利益相关者视角下资源型企业社会责任研究
|
摘要
随着经济全球化的发展,企业社会责任问题越来越受到全球的关注。学术界目前对于企业是否应该承担责任问题的争论早已停息,关于不同类型的企业所承担的社会责任内容是否相同,企业究竟应该对谁承担责任,应当承担什么样责任的问题的研究正在成为理论界研究的热点。
资源型企业是一种特殊类型的企业,它以不可再生性自然资源的开采和初级加工为生产方式,以自然资源的拥有或独占为其竞争优势,其投入的原材料和产品都是自然资源,因此生产过程中对自然资源破坏巨大。可见,这一类型企业社会责任具有明显异于其他类型企业的特征,主要表现在：作为国家重要的能源企业,资源型企业担负着保护国家能源安全的重任；由于资源的不可再生性,资源型企业自身可持续发展的要求更加迫切；由于一线员工群体的弱势性及生产环境的高危性,资源型企业对员工的生命健康负有重要责任；由于生产过程对自然资源具有巨大破坏性,资源型企业对自然环境负有保护和修复责任。但目前在我国,这一类企业的社会责任缺失状况表现得尤为严重,由此引发的社会问题如矿难事故、严重的环境污染等也给社会造成了严重影响,因此,结合资源型企业特殊性,具体探讨资源型企业社会责任的主要内容,构建资源型企业社会责任评价体系,探讨资源型企业社会责任提升的对策和途径,就具有十分重要的理论和现实意义。
引入利益相关者理论对企业社会责任问题进行研究是企业社会责任研究的新思路和新趋势,它能够弥补企业社会责任理论的不足之处,使企业对谁履行责任和为什么要履行责任的问题变得更容易理解和接受。从利益相关者的角度对资源型企业社会责任问题进行研究,具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。本研究的理论意义主要表现在：强化了人们对于资源型企业社会责任概念的认识,明确了资源型企业社会责任的对象和内容；探索了以利益相关者分类为依据对企业社会责任优先性进行研究的新思路；提出了以资源依赖理论为依据对资源型企业利益相关者进行分类的新角度。研究的现实意义表现在：建立了利益相关者视角下资源型企业社会责任评价体系,可以有效解决资源型企业社会责任理论指导欠缺的问题；监管部门可以依据本文所建立的评价体系对资源型企业履责情况进行监管和测评,资源型企业自身也可以据此进行社会责任的自评,因而有利于推动资源型企业社会责任发展。
本文的研究思路是：对企业社会责任理论和利益相关者理论进行分析,发现其内在的联系：利益相关者理论可以明确企业社会责任的对象和动因,是对企业社会责任理论的新拓展。在文献分析的基础上,对资源型企业社会责任缺失现状和原因进行分析,认为现有企业社会责任理论很难直接用来指导资源型企业社会责任实践,因此应引入利益相关者理论对资源型企业社会责任进行研究。为确定资源型企业社会责任优先性,在对以往利益相关者分类局限性进行分析的基础上,结合资源型企业的特点,以资源依赖理论为依据对资源型企业利益相关者分类进行实证研究,按实证分析的结果将资源型企业利益相关者划分为关键利益相关者、重要利益相关者和一般利益相关者,以此作为资源型企业社会责任优先性的次序,构建了利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任评价指标体系,并依据所建立的指标体系对资源型企业社会责任情况进行实证研究。最后提出了资源型企业社会责任提升建议。
本文主要包括以下内容：
第一章是绪论,主要介绍了本文的研究目的和意义、研究对象和研究方法、研究思路和主要内容、研究的创新点等。
第二章是文献综述。对企业社会责任理论和利益相关者理论的相关研究进行了梳理,认为现有文献对企业社会责任的研究已经开始逐步转向对企业社会责任的对象和内容的研究,更多地关注利益相关者,关注自然环境和员工的权益维护问题,但仍然存在不足：对不同类型企业社会责任的特殊性缺少探讨；对各利益相关者的责任层次问题缺少探讨；对于如何将利益相关者理论具体应用于企业社会责任中研究缺乏探讨。
第三章是资源型企业社会责任的缺失及原因分析。分析了资源型企业社会责任的特殊性、社会责任的缺失表现及存在的问题,并从企业内外两个角度对资源型企业社会责任缺失的具体原因进行了深入分析,得出结论：(1)资源型企业社会责任具有特殊性,其社会责任的履行对于国家、社会和企业自身都具有重要意义；(2)资源型企业社会责任缺失情况比较突出,引发了严重的社会问题,急需约束和规范；
(3)当前缺少对资源型企业社会责任的系统研究及相应的标准。因此本文的研究具有重要意义。
第四章是资源型企业利益相关者的识别和分类。对资源型企业利益相关者进行了界定,认为这些利益相关者对企业的重要性程度会因其所控制的资源对企业的重要性程度而有所差异,这种差异应该在企业社会责任上有所体现。因此需要对资源型企业利益相关者进行分类研究,以确定其社会责任优先性次序。针对资源型企业的特点,选择资源依赖理论作为分类标准对资源型企业利益相关者分类进行实证研究。依实证研究的结果将资源型企业利益相关者划分为关键利益相关者、重要利益相关者和一般利益相关者。
第五章是利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任优先性及内容。这一章主要是以上文的利益相关者分类为依据,对资源型企业的社会责任优先性进行分析,并分析企业对各利益相关者的社会责任具体内容。
第六章是利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任的评价。对国内外企业社会责任评价体系进行评析,认为现有的社会责任评价体系缺少对具体行业的个性化研究,并且没有考虑到各利益相关者责任的优先性差异,因此构建了利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任评价体系,从对关键利益相关者的责任、对重要利益相关者的责任和对一般利益相关者的责任三个维度设立了资源型企业社会责任评价指标体系,选择模糊综合评价方法对资源型企业社会责任进行评价研究,并以典型案例对资源型企业社会责任评价体系有效性进行了实证分析。
第七章是利益相关者视角下资源型企业社会责任的提升。从强化资源型企业外部监督机制、促进利益相关者共同推动方面提出了资源型企业社会责任提升对策,并研究提出了资源型企业社会责任目标模式：关键利益相关者责任优先模式和利益相关者责任全面推动模式。
第八章是研究结论和展望。
本文的主要创新点在于：(1)以利益相关者理论为切入点对资源型企业社会责任进行研究,明确了资源型企业社会责任的概念；(2)提出企业社会责任优先性的观点,并以利益相关者分类为依据对资源型企业社会责任优先性进行研究；(3)依据资源型企业的特点,以资源依赖理论为依据对资源型企业利益相关者进行分类研究；(4)建立了利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任评价体系,使资源型企业社会责任自评和社会监督有据可依。(5)提出了利益相关者视角下资源型企业社会责任目标模式,为资源型企业履行社会责任提供了可供参考的标准。
Along with the development of economic globalization, the social responsibilities of enterprises attracting increasing concern from all over the world. The arguments about whether enterprises should shoulder these responsibilities have long dropped in the academic field. What become the focuses of the theoretical field are as follows:Should enterprises of different types shoulder same social responsibilities? To whom should enterprises be responsible? What responsibilities should they shoulder?
Resources-based enterprises is a special category among all enterprises, whose producing mode is based on the exploitation and preliminary processing of undeniable natural resources, and whose competing priority comes from their possession and monopolization of natural resources. The producing process of them brings serious damages to natural resources because materials and products of them are all natural resources. Obviously, the social responsibilities of this kind of enterprises have some features different from other types:As the important energy enterprises of the country, they shoulder the important responsibility of protecting national energy security; because the natural resources are undeniable, the demands of sustainable development of resources-based enterprises are more imperative; for the disadvantages of frontline employees and the highly dangerous working environment, resources-based enterprises shoulder important responsibility of ensuring the life and health of them; due to the damages to natural resources they made during producing process, resources-based enterprises shoulder responsibilities of protecting and preserving the natural environment. However, nowadays in China, the absence of social responsibilities of this kind of enterprise becomes very serious. Social problems arisen by it, such as devastating accidents in the mine and severe environmental pollution have brought grievous influences to the society. Hence, it is of very important theoretical and practical significances to discuss the main contents of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises in detail combined with the particularities of them, and to construct the evaluating system of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises, which can provide basis for self-evaluation and third-party-evaluation of social responsibilities of enterprises.
It becomes a new approach and trend to introduce the stakeholder theory into the research of the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises. It can make up for the weakness of the enterprise social responsibility theory, and can clarify to whom enterprises are responsible why they are responsible. It has great theoretical and practical significances to study the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. The theoretical significances are:enhancing the reorganization of the concept of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises and defining the objects and contents of it; establishing the new approach that study the priority of social responsibilities of enterprises according to stakeholders category; exploring the new aspect of classify stakeholders of resources-based enterprises according to the theory of resource dependency. The practical significances are: establishing the evaluation system of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders, which can effectively solve the lack of theoretical guidance for them; supervising departments can supervise and evaluate the performance of resources-based enterprises according to the evaluation system established by this thesis, and resources-based enterprises can achieve self-evaluation of their social responsibilities by themselves according to it, which is helpful to promote the development of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises.
