, S. P. 1975. Dimensions of corporate social performance. An analytic framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.
    • Shapiro, G. 1999. Quality and Equality: Building a Virtuous Circle. Human Resource Management Journal, 9, 76-86.
    • Shawcross, V., Grosser, K. and Goldsmith, J. 1987. The Education Needs of Women Refugees in the UK. World University Service.
    • Simpson, R. and Lewis, P. 2005. An investigation of silence and a scrutiny of transparency: Re-examining gender in organization literature through the concepts of voice and visibility. Human Relations, 58, 1253-1275.
    • Singh, V. and Point, S. 2004. Strategic Responses by European Companies to the Diversity Challenge: an Online Comparison. Long Range Planning, 37, 295- 318.
    • Singh, V. and Point, S. 2006. (Re)Presentations of Gender and Ethnicity in Diversity Statements on European Company Websites. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 363-379.
    • Singh, V. and Vinnicombe, S. 2006. The Female FTSE Report 2006. Bedford: Cranfield School of Management.
    • SIRAN 2005. A Call to Action: For greater corporate transparency 10 years after the Glass Ceiling Commission recommendations. Washington: Sustainable Investment Research Analyst Network.
    • SIRAN 2008. SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING BY S&P 100 COMPANIES MADE MAJOR ADVANCES FROM 2005-2007. Press Release July 17, 2008. Sustainable Investment Research Analyst Network.
    • Snow, D. A. and Benford, R. D. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris, A. D. & Meuller, C. M. (eds.) Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, C.T.: Yale University Press.
    • Solomon, A. and Lewis, L. 2002. Incentives and disincentives for corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 154-169.
    • Somerville, J. 2000. Feminism and the family: Politics and society in the UK and USA, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
    • Squires, J. 2005. Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation. Social Politics, 12, 366-388.
    • Stanley, L. 1990. Feminist Praxis and the Academic Mode of Production. In: Stanley, L. (ed.) Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. London: Routledge.
    • Stetson, D. and Mazur, A. (eds.) 1995. Comparative State Feminism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Strange, S. 1988. States and Markets, London, Pinter Publishers.
    • Strathern, M. 2000. The Tyranny of Transparency. British Educational Review, 26, 309 - 321.
    • Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics for Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, London and Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
    • Suchman, M. C. 1995. MANAGING LEGITIMACY: STRATEGIC AND INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
    • Sullivan, R. 2005. Self-regulation has serious limits. News release. Ethical Corporation [Online].
    • Swann, G. M. P. 2006. Putting Econometrics in its Place: A New Direction in Applied Economics, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
    • Swanson, D. L. 2008. Top Managers as Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility. In: Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. & Siegel, D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Author. 2006. Glass Ceiling Still Blocks Women from the Executive Floor. The Guardian, 2 October 2006.
    • Tilt, C. 2004. Influences on corporate social disclosure: A look at Lobby groups ten years on. Commerce research paper series. Flinders University, Australia.
    • Tinker, T. and Neimark, M. 1987. The role of annual reports in gender and class contradictions at General Motors: 1917-1976. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 71-88.
    • Toms, J. 2002. Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of corporate environmental reputation: Some UK evidence. British Accounting Review, 34, 257-282.
    • Townsley, N. C. 2003. Theories, Voices, and Politics of OrganizationReview Article: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Mapping the Gendered Organization, 10, 617.
    • Tsoukas, H. 1997. The Tyranny of Light: The temptations and paradoxes of the information society. Futures, 29, 843-872.
    • Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen 2003. The Oxford handbook of organization theory, Oxford Oxford University Press.
    • Tuana, N. 2009. Revaluing Science: Starting from the Practices of Women. In: Jagger, A. M. (ed.) Just Methods. An Interdisciplinary Feminist Reader. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
    • TUC 2004. A TUC Trustee Guide. Shareholder Voting and Engagement Guidelines. London: Trades Union Congress.
    • Tyson, L. 2003. The Tyson Report on Recruitment and Development of NonExecutive Directors London: London Business School.
    • UN Global Compact 2010. Women's Empowerment Principles. Equality Means Business. UN Global Compact, UNIFEM.
    • Unerman, J. and Bennett, M. 2004. Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? 29, 685-707.
    • UNFPA 2009. State of world population 2009. Facing a changing world: women, population and climate. New York: United Nations Population Fund.
    • UNHCHR 2007. State Responsibilities to Regulate and Adjudicate Corporate Activities under the United Nations' core Human Rights Treaties. Individual Report on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Geneva: OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
    • UNHCHR 2009. INTEGRATING A GENDER PERSPECTIVE INTO THE “PROTECT, RESPECT AND REMEDY” FRAMEWORK New York: OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article