Payday loans

Login

¿Porqué debemos ser responsables?

RSU en imagenes

jornadas veinte de mayo003.JPG

 

STAKEHOLDERS

  • ARENAS, LOZANO, ALBAREDA (2009). The Role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual Perceptions Among Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 88. pp. 175–197.
  • BENNEWORTH, JONGBLOED (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. High Educ, Vol. 59. pp. 567–588.
  • CASANI, PÉREZ (2010). La responsabilidad social en las universidades públicas españolas: vectores de cambio en la gobernanza. Investigaciones de economía de la educación / coord. por José Manuel Roig Cotanda, Luis Eduardo Vila Lladosa
  • CORTESE (2003). The Critical Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable Future. Planning for Higher Education.
  • GAETE (2009) “Participación de los stakeholders en la evaluación del comportamiento socialmente responsable de la gestión universitaria: perspectivas, obstáculos y propuestas”, documento Nº 6 serie responsabilidad social corporativa, AECA, Valladolid. España.
  • GROSSER (2009). Corporate social responsibility and gender equality: women as stakeholders and the European Union sustainability strategy. Business Ethics: A European Review. Vol. 18, Nº 3.
  • JONGBLOED, ENDERS, SALERNO (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. High Educ. Vol.  56. pp. 303–324.
  • LARRÁN, M., LÓPEZ, A. Y CALZADO, Y. (2012b). Stakeholder Expectations in Spanish Public Universities: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 2: (10 Special Issue – May), pp. 1-13.
  • MAASSEN (2000). The Changing Roles of Stakeholders in Dutch University Governance. European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 4.
  • MAGALHÄES, AMARAL (2000). Portuguese Higher Education and the Imaginary Friend: the stakeholders' role in institutional governance. European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 4.
  • MITCHELL, AGLE, WOOD (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.  Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review.  Vol. 22, nº 4. pp. 853.
  • MITCHELL, R. K, AGLE, B.R y 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. Vol. 22, nº 4. pp 853-886.
  • OKUNOYE, A., FROLICK, M., y CRABLE, E. (2008). Stakeholder influence and ERP implementation in higher education. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research. Vol. 10, nº 3. pp. 9.
  • OKUNOYE, FROLICK, CRABLE (2008).  Stakeholder influence and erp implementation in higher education Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research. Vol.  10, nº 3. pp. 9. 
  • PAVICˇIC´, J., ALFIREVIC´, N., Y MIHANOVIC, Z. (2009). Market orientation in managing relationships with multiple constituencies of Croatian higher education. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Vol. 57, pp. 191–207.
  • STIEB (2009). Assessing Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87. pp. 401–414.
  • TURKER (2009). How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 89. pp. 189–204.
  • UNERMAN, BENNETT (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?. Accounting, Organizations and Society, nº 29, pp. 685–707.
  • WAGNER, E. M., ALVES, H., RAPOSO, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, Vol. 50 Iss: 10 pp. 1861 – 1879.
  • WIT, VERHOEVEN (2000). Stakeholders in Universities and Colleges in Flanders. European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 4.