The approach of this research is:analyzing the enterprise social responsibility theory and the stakeholder theory to find their internal relationship, which indicates that the stakeholder theory can define the objects and contents of enterprise social responsibility, and is a new extension of social responsibility theory. Based on literature review, the particularities of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises and status quo of its absences are analyzed, which concludes that current enterprise social responsibility theory can hardly direct its practice, so stakeholder theory should be introduced to research the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises. In order to define the priority of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises, empirical research on the classification of stakeholders of resources-based enterprises is produced according to the resources dependency theory, which is based on analyzing the limitations of previous classification of stakeholders, and combined with the characteristics of resources-based enterprises. According to the findings of empirical research, the stakeholders of resources-based enterprises are classified into those related to the key interests, those related to the important interests, and those related to the general interests. The priority order of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises is defined by this classification; the evaluating indicator system of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises is established from the perspective of these stakeholders, and the situation of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises is empirically researched according to this indicator system. At last, suggestions of improving the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises are brought forward.
This paper is divided into eight chapters:
The first chapter is introduction. It mainly introduces the purpose and significance, the object and method, the approach and main content, and the innovation, etc. of the research.
The second chapter is literature review. The related researches of enterprise social responsibility theory and stakeholder theory are reviewed, which concludes that the researches on enterprise social responsibility in current literature have gradually paid more attention on the objects and contents of it, more concerns about the stakeholders, the natural environment, and the rights and interests protection of employees, but still have some shortages:lack of discussions on the particularity of different type of enterprises; lack of considerations on the priority of different stakeholders in enterprise social responsibility; and lack of detailed explorations on how to apply stakeholder theory into enterprise social responsibility.
The third chapter is the absence of social responsibility of resource-based enterprises and the analysis of its reasons. The particularity, status quo and problems of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are analyzed, and the specific reasons of the absence of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are analyzed from inner and outer aspects, which concludes that:(1) the social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises have its particularity, the performance of it has great significance to the country, the society and the enterprises themselves; (2) the situation of the absences of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is serious, which brings severe social problems and starves for restriction and regulation; (3) it is lack of systematical researches and corresponding standards on social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises.
The fourth chapter is the reorganization and classification of the stakeholders in resource-based enterprises. The stakeholders of resource-based enterprises are defined, whose importance to enterprises will be different according to the importance of the resources they controlled to enterprises, and this kind of difference should be materialized on enterprise social responsibility. Hence, classified researches on stakeholders in resource-based enterprises are needed in order to confirm the priority order of their social responsibilities. According to the characteristics of resource-based enterprises, resource dependency theory is selected as the classification standard to produce empirical research on the classification of stakeholders in resource-based enterprises. The stakeholders of resource-based enterprises are classified into key stakeholders, important stakeholders and general stakeholders in accordance with the results of empirical research.
The fifth chapter is the priority and content of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. Based on the classification of stakeholders mentioned above, the priority of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is analyzed, and the detailed contents of enterprise social responsibilities to different stakeholders are analyzed.
The sixth chapter is the evaluation of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. The evaluation system of enterprise social responsibilities both home and abroad are introduced and analyzed, which indicates that the current evaluation system of social responsibilities is lack of individual researches for different industries, and lack of considerations on the priority differences of stakeholders. Hence, the evaluation system of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is established, and the evaluating indicator system of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is established from three perspectives, namely, the perspectives of responsibilities to key stakeholders, responsibilities to important stakeholders and responsibilities to general stakeholders. Fuzzy colligate evaluation method is applied to study the social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises, and the validity of this evaluation system is empirically analyzed by typical cases.
The seventh chapter is the improvement of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. Countermeasures of improving social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are proposed from enhancing the external supervising mechanism of resource-based enterprises and improving the co-promotion of stakeholders. The objective mode of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are also studied and proposed, namely, the mode of key stakeholders'responsibility take priority and the mode of stakeholders'responsibility totally promoting.
The eighth chapter is the conclusions and policy suggestions.
The main innovation points of this paper lie in:(1) researched the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises start with stakeholder theory, and defined the conception of social responsibility of resources-based enterprise; (2) proposed the point of view that enterprise social responsibility has priority, and researched the priority of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises according to the classification of stakeholders; (3) researched the different type of stakeholders in resources-based enterprises based on resources dependency theory, and according to the characteristics of resources-based enterprises; (4) established the evaluation system of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders, which provided basis for the self-evaluation and social supervision of resources-based enterprises. (5) The objective mode of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders are proposed, which providing referencing standards for performing social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises.
资源型企业是一种特殊类型的企业,它以不可再生性自然资源的开采和初级加工为生产方式,以自然资源的拥有或独占为其竞争优势,其投入的原材料和产品都是自然资源,因此生产过程中对自然资源破坏巨大。可见,这一类型企业社会责任具有明显异于其他类型企业的特征,主要表现在：作为国家重要的能源企业,资源型企业担负着保护国家能源安全的重任；由于资源的不可再生性,资源型企业自身可持续发展的要求更加迫切；由于一线员工群体的弱势性及生产环境的高危性,资源型企业对员工的生命健康负有重要责任；由于生产过程对自然资源具有巨大破坏性,资源型企业对自然环境负有保护和修复责任。但目前在我国,这一类企业的社会责任缺失状况表现得尤为严重,由此引发的社会问题如矿难事故、严重的环境污染等也给社会造成了严重影响,因此,结合资源型企业特殊性,具体探讨资源型企业社会责任的主要内容,构建资源型企业社会责任评价体系,探讨资源型企业社会责任提升的对策和途径,就具有十分重要的理论和现实意义。
引入利益相关者理论对企业社会责任问题进行研究是企业社会责任研究的新思路和新趋势,它能够弥补企业社会责任理论的不足之处,使企业对谁履行责任和为什么要履行责任的问题变得更容易理解和接受。从利益相关者的角度对资源型企业社会责任问题进行研究,具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。本研究的理论意义主要表现在：强化了人们对于资源型企业社会责任概念的认识,明确了资源型企业社会责任的对象和内容；探索了以利益相关者分类为依据对企业社会责任优先性进行研究的新思路；提出了以资源依赖理论为依据对资源型企业利益相关者进行分类的新角度。研究的现实意义表现在：建立了利益相关者视角下资源型企业社会责任评价体系,可以有效解决资源型企业社会责任理论指导欠缺的问题；监管部门可以依据本文所建立的评价体系对资源型企业履责情况进行监管和测评,资源型企业自身也可以据此进行社会责任的自评,因而有利于推动资源型企业社会责任发展。
本文的研究思路是：对企业社会责任理论和利益相关者理论进行分析,发现其内在的联系：利益相关者理论可以明确企业社会责任的对象和动因,是对企业社会责任理论的新拓展。在文献分析的基础上,对资源型企业社会责任缺失现状和原因进行分析,认为现有企业社会责任理论很难直接用来指导资源型企业社会责任实践,因此应引入利益相关者理论对资源型企业社会责任进行研究。为确定资源型企业社会责任优先性,在对以往利益相关者分类局限性进行分析的基础上,结合资源型企业的特点,以资源依赖理论为依据对资源型企业利益相关者分类进行实证研究,按实证分析的结果将资源型企业利益相关者划分为关键利益相关者、重要利益相关者和一般利益相关者,以此作为资源型企业社会责任优先性的次序,构建了利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任评价指标体系,并依据所建立的指标体系对资源型企业社会责任情况进行实证研究。最后提出了资源型企业社会责任提升建议。
本文主要包括以下内容：
第一章是绪论,主要介绍了本文的研究目的和意义、研究对象和研究方法、研究思路和主要内容、研究的创新点等。
第二章是文献综述。对企业社会责任理论和利益相关者理论的相关研究进行了梳理,认为现有文献对企业社会责任的研究已经开始逐步转向对企业社会责任的对象和内容的研究,更多地关注利益相关者,关注自然环境和员工的权益维护问题,但仍然存在不足：对不同类型企业社会责任的特殊性缺少探讨；对各利益相关者的责任层次问题缺少探讨；对于如何将利益相关者理论具体应用于企业社会责任中研究缺乏探讨。
第三章是资源型企业社会责任的缺失及原因分析。分析了资源型企业社会责任的特殊性、社会责任的缺失表现及存在的问题,并从企业内外两个角度对资源型企业社会责任缺失的具体原因进行了深入分析,得出结论：(1)资源型企业社会责任具有特殊性,其社会责任的履行对于国家、社会和企业自身都具有重要意义；(2)资源型企业社会责任缺失情况比较突出,引发了严重的社会问题,急需约束和规范；
(3)当前缺少对资源型企业社会责任的系统研究及相应的标准。因此本文的研究具有重要意义。
第四章是资源型企业利益相关者的识别和分类。对资源型企业利益相关者进行了界定,认为这些利益相关者对企业的重要性程度会因其所控制的资源对企业的重要性程度而有所差异,这种差异应该在企业社会责任上有所体现。因此需要对资源型企业利益相关者进行分类研究,以确定其社会责任优先性次序。针对资源型企业的特点,选择资源依赖理论作为分类标准对资源型企业利益相关者分类进行实证研究。依实证研究的结果将资源型企业利益相关者划分为关键利益相关者、重要利益相关者和一般利益相关者。
第五章是利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任优先性及内容。这一章主要是以上文的利益相关者分类为依据,对资源型企业的社会责任优先性进行分析,并分析企业对各利益相关者的社会责任具体内容。
第六章是利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任的评价。对国内外企业社会责任评价体系进行评析,认为现有的社会责任评价体系缺少对具体行业的个性化研究,并且没有考虑到各利益相关者责任的优先性差异,因此构建了利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任评价体系,从对关键利益相关者的责任、对重要利益相关者的责任和对一般利益相关者的责任三个维度设立了资源型企业社会责任评价指标体系,选择模糊综合评价方法对资源型企业社会责任进行评价研究,并以典型案例对资源型企业社会责任评价体系有效性进行了实证分析。
第七章是利益相关者视角下资源型企业社会责任的提升。从强化资源型企业外部监督机制、促进利益相关者共同推动方面提出了资源型企业社会责任提升对策,并研究提出了资源型企业社会责任目标模式：关键利益相关者责任优先模式和利益相关者责任全面推动模式。
第八章是研究结论和展望。
本文的主要创新点在于：(1)以利益相关者理论为切入点对资源型企业社会责任进行研究,明确了资源型企业社会责任的概念；(2)提出企业社会责任优先性的观点,并以利益相关者分类为依据对资源型企业社会责任优先性进行研究；(3)依据资源型企业的特点,以资源依赖理论为依据对资源型企业利益相关者进行分类研究；(4)建立了利益相关者视角下的资源型企业社会责任评价体系,使资源型企业社会责任自评和社会监督有据可依。(5)提出了利益相关者视角下资源型企业社会责任目标模式,为资源型企业履行社会责任提供了可供参考的标准。
Along with the development of economic globalization, the social responsibilities of enterprises attracting increasing concern from all over the world. The arguments about whether enterprises should shoulder these responsibilities have long dropped in the academic field. What become the focuses of the theoretical field are as follows:Should enterprises of different types shoulder same social responsibilities? To whom should enterprises be responsible? What responsibilities should they shoulder?
