Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Managing Sustainable Stakeholder Relationships pp 141–176Cite as

Mind the Gap: Searching for Value via Sustainable Solutions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1676 Accesses

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

Chapter 4 highlights the considerable gap in research specifically aimed at explaining how decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry in the UK and Germany undertake responsible decision-making. It reveals that despite the vast amount of new literature, as well as the proliferation of emerging new solutions, such as cradle to cradle, the circular economy, and other innovative advances in themes related to stakeholder relationship management, corporate approaches to responsible management and its conceptualisation remain underdeveloped.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Dan Rockwell was ranked by the American Management Association (AMA) as one of the top leaders in business in 2014 and one of the most shared leadership blogs in the world.

  2. 2.

    The word ‘responsible’ is employed in this book as an adjective in the sense of being accountable. It is assumed to mean to be responsible compared with the closely related noun ‘responsibility’, which is inferred to imply the obligation or duty to have a responsibility.

  3. 3.

    For clarification, the term ‘CR’ is employed here and throughout this chapter for brevity purposes. It is intended to signify the concept of responsible management (as defined in Chap. 2) within a corporate sustainable stakeholder relationship setting.

  4. 4.

    Please refer to Chap. 2 for greater detail on this theme.

  5. 5.

    For clarification, building on the definition established in Chap. 2, stakeholder engagement is interpreted here as a fundamental accountability mechanism and management activity based on the rationale that it enables organisations to explain and be answerable to interest groups for their decisions, actions, and performance.

  6. 6.

    Please refer to Chap. 5 for further details.

  7. 7.

    The verb ‘organising’ is defined here as a dynamic system (as opposed to a structural dimension), which reflects the undertakings in and between organisations. In this definition, organisations are groups of people (or systems) organised for a particular purpose (e.g. their business proposition ). In this interpretation, the business undertaking is an organisation [system], as opposed to has an organisation [structure]. (See Kutschker & Schmid, 2008, p. 1084–1085 for further details.)

  8. 8.

    For clarification, similar to the notion of responsible business behaviour per se, sustainability is understood to exemplify a concept, which is comparable with themes such as ‘liberty’ or ‘equality’ whose meaning is regularly redefined as needs change over time (WBCSD, 2002, p. 6). As a result, the notions of sustainability and responsible management are viewed in the research presented in this book as ‘work in progress’, rather than a rigorously definable entity. This understanding views the root concepts of this book as an evolving intent for creating organisational value, which expresses a value stance regarding what is of value to and for whom, rather than a matter which itself requires organising (e.g. Ćwicklicki & O’Riordan, 2017).

  9. 9.

    For clarification, Chap. 5 addresses the conceptualisation of the macro-operating environment of firms in greater detail.

  10. 10.

    For further details please refer to the biomimicry and C2C approaches addressed above.

  11. 11.

    Including, for example, US Secretary of State John Kerry, UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon, and Peru’s President Ollanta Humala.

  12. 12.

    Please refer to previous sections in this chapter, as well as to Chap. 2 for further details.

  13. 13.

    This notion is adapted from the rationale originally proposed by Jonker (2012, 2014).

  14. 14.

    Co-opetition is a neologism which signifies cooperative competition or joint work.

  15. 15.

    For clarification, by definition, the three principles of SVC are inter-related based on the rationale that they are founded on many of the values of sustainability (Brundtland, 1987; Elkington, 1997; McDonough & Braungart, 2002), as well as many other features of the concepts presented previously in this chapter.

  16. 16.

    For clarification, this concept assumes no conflict between the value maximisation aims of all stakeholder parties.

  17. 17.

    See ‘management misconceptions and misunderstandings’ section of Chap. 2 for further details on this theme.

  18. 18.

    Ideation is a term which combines the words ‘idea’ and ‘generation’ (Graham & Bachman, 2004).

References

  • ABPI. (2010). Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry. Accessed June 2010, from www.abpi.org.uk.

  • ABPI. (2013). Corporate social responsibility. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Accessed October 2013, from http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/csr/Pages/default.aspx.

  • Afuah, A. (2014). Business model innovation. concepts, analysis, and cases. New York: Routlage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G., & Buchholz, R. (1982). Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 479–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, B. (2006). The ontologies of industrial ecology. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 3(1/2), 28–40. doi:10.1504/PIE.2006.010039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review. Accessed from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/creating-value-through-business-model-innovation/.