Resources-based enterprises is a special category among all enterprises, whose producing mode is based on the exploitation and preliminary processing of undeniable natural resources, and whose competing priority comes from their possession and monopolization of natural resources. The producing process of them brings serious damages to natural resources because materials and products of them are all natural resources. Obviously, the social responsibilities of this kind of enterprises have some features different from other types:As the important energy enterprises of the country, they shoulder the important responsibility of protecting national energy security; because the natural resources are undeniable, the demands of sustainable development of resources-based enterprises are more imperative; for the disadvantages of frontline employees and the highly dangerous working environment, resources-based enterprises shoulder important responsibility of ensuring the life and health of them; due to the damages to natural resources they made during producing process, resources-based enterprises shoulder responsibilities of protecting and preserving the natural environment. However, nowadays in China, the absence of social responsibilities of this kind of enterprise becomes very serious. Social problems arisen by it, such as devastating accidents in the mine and severe environmental pollution have brought grievous influences to the society. Hence, it is of very important theoretical and practical significances to discuss the main contents of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises in detail combined with the particularities of them, and to construct the evaluating system of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises, which can provide basis for self-evaluation and third-party-evaluation of social responsibilities of enterprises.
It becomes a new approach and trend to introduce the stakeholder theory into the research of the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises. It can make up for the weakness of the enterprise social responsibility theory, and can clarify to whom enterprises are responsible why they are responsible. It has great theoretical and practical significances to study the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. The theoretical significances are:enhancing the reorganization of the concept of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises and defining the objects and contents of it; establishing the new approach that study the priority of social responsibilities of enterprises according to stakeholders category; exploring the new aspect of classify stakeholders of resources-based enterprises according to the theory of resource dependency. The practical significances are: establishing the evaluation system of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders, which can effectively solve the lack of theoretical guidance for them; supervising departments can supervise and evaluate the performance of resources-based enterprises according to the evaluation system established by this thesis, and resources-based enterprises can achieve self-evaluation of their social responsibilities by themselves according to it, which is helpful to promote the development of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises.
The approach of this research is:analyzing the enterprise social responsibility theory and the stakeholder theory to find their internal relationship, which indicates that the stakeholder theory can define the objects and contents of enterprise social responsibility, and is a new extension of social responsibility theory. Based on literature review, the particularities of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises and status quo of its absences are analyzed, which concludes that current enterprise social responsibility theory can hardly direct its practice, so stakeholder theory should be introduced to research the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises. In order to define the priority of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises, empirical research on the classification of stakeholders of resources-based enterprises is produced according to the resources dependency theory, which is based on analyzing the limitations of previous classification of stakeholders, and combined with the characteristics of resources-based enterprises. According to the findings of empirical research, the stakeholders of resources-based enterprises are classified into those related to the key interests, those related to the important interests, and those related to the general interests. The priority order of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises is defined by this classification; the evaluating indicator system of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises is established from the perspective of these stakeholders, and the situation of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises is empirically researched according to this indicator system. At last, suggestions of improving the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises are brought forward.
This paper is divided into eight chapters:
The first chapter is introduction. It mainly introduces the purpose and significance, the object and method, the approach and main content, and the innovation, etc. of the research.
The second chapter is literature review. The related researches of enterprise social responsibility theory and stakeholder theory are reviewed, which concludes that the researches on enterprise social responsibility in current literature have gradually paid more attention on the objects and contents of it, more concerns about the stakeholders, the natural environment, and the rights and interests protection of employees, but still have some shortages:lack of discussions on the particularity of different type of enterprises; lack of considerations on the priority of different stakeholders in enterprise social responsibility; and lack of detailed explorations on how to apply stakeholder theory into enterprise social responsibility.
The third chapter is the absence of social responsibility of resource-based enterprises and the analysis of its reasons. The particularity, status quo and problems of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are analyzed, and the specific reasons of the absence of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are analyzed from inner and outer aspects, which concludes that:(1) the social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises have its particularity, the performance of it has great significance to the country, the society and the enterprises themselves; (2) the situation of the absences of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is serious, which brings severe social problems and starves for restriction and regulation; (3) it is lack of systematical researches and corresponding standards on social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises.
The fourth chapter is the reorganization and classification of the stakeholders in resource-based enterprises. The stakeholders of resource-based enterprises are defined, whose importance to enterprises will be different according to the importance of the resources they controlled to enterprises, and this kind of difference should be materialized on enterprise social responsibility. Hence, classified researches on stakeholders in resource-based enterprises are needed in order to confirm the priority order of their social responsibilities. According to the characteristics of resource-based enterprises, resource dependency theory is selected as the classification standard to produce empirical research on the classification of stakeholders in resource-based enterprises. The stakeholders of resource-based enterprises are classified into key stakeholders, important stakeholders and general stakeholders in accordance with the results of empirical research.
The fifth chapter is the priority and content of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. Based on the classification of stakeholders mentioned above, the priority of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is analyzed, and the detailed contents of enterprise social responsibilities to different stakeholders are analyzed.
The sixth chapter is the evaluation of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. The evaluation system of enterprise social responsibilities both home and abroad are introduced and analyzed, which indicates that the current evaluation system of social responsibilities is lack of individual researches for different industries, and lack of considerations on the priority differences of stakeholders. Hence, the evaluation system of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is established, and the evaluating indicator system of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises is established from three perspectives, namely, the perspectives of responsibilities to key stakeholders, responsibilities to important stakeholders and responsibilities to general stakeholders. Fuzzy colligate evaluation method is applied to study the social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises, and the validity of this evaluation system is empirically analyzed by typical cases.
The seventh chapter is the improvement of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders. Countermeasures of improving social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are proposed from enhancing the external supervising mechanism of resource-based enterprises and improving the co-promotion of stakeholders. The objective mode of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises are also studied and proposed, namely, the mode of key stakeholders'responsibility take priority and the mode of stakeholders'responsibility totally promoting.
The eighth chapter is the conclusions and policy suggestions.
The main innovation points of this paper lie in:(1) researched the social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises start with stakeholder theory, and defined the conception of social responsibility of resources-based enterprise; (2) proposed the point of view that enterprise social responsibility has priority, and researched the priority of social responsibilities of resources-based enterprises according to the classification of stakeholders; (3) researched the different type of stakeholders in resources-based enterprises based on resources dependency theory, and according to the characteristics of resources-based enterprises; (4) established the evaluation system of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders, which provided basis for the self-evaluation and social supervision of resources-based enterprises. (5) The objective mode of social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises from the perspective of stakeholders are proposed, which providing referencing standards for performing social responsibilities of resource-based enterprises.
引文
①孙立平.官煤政治之一：矿难中的治理方式.[2006-01-06].http://www.chinavalue.net/Article/Archive/2006/1/6/ 127113.html
①国家煤矿安全监督局网站.[2006-12-04].http://www.chinacoal-safety.gov.cn/mkaj/
①中科院.矿产开采沉降的危害超过地震[EB/OL]. [2010-04-13]. http://www.cas.cn.
②中国统计年鉴(2000-2007).北京：中国统计出版社,007.
③卫生部.http://www.moh.gov.cn/publicfiles//business/htmlfiles/wsb/index.htm..
①中华人民共和国卫生部.全国职业卫生监督管理工作情况通报.2008.
①张梁.我国矿山生态环境恢复治理现状及对策.http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zgdzkcjj200204009.aspx
①边树兴.我国矿山环境问题及治理措施[J].矿业研究与开发,2004(2)：63-28.
②中国选煤选矿网.我国钨矿利用现状及问题简述[EB/OL]. [2009-02-11].http://www.hnmetals.com
③王学评.资源环境约束下矿山企业竞争力研究[D].中国地质大学,2008.
①国土资源信息中心.中国国土资源安全状况分析报告(2004-2005).北京：地震信息中心,2006.
①国土资源部信息中心.中国国土资源安全分析报告(2004-2005).北京：地震出版社,2006.
②国土资源部.2006年中国地质环境公告。http://www.mlr.gov.cn.
[1]Albert, L.&Ear, I. C. FICE. fimeche FI structure, MAPM. project planning and control.3th ed[M]. USA:Red Education and Professional Publishing Ltd,2000: 326-355.
[2]Archie, B.&Carroll. Ethical challenges for business in the New millennium: corporate Social responsibility and models of management morallity[J]. Business Ethical Quarterly,2000(10):159-162.
[3]Ardrews,K.R.The Concept of corporate serategy[M]. Homewood,IL:Irwnin,1971.
[4]Banaga, G. R& kins, C.T. A. Conceptual Framework for corporate governance and effective banagenment[J]. Governance,1995(7):231-237.
[5]Bair,M.M.& Lynn,A.S.Team producaion in business organizations:An introduction. The Journal of Corporation Law,1999b(4):743-750.
[6]Bair, M.M.& Lynn,A.S. Response to peter c. kostant's exit, voice and loyalty inthe course of corporate governance and counsel's changing role[J].Journal of Socio-Economics,1999c,28(3):251-253.
[7]Bair,M.M.&Lynn,A.S.Team producaion in business organizations:an introduction[J]. The Journal of Corporation Law,1999(4):743-750.
[8]Bair,M.M.For whom should corporations be run:an economic rationale forstakeholder management Long Range Planning,1998,31(2):195-200.
[9]Berglof,E. A note on the typology of financial systems. In klaus J.hopt and eddy wymeersch(Eds.)[M].Comparayive corporate governance. Berlin, Walter deGruyter. Park,1997:132-135.
[10]Berglof, E. A note on the typology of financial systems[M].In:Klaus J.Hopt and EddyWymeersch(Eds.),Comparayive corporate governance. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. Park,1997:147-151.
[1]Berglof,E.Capital structure as a mechanism of control:A comparison of financialsystems.In Aoki,M.(Eds.)[M].The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties. Newbury Park, CA:Sage,1988:121-126.
[12]Berglof, E. Capital structure as a mechanism of control:A comparison of financialsy stems [M]. In:M.(Eds.), The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties. Newbury Park, CA:Sage,1988:253-359.
[13]Berle,A. Means G. The modern corporation and private property[M]. New York: 1932. Carroll A B.A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance[J]. Academy of Management Review,1979,4:497-505.
[14]Berle, A.& Means, G. The modern corporation and private property[M]. New York, 1972:59-65.
[15]Berle, A.& Means, G. The modern corporation and private property[M]. New York,2002:104-105.
[16]Child,J.Organizational structures,environment and performance:the role of strategic choice[J].Sociology,1972,6:1-22.
[17]Mickey,B. Disney's Sweatshops in South China[M]. HKCIC, Feb.2001:197-232.
[18]Blair,M.M.& Lynn, A. S. A team production in business organization:A introduction [J]. The Journal of Corporation Law,1999(4):743-750.
[19]Blair, M. Corporate "ownership" [J]. Brooking Rview,1995,13:16-19.
[20]Bragdgon,J.H.&Marlin, J. Is pollution profitable[J]. Risk Management,1972(4): 9-18.
[21]Buchholz,R.&Evans,W.&Wagley R. Management responses to public Issues: concepts and cases in strategy formulation[M]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1994:76-79.
[22]Caroline,G. Measuring corporate social and environmentalPerformance:the extended life-cycle assessment[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,59:199-206.
[23]Carroll, A.B. A Three-Dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance[J]. The Academy of Management Review,1979(4):497-505.
[24]Carroll. Corporate social responsibility:Evolution of a definitional construct[J]. Business and Society,1999:268-295.
[25]Cathering,B. Wiley, J.&Sons,E.C. Employment law[J]. England,1995(6):1453-1456.
[26]Christman, P. Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost advantage:the role of complementary assets[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000.:663-680.
[27]Clarkson, M. A stakeholder framework for, analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance[J]. Academy of Management Review,1994,20:92-117.
[28]Clarkson, A. Stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporateSocial performance [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1999 (4):14-19.
[29]Clarkson, A.Commttee for economic development. social responsibilities of business corporations[M]. NewYork:Author,1971:103-107.
[30]Clarkson,P&Michel, P. The handbook of psychotherapy [M]. London;New York:Routledge 1994:234.
[31]Charkham, J. Corporate Governance:Lessons from Abroad[J]. European Business Journal,1992,4(2):8-16.
[32]Danaldson, T.&Preston, L. E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:Concepts, evidence and implications [J]. Academy of Management Review,1995,20:65-91.
[33]Davis, K. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities[J]. California Management Review,1960,2:70-76.
[34]Dayton, K. N. Corporate governance:the other side of the coin[J]. Harvard Business Review,1984,64(1):139-142.
[35]Deschamps, J.C.&Menye, J.B.&Bourieres, J.P. Decision making time assessment in multi-level periodic production management[J]. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Volume,2004,6:1123-1136.
[36]Diana, C.&Robertson, N. N. Expressions of corporate social responsibility in U.K. firms[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,1996,15:1095-1106.
[37]Dodd, M. E. For whom are corporate managers trustee[J]. Harvard Law Review, 1932,45:1145-1163.
[38]Ferederick, W. C. The growing concern over business responsibility [J]. California Management Review,1960,2:54-61.
[39]Folger, H.&Nurt, F. A note on social responsibility and stock valuation[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1975(18):155-159.
[40]Frederick, W. C. From CSR1 to CSR2[J]. Business and Society,1994,33:150-164.
[41]Frederick, W.C. The growing concern over business responsibility [J]. California Management Review,1960,2:54-61.
[42]Freeman, R. E.& Evan, W. M. Corporate governance:A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Hay R, Gray E D. Social Responsibilities of Business Managers [J]. Academy of ManagementJournal,1974,17:135-143.
[43]Freeman, R.E. Strategic management:A stakeholder approach[M]. Boston, MA: Pitman,1984:56-61.
[44]Friedman, M. Capitalism and freedom[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1962:79-83.
[45]Grossman, S.& Hart, O. The costs and benefits of ownership:A theory of vertical and lateral integration[J]. Journal of Political Economy 1986,94:691-719.
[46]Hart,O.& Moore, J. Property rights and the nature of the firm[J]. Journal of PoliticalEconomic 1990,98:1119-1158.
[47]Hart,O.& Moore, J. Property rights and the nature of the firm[J]. Journal of Political Economic 1990,98:1119-1158.
[48]Heald, M. The social responsibilities of business:company and commutity, 1900-1960[M]. Cleveland, OH:Case-Western Reserve,1970:30-35.
[49]James, W. Changing views in social responsibility and the business Predicament[M]., Washington, DC:The Brooking Institute,1974:27-28
[50]Jean, M. G. Alison sundgren. corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1988(31):4-8.
[51]Jeffery, S. Measuring corporate performance [J]. Academy of Management Proceedings,1982(6):7-11.
[52]Jensen, M. C.& Mecking, W. H. Theory of the firm:Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1976,3: 305-360.
[53]John M. J.& Griffin. Painting a portrait:a reply [J]. Business and Society,1999, 38(1):126-133.
[54]Jones, T. M. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined[J]. California Management Review,1980,22:59-67.
[55]Joseph, H.&Wayne, N.&Stakeholder, T. Corporate governance and public anagement:what can the history of state-Run enterprises teach us in the post-enron era[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2004,53:247-265.
[56]Hockerts, K.& Lance, M. Communicating corporate responsibility to investors:the changing role of the investor relations function[J].Journal of Business Ethics, 2004,52:85-98.
[57]Lee, E. P.&Dougla, P. O. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship:A Typology and Analysis [J]. Business and Society,1997,36(4): 419-429.