  • Arend, R. J. (2013). The business model: Present and future—Beyond a skeumorph. Strategic Organization, 11(4), 390–402. doi:10.1177/1476127013499636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M. A., & Ricart, J. E. (2006). Responsible competitiveness at the ‘micro’ level of the firm: Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: A dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBDO. (2009). Werte im Wandel—Warum Unternehmen ein neues Kundenkonzept brauchen. [Changing Values—Why companies need a new customer concept]. BBDO Consulting Study, August 2009, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biomimicry. (2016) Biomimicry Website. Accessed April 2016, from https://biomimicry.org/what-is-biomimicry/#.VwtD_6SLSUk.

  • Blum-Kusterer, M., & Hussain, S. S. (2001). Innovation and Corporate Sustainability: An investigation into the process of change in the pharmaceuticals industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(5), 300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2004). Building a good reputation. European Management Journal, 22(6), 704–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braungart, M., & McDonough, W. (2009). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics: A European Review., 15(2), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: Changing relationships between companies and NGOs. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 35–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. J. (2000, March). Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction? Corporate social disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc corporate reports, 1969–1997. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 80–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2014). Business model innovation as antecedent of sustainable enterprise excellence and resilience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(3), 440–463. Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: The evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2009). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 464–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting. Business and Society, 44(4), 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1999). Principles of stakeholder management. The Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics University of Toronto, Canada (cited in Carroll, A. B. and Buchholtz, A. K. (2009) Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management) (7th ed., p. 111). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2007). Business ethics: A European perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics: A European perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D. E., & Prehar, C. A. (2004). Accountability for corporate injustice. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 107–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSR Europe. (2012). Proactive stakeholder engagement’ from the European alliance for CSR. Accessed December 2012, from http://www.csreurope.org/pages/en/stakeholderengagement.html.

  • Ćwicklicki, M., & O’Riordan, L. (2017). Creating sustainable value: Sustainable development via new business models and reverse innovation. In Sustainable business models: Principles, promise, and practice. Springer International (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2014). Creating and capturing value from external knowledge: The moderating role of knowledge intensity. R&D Management, 44, 248–264. doi:10.1111/radm.12065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentchev, N. A. (2005). Integrating corporate social responsibility in business models. Ghent University, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, B., & O’Toole, T. (2007). Strategic market relationships: From strategy to implementation (2nd ed.). England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, S. (2006). Corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the meso level: Key models for delivering sector-level corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance, 4(4), 409–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1994). The age of social transformation, 1–21. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95dec/chilearn/drucker.htm.

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660. doi:10.2307/259056.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2015). The sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all. Harvard Business Review. Accessed February 2016, from https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-sharing-economy-isnt-about-sharing-at-all.

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2016). Circular economy. Accessed August 2016, from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy.

  • EPEA.com. (2016). Environmental protection encouragement agency. Accessed April 2016, from http://epea-hamburg.org/en/content/prof-dr-michael-braungart.

  • Ethical Corp. (2009). If Roche sneezes the pharmaceutical industry catches a cold. Accessed September 2009, from www.ethicalcorp.com.

  • Fairbrass, J., O’Riordan, L., & Mirza H. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Differing definitions and practices? University of Bradford Conference Paper for Business, Society and Environment (BSE) Conference, Leeds, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrick, J., & Ferrell, L. (2008). Business ethics: Ethical decision-making and cases. Mason, OH: Centage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrick, J., & Ferrell, L. (2010). Business ethics: Ethical decision-making and cases. Mason, OH: Centage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florin, J., & Schmidt, E. (2011). Creating shared value in the hybrid venture arena: A business model innovation perspective. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 165–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. The New York Times Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frosch, R. A., & Gallopoulos, N. E. (1989). Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American, 261(3), 144–152. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0989-144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fürst, M., & Wieland, J. (2004). WerteManagementSysteme in der Praxis: Erfahrungen und Ausblicke [Values Management Systems in Practice: Experience and Outlook] in Handbuch Werte Management, pp. 349–391 [Value Management Handbook], Hamburg: Murmann Verlag GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldson, A. (2002). Greening the ‘right to know’. CARR Review, Risk and Regulation, Autumn No. 4, ESRC Centre, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldson, A., & Roberts, P. (2000). Integrating environment and economy: Strategies for local and regional government. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldson, A., Lidskog, R., & Wester-Herber, M. (2007). The battle for hearts and minds? Evolutions in corporate approaches to environmental risk communication. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(1), 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, D., & Bachman, T. T. (2004). Ideation: The birth and death of ideas. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (2006). Contemporary strategy analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M., & Jordan, J. (2015). Foundations of strategy (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, W. M. (2004). In the name of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 47(1), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., & van Buren, H. J. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organisation–stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global change and ecology of cities. Science, 319, 756–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.). (2005). Corporate social responsibility. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A., & McLangan, P. A. (2004). Manager’s personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind—Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2015). The Hofstede centre: Strategy, culture, change. National Culture. Accessed November 2015, from http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html.