[58]Ma,M.& Bosque, G. Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services [J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,61:369-385.
[59]Mahoney,L.S.&Thorne,L.Corporate social esponsibility and long-term compensation:evidence from Canada[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,57: 241-253.
[60]Mark, S.& Alrchie S.& Carroll. B.C. Corporal social responsibility:a three domain approach[J]. Business Ethics,2003,13:1-22.
[61]Mitchell, A.& Wood, D. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts[J]. Academy of management Review,1997,22:853-886.
[62]Moses, L.& Pava.The talmudic concept of "beyond the letter of the law"relevance to business social responsibilities[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,1996,15:941-950.
[63]Morimoto, R.&John A.&Chris H. Corporate Social Responsibility Audit:From Theory to Practice[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002,62,315-325.
[64]Penrose, E. T. The Theory of The Growth of The Firm[M].Basil Blackwell Publisher,1959.
[65]Pfeffer,J.&Salancik,G. The external control of organizations:A resonrce dependence perspectire[M]. New York:Harper&Rom,1978.
[66]Pfeffer,J.Organizations and organization theory[M].London:Pitman,1982.
[67]Post, F. R. The social responsibility of management:a critique of the shareholder paradigm and defense of stakeholder rrimacy[J]. Mid-American Journal of Business,2003,18:57-61.
[68]Oliver S.The philosophy of management[M].Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons.Led,1924:74.
[69]Roman, R.&Sefa, H.& Bradley A. The Relationship Between Social and Financial Performance[J]. Business and Society,1999,38(1):121.
[70]SA 8000. The definitive guide to the new social standard, deborah leipziger[M]. Finacial Times Prentice Hall,2001:49-54.
[71]Simon, K.& Maklan, S.& French P. Corporate social responsibility:exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,61:7-28.
[72]Knox,S.& aklan S.&French,P.Corporate social responsibility:exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies [J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,61:7-28.
[73]Simpson, W.G.& Kohers, T. The link between social and financial performance: evidence from the banking industry[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002(35): 97-109.
[74]Spice, B. Investors, corporate social performance, and information disclosure:An empirical Study [J]. Accounting Reciew,1978(53):94-111.
[75]Spice, B. The royal commission on corporate concentration[D]. Corporate Social Perfor-mance in Canada,1977:3-7.
[76]Tricker, R.I. Corporate governance[M]. Gower Publishing Company limited,1984: 77-80.
[77]Waddock, B.&Sandra, A.&Samuel,G.The social performance-Financial performance link[J].Strategic Management Journal,1997(1):44-47.
[78]Wartick, S. L.&Cochran, P.L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model[J]. Academy of Management Review,1985(5):4-7.
[79]Wasserman, S.& Faust, K.Social network analysis:methods and applications[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994:45-49.
[80]Waddock, S.& Graves S. The corporate social performance-financial performance link [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(4):303-309.
[81][美]阿奇.B.卡罗尔,安.K.巴克霍尔茨。企业与社会：伦理与利益相关者管理[M].黄煜平,等译.北京：机械工业出版社,2004：99-104.
[82]本书编辑组.市场经济百科全书(上卷)[M].成都：四川人民出版社1993：154-157.
[83]曹波.企业社会责任及评价体系[D].对外经济贸易大学,2006：99-101.
[84]曹荣湘.走出囚徒困境——社会资本与制度困境[M].上海：上海三联书店,55.
[85]茶娜,郭晓川.资源型企业的资源特点研究[J].集团经济研究,2007(6)：141-142.
[86]陈宏辉,贾生华.利益相关者理论与企业管理伦理的新发展[J].社会科学,2002(6)：53-57.
[87]陈宏辉,贾生华.利益相关者三维分类的实证分析[J].经济研究,2004(4)：80-90.
[88]陈宏辉.利益相关者利益要求：理论与实证研究[M].北京：经济出版社,2004.
[89]陈宏辉.利益相关者管理——企业伦理管理的时代要求[J].经济问题探索,2003(2)：68-71.
[90]陈宏辉.企业的利益相关者理论与实证研究[D].浙江大学：浙江大学管理学院,2003：56.
[91]陈佳婧.石油企业社会责任评价体系结构研究[J].科技创新导报,2008(7)：168-169.
[92]陈留彬.中国企业社会责任理论与实证研究[D].山东大学博士论文；2006：58-62.
[93]陈志昂,陆伟.企业社会责任三角模型[J].经济与管理,2003(11)：17-23.
[94]常凯.经济全球化与企业社会责任运动[J].工会理论与实践：中国工运学院学报,2003(4)：1-3.
[95]段文,晁罡,刘善仕,国外企业社会责任研究述评[J].华南理工大学学报：社会科学版,2007(3)：49-55.
[96]邓汉慧.企业核心利益相关者利益要求与利益取向研究[D].华中科技大学,2005：77-79.
[97]菲利普·科特勒,南希·李.企业的社会责任——通过公益事业拓展更多的商业机会[M].北京：机械工业出版社：2006：153-159.
[98]高建芳.旅游企业社会责任评价指标体系研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2007：45.
[99]高山,侯华.资源型企业社会责任体系的构建[J].北方经贸,2006(5)：11-13.
[100]高尚全.企业社会责任和法人治理结构[J].新华文摘,2004(24)：46-47.
[101]古丽娜,张双武.企业社会责任、利益相关者和企业绩效研究[J].西北民族大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2004(3)：68-73.
[102]韩亚琴.企业社会责任分级模型及应用[D].重庆大学,2006：36-38.
[103]哈罗德·孔茨,海因茨·韦里克。管理学[M]。经济管理出版社,2003：237.
[104]贺红梅.基于企业生命周期的利益相关者管理[D].四川大学,2005：23-26.
[105]胡道成.社会责任视角下煤炭企业安全生产保障体系研究[D].安徽大学, 2006：43-47.
[106]胡令.论农资企业的社会责任[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(16)：4955-4956.
[107]胡令.农资企业的社会责任研究[D].湖南农业大学,2007：23-27.
[108]黄娟,刘朝华.资源型企业可持续发展问题综述[J].理论月刊,2004(5)：160-162.
[109]吉海涛,楚金华.基于资源基础理论的资源型企业社会责任特殊性分析[J].辽宁大学学报：社会科学版,2009(4)：122-125.
[110]吉海涛。资源型企业生态责任的利益相关者协同作用分析[J]：南京理工大学学报：社会科学版,2009(1)：97-100.
[111]贾生华,陈宏辉,田传浩.利益相关者视角下的企业绩效评价——一个分析框架和应用研究[J].科研管理,2003(12)：33-37.
[112]贾生华,陈宏辉.全球化背景下公司治理模式的演进趋势分析[J].中国工业经济,2003(1)：67-69.
[113]姜忠辉,赵德志。企业资源基础理论及其对战略管理的启示[J].辽宁大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2005(1)：79-82.
[114]黎友焕.SA8000与中国企业社会责任建设[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2004：55-58.
[115]李富平,宋爱东.矿业企业社会责任评价方法研究[J].有色金属,1997(3)：4-8.
[116]李立清,李燕凌.企业社会责任研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2005：62-64.
[117]李立清.企业社会责任评价理论与实证研究：以湖南省为例[J].南方经济,2006(1)：105-117。
[118]李维安.现代公司治理研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002：88-94.
[119]李雄飞.企业社会责任评价指标体系的构建[J].中国乡镇企业会计,2007(1)：105.
[120]李艳华.中国企业社会责任研究[D].暨南大学,2006：35-39.
[121]林军.企业社会责任的社会契约理论解释[J].新华文摘,2004(24)：50.
[122]林晓琼.国家电网公司企业社会责任研究[D].长沙理工大学,2008.
[123]刘长喜.利益相关者、社会契约与企业社会责任[D].上海：复旦大学经济学院,2005：44-46.
[124]刘俊海.企业的社会责任[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：79-83.
[125]刘连煜.企业治理与企业社会责任[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[126]卢代富.企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[127]卢涛.企业社会责任的经济学分析[D].重庆重床大学,2006.
[128]罗尔,安巴克霍尔茨.企业与社会伦理与利益相关者管理[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2004：356-430
[129][美]迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].陈小悦译,北京：华夏出版社,1997：136-139.
[130]马学斌,徐岩.企业社会责任评价技术应用研究[J].系统理论与实践,1995(2)：55-62.
[131]妮莎.利益相关者与我国转型期企业伦理构建[D].北京：中央民族大学,2007：12-35.
[132]彭净.企业社会责任度模糊测评研[D].四川：四川大学,2006：43-57.
[133]祁亚辉,新兴古典经济学的理论特色—兼论西方经济学的理论创新机制[J].福建论坛：经济社会版,2003(6)：23-25.
[134]乔治·斯蒂纳,,约翰·斯蒂纳.企业、政府与社会[M].张志强,王春香,译.北京：华夏出版社,2002：697-782.
[135]秦颖,高厚礼.西方企业社会责任理论探讨[J].湽博学院学报社科版,2002(3)：23-26.
[136]曲福田.资源经济学[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2002.
[137]屈晓华.企业社会责任演进与企业良性行为反应的互动研究[J].管理现代化,。2003(5)：13-16.
[138]沈艺峰,沈洪涛.论企业社会责任与相关利益者理论的全面结合趋势[J].中国经济问题,2003(2)：23-31.
[139]施婵娟.商业银行企业社会责任体系的构建[D].福建农林大学,2008：3-17.
[140]史丹,刘洋.资源型企业的发展及相关因素[J].经济管理,2004(3)：6-10.
[141]宋超英,朱强.资源型企业发展路径研究[J].经济纵横,2006(9)：75-76.
[142]宋艳冰.企业社会责任及其标准的研究[D].武汉：武汉科技大学,2007：14-18.
[143]孙亚南.中小企业核心利益相关者利益要求研究[D].天津：河海大学,2007：31-54.
[144]田田,李传峰.论利益相关者理论在企业社会责任研究中的作用[J].江淮论坛.2005(1)：17-23.
[145]万莉,罗怡芬.企业社会责任的均衡模型——基于利益相关者和不完全契约理论[D].上海市社会科学界第四届学术年会论文集,2006：009-016.
[146]万建华,戴志望,陈建.利益相关者管理[M].北京：海天出版社,1998.
[147]王兵.企业社会责任与管理伦理研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2005：12-19.
[148]王春香.影响我国企业承担社会责任的成因研究[D].暨南大学,2007：35-57.
[149]王锋正.资源型企业自主创新研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007：43-45.
[150]王戈非,企业社会责任分析[J].经济论坛,2006(16)：67-68.
[151]王丽丽.利益相关者视角下我国企业社会责任分析[D].广西师范大学,2007：37-39.
[152]王林萍.农资企业社会责任体系之构建[D].福建农林大学,2007：88-98.
[153]王庆喜,宝贡敏.企业资源理论述评[J].南京社会科学,2004(9)：6-12.
[154]王(?)明.试论资源型企业与其所在区域经济的相互关系及可持续发展的战略[J].资源·产业,2004(1)：54-56.
[155]吴玲.中国企业利益相关者管理策略研究[D].四川大学,2006：86-94.
[156]夏雷,杨金海.中国应对企业社会责任运动的思考[J].湖南农业大学学报：社会科学版,2005(6)：43-44.
[157]谢圣利.在华跨国企业的社会责任研究[D].暨南大学,2007：20-39.
[158]徐进.浅析世界生产体系中的企业社会责任标准问题[J].中国特色社会主义研究,2006(2)：93-96.
[159]许延明,吴丽梅.我国煤炭企业社会责任评价体系探析[J].山东工商学院学报,2008(1)：14-16.
[160]杨瑞龙,周业安.相机治理与国有企业监控[J].中国社会科学,1998(3)：46-49.
[161]杨瑞龙,周业安.论利益相关者合作逻辑下的企业共同治理机制[J].中国工业经济,1998(1)：38-45.
[162]杨瑞龙,周业安.企业共同治理的经济学分析[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001.
[163]杨瑞龙,周业安.利益相关者合作逻辑下的企业共同治理机制[J].中国工业经济,1998(1)：38-45.
[164]袁家方.企业社会责任[M].北京：海洋出版社,1990：79-99.
[165]曾德明,龚红.基于企业制度和企业理论的利益相关者评价方法[J].南开管理评论,2004(1)：78-81.
[166]张维迎.企业的企业家——契约理论[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1995：53-77.
[167]张维迎.企业理论与中国企业改革[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1997：83-104.
[168]赵德志,赵书科.利益相关者理论及其对战略管理的启示[J].辽宁大学学报：哲学 社会科学版,2005(1)：35-38.
[169]赵德志.利益相关者——企业管理新视角[J].辽宁大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2002(4)：37-40.
[170]赵德志.现代西方企业伦理理论[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2002.
[171]赵雯.企业经营综合评价指标体系研究[J].当代财经,1995(5)：33-35.
[172]赵心.企业社会责任的利益相关者评价研究[J].科技促进发展,2007(10)：31-33.
[173]郑天一.现代企业管理模式[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999：131.
[174]中国企业联合会课题组.企业竞争力指标体系的开发与应用[J].经济与管理研究,1999(5)：46-48.
[175]仲大军.当前中国企业的社会责任[J].经济与社会观察,2003(2)：37-40.
[176]周勇.论责任、企业责任与企业社会责任[J].武汉科技大学学报：社会科学版,2003,5(4)：29-33.
①国家煤矿安全监督局网站.[2006-12-04].http://www.chinacoal-safety.gov.cn/mkaj/
①中科院.矿产开采沉降的危害超过地震[EB/OL]. [2010-04-13]. http://www.cas.cn.
②中国统计年鉴(2000-2007).北京：中国统计出版社,007.
③卫生部.http://www.moh.gov.cn/publicfiles//business/htmlfiles/wsb/index.htm..
①中华人民共和国卫生部.全国职业卫生监督管理工作情况通报.2008.
①张梁.我国矿山生态环境恢复治理现状及对策.http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_zgdzkcjj200204009.aspx
①边树兴.我国矿山环境问题及治理措施[J].矿业研究与开发,2004(2)：63-28.
②中国选煤选矿网.我国钨矿利用现状及问题简述[EB/OL]. [2009-02-11].http://www.hnmetals.com
③王学评.资源环境约束下矿山企业竞争力研究[D].中国地质大学,2008.
①国土资源信息中心.中国国土资源安全状况分析报告(2004-2005).北京：地震信息中心,2006.
①国土资源部信息中心.中国国土资源安全分析报告(2004-2005).北京：地震出版社,2006.
②国土资源部.2006年中国地质环境公告。http://www.mlr.gov.cn.
[1]Albert, L.&Ear, I. C. FICE. fimeche FI structure, MAPM. project planning and control.3th ed[M]. USA:Red Education and Professional Publishing Ltd,2000: 326-355.
[2]Archie, B.&Carroll. Ethical challenges for business in the New millennium: corporate Social responsibility and models of management morallity[J]. Business Ethical Quarterly,2000(10):159-162.
[3]Ardrews,K.R.The Concept of corporate serategy[M]. Homewood,IL:Irwnin,1971.
[4]Banaga, G. R& kins, C.T. A. Conceptual Framework for corporate governance and effective banagenment[J]. Governance,1995(7):231-237.
[5]Bair,M.M.& Lynn,A.S.Team producaion in business organizations:An introduction. The Journal of Corporation Law,1999b(4):743-750.
[6]Bair, M.M.& Lynn,A.S. Response to peter c. kostant's exit, voice and loyalty inthe course of corporate governance and counsel's changing role[J].Journal of Socio-Economics,1999c,28(3):251-253.
[7]Bair,M.M.&Lynn,A.S.Team producaion in business organizations:an introduction[J]. The Journal of Corporation Law,1999(4):743-750.
[8]Bair,M.M.For whom should corporations be run:an economic rationale forstakeholder management Long Range Planning,1998,31(2):195-200.
[9]Berglof,E. A note on the typology of financial systems. In klaus J.hopt and eddy wymeersch(Eds.)[M].Comparayive corporate governance. Berlin, Walter deGruyter. Park,1997:132-135.
[10]Berglof, E. A note on the typology of financial systems[M].In:Klaus J.Hopt and EddyWymeersch(Eds.),Comparayive corporate governance. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. Park,1997:147-151.
[1]Berglof,E.Capital structure as a mechanism of control:A comparison of financialsystems.In Aoki,M.(Eds.)[M].The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties. Newbury Park, CA:Sage,1988:121-126.
[12]Berglof, E. Capital structure as a mechanism of control:A comparison of financialsy stems [M]. In:M.(Eds.), The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties. Newbury Park, CA:Sage,1988:253-359.
[13]Berle,A. Means G. The modern corporation and private property[M]. New York: 1932. Carroll A B.A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance[J]. Academy of Management Review,1979,4:497-505.
[14]Berle, A.& Means, G. The modern corporation and private property[M]. New York, 1972:59-65.
[15]Berle, A.& Means, G. The modern corporation and private property[M]. New York,2002:104-105.
[16]Child,J.Organizational structures,environment and performance:the role of strategic choice[J].Sociology,1972,6:1-22.
[17]Mickey,B. Disney's Sweatshops in South China[M]. HKCIC, Feb.2001:197-232.
[18]Blair,M.M.& Lynn, A. S. A team production in business organization:A introduction [J]. The Journal of Corporation Law,1999(4):743-750.
[19]Blair, M. Corporate "ownership" [J]. Brooking Rview,1995,13:16-19.
[20]Bragdgon,J.H.&Marlin, J. Is pollution profitable[J]. Risk Management,1972(4): 9-18.
[21]Buchholz,R.&Evans,W.&Wagley R. Management responses to public Issues: concepts and cases in strategy formulation[M]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1994:76-79.
[22]Caroline,G. Measuring corporate social and environmentalPerformance:the extended life-cycle assessment[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,59:199-206.
[23]Carroll, A.B. A Three-Dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance[J]. The Academy of Management Review,1979(4):497-505.
[24]Carroll. Corporate social responsibility:Evolution of a definitional construct[J]. Business and Society,1999:268-295.
[25]Cathering,B. Wiley, J.&Sons,E.C. Employment law[J]. England,1995(6):1453-1456.
[26]Christman, P. Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost advantage:the role of complementary assets[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000.:663-680.
[27]Clarkson, M. A stakeholder framework for, analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance[J]. Academy of Management Review,1994,20:92-117.
[28]Clarkson, A. Stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporateSocial performance [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1999 (4):14-19.
[29]Clarkson, A.Commttee for economic development. social responsibilities of business corporations[M]. NewYork:Author,1971:103-107.
[30]Clarkson,P&Michel, P. The handbook of psychotherapy [M]. London;New York:Routledge 1994:234.
[31]Charkham, J. Corporate Governance:Lessons from Abroad[J]. European Business Journal,1992,4(2):8-16.
[32]Danaldson, T.&Preston, L. E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:Concepts, evidence and implications [J]. Academy of Management Review,1995,20:65-91.
[33]Davis, K. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities[J]. California Management Review,1960,2:70-76.
[34]Dayton, K. N. Corporate governance:the other side of the coin[J]. Harvard Business Review,1984,64(1):139-142.
[35]Deschamps, J.C.&Menye, J.B.&Bourieres, J.P. Decision making time assessment in multi-level periodic production management[J]. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Volume,2004,6:1123-1136.
[36]Diana, C.&Robertson, N. N. Expressions of corporate social responsibility in U.K. firms[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,1996,15:1095-1106.
[37]Dodd, M. E. For whom are corporate managers trustee[J]. Harvard Law Review, 1932,45:1145-1163.
[38]Ferederick, W. C. The growing concern over business responsibility [J]. California Management Review,1960,2:54-61.
[39]Folger, H.&Nurt, F. A note on social responsibility and stock valuation[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1975(18):155-159.
[40]Frederick, W. C. From CSR1 to CSR2[J]. Business and Society,1994,33:150-164.
[41]Frederick, W.C. The growing concern over business responsibility [J]. California Management Review,1960,2:54-61.
[42]Freeman, R. E.& Evan, W. M. Corporate governance:A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Hay R, Gray E D. Social Responsibilities of Business Managers [J]. Academy of ManagementJournal,1974,17:135-143.
[43]Freeman, R.E. Strategic management:A stakeholder approach[M]. Boston, MA: Pitman,1984:56-61.
[44]Friedman, M. Capitalism and freedom[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1962:79-83.
[45]Grossman, S.& Hart, O. The costs and benefits of ownership:A theory of vertical and lateral integration[J]. Journal of Political Economy 1986,94:691-719.
[46]Hart,O.& Moore, J. Property rights and the nature of the firm[J]. Journal of PoliticalEconomic 1990,98:1119-1158.
[47]Hart,O.& Moore, J. Property rights and the nature of the firm[J]. Journal of Political Economic 1990,98:1119-1158.
[48]Heald, M. The social responsibilities of business:company and commutity, 1900-1960[M]. Cleveland, OH:Case-Western Reserve,1970:30-35.
[49]James, W. Changing views in social responsibility and the business Predicament[M]., Washington, DC:The Brooking Institute,1974:27-28
[50]Jean, M. G. Alison sundgren. corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1988(31):4-8.
[51]Jeffery, S. Measuring corporate performance [J]. Academy of Management Proceedings,1982(6):7-11.
[52]Jensen, M. C.& Mecking, W. H. Theory of the firm:Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1976,3: 305-360.
[53]John M. J.& Griffin. Painting a portrait:a reply [J]. Business and Society,1999, 38(1):126-133.
[54]Jones, T. M. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined[J]. California Management Review,1980,22:59-67.
[55]Joseph, H.&Wayne, N.&Stakeholder, T. Corporate governance and public anagement:what can the history of state-Run enterprises teach us in the post-enron era[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2004,53:247-265.
[56]Hockerts, K.& Lance, M. Communicating corporate responsibility to investors:the changing role of the investor relations function[J].Journal of Business Ethics, 2004,52:85-98.
[57]Lee, E. P.&Dougla, P. O. The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship:A Typology and Analysis [J]. Business and Society,1997,36(4): 419-429.
[58]Ma,M.& Bosque, G. Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services [J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,61:369-385.
[59]Mahoney,L.S.&Thorne,L.Corporate social esponsibility and long-term compensation:evidence from Canada[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,57: 241-253.
[60]Mark, S.& Alrchie S.& Carroll. B.C. Corporal social responsibility:a three domain approach[J]. Business Ethics,2003,13:1-22.
[61]Mitchell, A.& Wood, D. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts[J]. Academy of management Review,1997,22:853-886.
[62]Moses, L.& Pava.The talmudic concept of "beyond the letter of the law"relevance to business social responsibilities[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,1996,15:941-950.
[63]Morimoto, R.&John A.&Chris H. Corporate Social Responsibility Audit:From Theory to Practice[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002,62,315-325.
[64]Penrose, E. T. The Theory of The Growth of The Firm[M].Basil Blackwell Publisher,1959.
[65]Pfeffer,J.&Salancik,G. The external control of organizations:A resonrce dependence perspectire[M]. New York:Harper&Rom,1978.
[66]Pfeffer,J.Organizations and organization theory[M].London:Pitman,1982.
[67]Post, F. R. The social responsibility of management:a critique of the shareholder paradigm and defense of stakeholder rrimacy[J]. Mid-American Journal of Business,2003,18:57-61.
[68]Oliver S.The philosophy of management[M].Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons.Led,1924:74.
[69]Roman, R.&Sefa, H.& Bradley A. The Relationship Between Social and Financial Performance[J]. Business and Society,1999,38(1):121.
[70]SA 8000. The definitive guide to the new social standard, deborah leipziger[M]. Finacial Times Prentice Hall,2001:49-54.
[71]Simon, K.& Maklan, S.& French P. Corporate social responsibility:exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,61:7-28.
[72]Knox,S.& aklan S.&French,P.Corporate social responsibility:exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies [J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2005,61:7-28.
[73]Simpson, W.G.& Kohers, T. The link between social and financial performance: evidence from the banking industry[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2002(35): 97-109.
[74]Spice, B. Investors, corporate social performance, and information disclosure:An empirical Study [J]. Accounting Reciew,1978(53):94-111.
[75]Spice, B. The royal commission on corporate concentration[D]. Corporate Social Perfor-mance in Canada,1977:3-7.
[76]Tricker, R.I. Corporate governance[M]. Gower Publishing Company limited,1984: 77-80.
[77]Waddock, B.&Sandra, A.&Samuel,G.The social performance-Financial performance link[J].Strategic Management Journal,1997(1):44-47.
[78]Wartick, S. L.&Cochran, P.L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model[J]. Academy of Management Review,1985(5):4-7.
[79]Wasserman, S.& Faust, K.Social network analysis:methods and applications[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994:45-49.
[80]Waddock, S.& Graves S. The corporate social performance-financial performance link [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(4):303-309.
[81][美]阿奇.B.卡罗尔,安.K.巴克霍尔茨。企业与社会：伦理与利益相关者管理[M].黄煜平,等译.北京：机械工业出版社,2004：99-104.
[82]本书编辑组.市场经济百科全书(上卷)[M].成都：四川人民出版社1993：154-157.
[83]曹波.企业社会责任及评价体系[D].对外经济贸易大学,2006：99-101.
[84]曹荣湘.走出囚徒困境——社会资本与制度困境[M].上海：上海三联书店,55.
[85]茶娜,郭晓川.资源型企业的资源特点研究[J].集团经济研究,2007(6)：141-142.
[86]陈宏辉,贾生华.利益相关者理论与企业管理伦理的新发展[J].社会科学,2002(6)：53-57.
[87]陈宏辉,贾生华.利益相关者三维分类的实证分析[J].经济研究,2004(4)：80-90.
[88]陈宏辉.利益相关者利益要求：理论与实证研究[M].北京：经济出版社,2004.
[89]陈宏辉.利益相关者管理——企业伦理管理的时代要求[J].经济问题探索,2003(2)：68-71.
[90]陈宏辉.企业的利益相关者理论与实证研究[D].浙江大学：浙江大学管理学院,2003：56.
[91]陈佳婧.石油企业社会责任评价体系结构研究[J].科技创新导报,2008(7)：168-169.
[92]陈留彬.中国企业社会责任理论与实证研究[D].山东大学博士论文；2006：58-62.
[93]陈志昂,陆伟.企业社会责任三角模型[J].经济与管理,2003(11)：17-23.
[94]常凯.经济全球化与企业社会责任运动[J].工会理论与实践：中国工运学院学报,2003(4)：1-3.
[95]段文,晁罡,刘善仕,国外企业社会责任研究述评[J].华南理工大学学报：社会科学版,2007(3)：49-55.