  • Homann, K., & Lütge, C. (2005). Einführung in die Wirtschaftsethik. [Introduction to Business Ethics]. Münster: Lit-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hond, F., Bakker, F. G. A., & Neergaard, P. (2007). Managing corporate social responsibility in action: Talking, doing, and measuring. England: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFPMA. (2009). International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations. Accessed September 2009, from www.responsiblepractice.com/english/insight/ifpma.

  • ISO. (2010). Guidance on Social Responsibility International Organisation for Standardisation, International Standard ISO/DIS 26000, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J. (Ed.). (2011). Duurzaam Denken Doen [Doing Sustainable Thinking]. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J. (2012). New Business Models: An exploratory study of changing transactions creating multiple value(s). Working Paper, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J. (2014). Changer la logique de création de valeur. Accessed June 2015, from http://www.tbs-education.fr/sites/default/files/professeurs/archive/a5-livre_jan_jonker-web.pdf.

  • Jonker, J., & O’Riordan, L. (2016). New business models: Examining the role of principles relating to transactions and interactions. In H. G. Brauch, U. O. Spring, J. Grin, & J. Scheffran (Eds.), Hexagon series on human and environmental security and peace (pp. 543–557). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J., Diepstraten, F., & Kieboom, J. (2011a). Inleiding in maatschappelijk verantwoord en duurzaam ondernemen: Chronologisch overzicht en Verklarende woordenlijst [Introduction to Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: Chronology and Glossary]. Deventer, Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J., Stark, W., & Tewes, S. (2011b). Corporate Social Responsibility und nachhaltige Entwicklung: Einführung, Strategie und Glossar [Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainable development: Introduction, Strategy, and Glossary]. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, J., O’Riordan, L., & Marsh, N. (2015). The art of balancing: Enabling the realisation of multiple and shared values through a new generation of business models. In L. O’Riordan, P. Zmuda, & S. Heinemann (Eds.), New perspectives on corporate social responsibility: Locating the missing link (pp. 229–246). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küpper, H. U. (2011). Unternehmensethik: Hintergründe, Konzepte, und Anwendungsbereiche [Business Ethics: Background, Concepts, and Applications]. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutschker, M., & Schmid, S. (2008). Internationales Management [International management] (6th ed.). Munich: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Sridhar, D., & Patel, M. (2009). Bridging the divide: Global governance of trade and health. Lancet, 373(9661), 416–422. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61776-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisinger, K. M. (2002). The Pharmaceutical Industry and Social Responsibility: Idealism without illusion and realism without resignation. Paper presented on October 1st in Berlin by Klaus Leisinger Professor for Development Sociology at the University of Basel and the Director of the Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organisational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, Special Issue, 12(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., & Johnston, W. J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation of U.S. organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(Suppl. 2), 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, P., & Jørgensen, R. (2012). Towards a multi business model innovation model. Journal of Multi Business Model Innovation and Technology, 1(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, J. M. (2008). CSR or RSC? (Beyond the Humpty Dumpty syndrome). Society and Business Review, 3(3), 191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review (May). https://hbr.org/2002/05/why-business-models-matter.

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. (2003). Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business Research, 56, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. (2006). Distrptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2010). The age of customer capitalism. Harvard Business Review, 88, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (2007). The debate over corporate responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Design for the triple top line: New tools for sustainable commerce. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(3), 251–258. doi:10.1016/S1066-7938(02)00069-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K. B., & Vogel, C. M. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm: Financial versus non-financial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naughton, K. (2002, December 30). The CEO party is over. Newsweek, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemela, J. (1999). Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L. (2006). CSR and stakeholder dialogue: Theory, concepts, and models for the pharmaceutical industry. MRES Dissertation, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L. (2010). Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Corporate Approaches to Stakeholder Engagement in the Pharmaceutical Industry in the UK and Germany. PhD Thesis, Bradford University School of Management, Bradford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). CSR—Theories, models and concepts in stakeholder dialogue—A model for decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 754–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2014). Managing stakeholder engagement: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 121–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2016). Responsible stakeholder engagement: A comparison of corporate approaches in the UK and German pharmaceutical industry. In L. O’Riordan & P. Zmuda (Eds.), FOM KCC KompetenzCentrum für Corporate Social Responsibility der FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management. Band 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. (2007). Dreams from my Father. Edinburgh: Conogate Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, G. (2010). Blue Economy: 10 years—100 innovations—100 million jobs. Paradigm Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, A., & Roess, D. (2010). The role of governments in promoting corporate responsibility and private sector engagement in development. UN Global Compact and Bertelsmann Stiftung, USA and Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnington, B. D., & Scanlon, T. J. (2009). Antecedents of collective-value within business-to-business relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 43(1/2), 31–45. doi:10.1108/03090560910923229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2011, January–February). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puschmann, T., & Alt, R. (2016). Sharing economy. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 58(1), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R. (2007). Supercapitalism: The battle for democracy in an age of big business. Cambridge: Icon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009). What’s in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in innovation-related coopetition. Technovation, 29(12), 819–828. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roddick, A. (2000). Business as unusual. London: Thorsons Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, K., & Ehrmann, T. (2015, February 25). Reporting biases in empirical management research: The example of win-win corporate social responsibility. Business & Society. doi:10.1177/0007650315572858.