[96]邓汉慧.企业核心利益相关者利益要求与利益取向研究[D].华中科技大学,2005：77-79.
[97]菲利普·科特勒,南希·李.企业的社会责任——通过公益事业拓展更多的商业机会[M].北京：机械工业出版社：2006：153-159.
[98]高建芳.旅游企业社会责任评价指标体系研究[D].北京：北京林业大学,2007：45.
[99]高山,侯华.资源型企业社会责任体系的构建[J].北方经贸,2006(5)：11-13.
[100]高尚全.企业社会责任和法人治理结构[J].新华文摘,2004(24)：46-47.
[101]古丽娜,张双武.企业社会责任、利益相关者和企业绩效研究[J].西北民族大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2004(3)：68-73.
[102]韩亚琴.企业社会责任分级模型及应用[D].重庆大学,2006：36-38.
[103]哈罗德·孔茨,海因茨·韦里克。管理学[M]。经济管理出版社,2003：237.
[104]贺红梅.基于企业生命周期的利益相关者管理[D].四川大学,2005：23-26.
[105]胡道成.社会责任视角下煤炭企业安全生产保障体系研究[D].安徽大学, 2006：43-47.
[106]胡令.论农资企业的社会责任[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(16)：4955-4956.
[107]胡令.农资企业的社会责任研究[D].湖南农业大学,2007：23-27.
[108]黄娟,刘朝华.资源型企业可持续发展问题综述[J].理论月刊,2004(5)：160-162.
[109]吉海涛,楚金华.基于资源基础理论的资源型企业社会责任特殊性分析[J].辽宁大学学报：社会科学版,2009(4)：122-125.
[110]吉海涛。资源型企业生态责任的利益相关者协同作用分析[J]：南京理工大学学报：社会科学版,2009(1)：97-100.
[111]贾生华,陈宏辉,田传浩.利益相关者视角下的企业绩效评价——一个分析框架和应用研究[J].科研管理,2003(12)：33-37.
[112]贾生华,陈宏辉.全球化背景下公司治理模式的演进趋势分析[J].中国工业经济,2003(1)：67-69.
[113]姜忠辉,赵德志。企业资源基础理论及其对战略管理的启示[J].辽宁大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2005(1)：79-82.
[114]黎友焕.SA8000与中国企业社会责任建设[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2004：55-58.
[115]李富平,宋爱东.矿业企业社会责任评价方法研究[J].有色金属,1997(3)：4-8.
[116]李立清,李燕凌.企业社会责任研究[M].北京：人民出版社,2005：62-64.
[117]李立清.企业社会责任评价理论与实证研究：以湖南省为例[J].南方经济,2006(1)：105-117。
[118]李维安.现代公司治理研究[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002：88-94.
[119]李雄飞.企业社会责任评价指标体系的构建[J].中国乡镇企业会计,2007(1)：105.
[120]李艳华.中国企业社会责任研究[D].暨南大学,2006：35-39.
[121]林军.企业社会责任的社会契约理论解释[J].新华文摘,2004(24)：50.
[122]林晓琼.国家电网公司企业社会责任研究[D].长沙理工大学,2008.
[123]刘长喜.利益相关者、社会契约与企业社会责任[D].上海：复旦大学经济学院,2005：44-46.
[124]刘俊海.企业的社会责任[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：79-83.
[125]刘连煜.企业治理与企业社会责任[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[126]卢代富.企业社会责任的经济学与法学分析[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[127]卢涛.企业社会责任的经济学分析[D].重庆重床大学,2006.
[128]罗尔,安巴克霍尔茨.企业与社会伦理与利益相关者管理[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2004：356-430
[129][美]迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].陈小悦译,北京：华夏出版社,1997：136-139.
[130]马学斌,徐岩.企业社会责任评价技术应用研究[J].系统理论与实践,1995(2)：55-62.
[131]妮莎.利益相关者与我国转型期企业伦理构建[D].北京：中央民族大学,2007：12-35.
[132]彭净.企业社会责任度模糊测评研[D].四川：四川大学,2006：43-57.
[133]祁亚辉,新兴古典经济学的理论特色—兼论西方经济学的理论创新机制[J].福建论坛：经济社会版,2003(6)：23-25.
[134]乔治·斯蒂纳,,约翰·斯蒂纳.企业、政府与社会[M].张志强,王春香,译.北京：华夏出版社,2002：697-782.
[135]秦颖,高厚礼.西方企业社会责任理论探讨[J].湽博学院学报社科版,2002(3)：23-26.
[136]曲福田.资源经济学[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2002.
[137]屈晓华.企业社会责任演进与企业良性行为反应的互动研究[J].管理现代化,。2003(5)：13-16.
[138]沈艺峰,沈洪涛.论企业社会责任与相关利益者理论的全面结合趋势[J].中国经济问题,2003(2)：23-31.
[139]施婵娟.商业银行企业社会责任体系的构建[D].福建农林大学,2008：3-17.
[140]史丹,刘洋.资源型企业的发展及相关因素[J].经济管理,2004(3)：6-10.
[141]宋超英,朱强.资源型企业发展路径研究[J].经济纵横,2006(9)：75-76.
[142]宋艳冰.企业社会责任及其标准的研究[D].武汉：武汉科技大学,2007：14-18.
[143]孙亚南.中小企业核心利益相关者利益要求研究[D].天津：河海大学,2007：31-54.
[144]田田,李传峰.论利益相关者理论在企业社会责任研究中的作用[J].江淮论坛.2005(1)：17-23.
[145]万莉,罗怡芬.企业社会责任的均衡模型——基于利益相关者和不完全契约理论[D].上海市社会科学界第四届学术年会论文集,2006：009-016.
[146]万建华,戴志望,陈建.利益相关者管理[M].北京：海天出版社,1998.
[147]王兵.企业社会责任与管理伦理研究[D].南京：南京师范大学,2005：12-19.
[148]王春香.影响我国企业承担社会责任的成因研究[D].暨南大学,2007：35-57.
[149]王锋正.资源型企业自主创新研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007：43-45.
[150]王戈非,企业社会责任分析[J].经济论坛,2006(16)：67-68.
[151]王丽丽.利益相关者视角下我国企业社会责任分析[D].广西师范大学,2007：37-39.
[152]王林萍.农资企业社会责任体系之构建[D].福建农林大学,2007：88-98.
[153]王庆喜,宝贡敏.企业资源理论述评[J].南京社会科学,2004(9)：6-12.
[154]王(?)明.试论资源型企业与其所在区域经济的相互关系及可持续发展的战略[J].资源·产业,2004(1)：54-56.
[155]吴玲.中国企业利益相关者管理策略研究[D].四川大学,2006：86-94.
[156]夏雷,杨金海.中国应对企业社会责任运动的思考[J].湖南农业大学学报：社会科学版,2005(6)：43-44.
[157]谢圣利.在华跨国企业的社会责任研究[D].暨南大学,2007：20-39.
[158]徐进.浅析世界生产体系中的企业社会责任标准问题[J].中国特色社会主义研究,2006(2)：93-96.
[159]许延明,吴丽梅.我国煤炭企业社会责任评价体系探析[J].山东工商学院学报,2008(1)：14-16.
[160]杨瑞龙,周业安.相机治理与国有企业监控[J].中国社会科学,1998(3)：46-49.
[161]杨瑞龙,周业安.论利益相关者合作逻辑下的企业共同治理机制[J].中国工业经济,1998(1)：38-45.
[162]杨瑞龙,周业安.企业共同治理的经济学分析[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001.
[163]杨瑞龙,周业安.利益相关者合作逻辑下的企业共同治理机制[J].中国工业经济,1998(1)：38-45.
[164]袁家方.企业社会责任[M].北京：海洋出版社,1990：79-99.
[165]曾德明,龚红.基于企业制度和企业理论的利益相关者评价方法[J].南开管理评论,2004(1)：78-81.
[166]张维迎.企业的企业家——契约理论[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1995：53-77.
[167]张维迎.企业理论与中国企业改革[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1997：83-104.
[168]赵德志,赵书科.利益相关者理论及其对战略管理的启示[J].辽宁大学学报：哲学 社会科学版,2005(1)：35-38.
[169]赵德志.利益相关者——企业管理新视角[J].辽宁大学学报：哲学社会科学版,2002(4)：37-40.
[170]赵德志.现代西方企业伦理理论[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2002.
[171]赵雯.企业经营综合评价指标体系研究[J].当代财经,1995(5)：33-35.
[172]赵心.企业社会责任的利益相关者评价研究[J].科技促进发展,2007(10)：31-33.
[173]郑天一.现代企业管理模式[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999：131.
[174]中国企业联合会课题组.企业竞争力指标体系的开发与应用[J].经济与管理研究,1999(5)：46-48.
[175]仲大军.当前中国企业的社会责任[J].经济与社会观察,2003(2)：37-40.
[176]周勇.论责任、企业责任与企业社会责任[J].武汉科技大学学报：社会科学版,2003,5(4)：29-33.