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S., Groth, H., & Schmitt, R. (2010). The ‘stakeholder view’ approach: An untapped opportunity to manage corporate performance and wealth. Strategic Change, 19(3–4), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saebi, T., & Foss, N. J. (2014). Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogenous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European Management Journal, 33(3), 201–213. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saravanamuthu, K. (2001). What is measured counts: Harmonized corporate reporting and sustainable economic development. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15, 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business Society, 47(2), 148–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silberhorn, D., & Warren, R. C. (2007). Defining corporate social responsibility: A view from big companies in Germany and the UK. European Business Review, 19(5), 352–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation—State of the art and future challenges for the field. R&D Management, 44(3), 237–247. doi:10.1111/radm.12071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinello, R. A. (1992). Ethics, pricing and the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 617–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, A. (1994). What’s the matter with business ethics? Harvard Business Review, 38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation. Toronto, Onotario: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taran, Y., Boer, H., & Lindgren, P. (2015). A business model innovation typology. Decision Sciences, 46(2), 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trebeck, K. (2008). Exploring the responsibility of companies: Corporate social responsiblity to stakeholders. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(3), 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, P., & Fluri, E. (1995). Management: Eine Konzentrierte Einführung (Management a Concise Introduction) (7th ed.). Bern/Stuttgart/Wien: Haupt.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. (2007). World urbanization prospects: The 2007 revision. United Nations. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/2007WUP_Highlights_web.pdf.

  • UN Global Compact. (1999). United Nations Global Compact. www.unglobalcompact.org.

  • Urban Ecology Center. (2016). Local Farmer Open House. Accessed April 2016, from http://urbanecologycenter.org/what-we-do/local-farmer-open-house.html.

  • VFA. (2010). Verband der forschende Pharma-Unternehmen [Club of Research-Orientated German Pharmaceutical Companies]. Accessed February 2010, from www.fs-arzneimittelindustrie.de.

  • VFA. (2013). Verband der forschende Pharma-Unternehmen [Club of Research-Orientated German Pharmaceutical Companies]. Accessed December 2013, from http://www.vfa.de/.

  • Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD. (2002). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The Business Case for Sustainable Development: Making a Difference Towards the Johannesburg Summit 2002 and Beyond. Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. (1995). Environmental strategy and sustainable development: The corporate challenge for the 21st century. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. (2004). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical elements and best practice. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 13, 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. (2008). Reporting on community impacts. A survey conducted by the Global Reporting Initiative, the University of Hong Kong, and CSR Asia. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Reporting-on-Community-Impacts.pdf.

  • Welford, R. (2013). Business contributes to inclusive development, responsible growth, but challenges of scale remain. Speech by Richard Welford at the opening of the CSR Asia Summit 2013. Accessed September 2013, from www.CSR-Asia.com.

  • Werther Jr., W. B., & Chandler, D. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, D., Edwards, P., & Birkin, F. (2001). Some evidence on executives: Views of corporate social responsibility. British Accounting Review, 33, 357–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2016). Is this the biggest economic revolution in 250 years? Accessed August 2016, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/is-this-the-biggest-economic-revolution-in-250-years/.

  • Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042. doi:10.1177/0149206311406265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FOM University of Applied Sciences, Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Essen, Germany

    Linda O’Riordan

Authors
  1. Linda O’Riordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Riordan, L. (2017). Mind the Gap: Searching for Value via Sustainable Solutions. In: Managing Sustainable Stakeholder Relationships. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50240-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation