英语论文网

摘要：本文是作者的一篇英国本科毕业论文。任何一个企业和社会组织都是存在于环境之中的。企业环境可分成微观环境和宏观环境。微观环境包括那些直接影响企业履行其使命状况的行动者、供应商、各种市场中间商、顾客、竞争对手等。宏观环境包括那些影响企业微观环境中所有行动者的较广泛的社会力量或因素，包括人口的、经济的、技术的、政治的、法律的、以及社会文化方面的力量和因素。企业的经济环境包括：1、宏观经济形势，如国民经济发展水平及其发展趋势，政府财政。金融情况;2、本行业在整个经济体系中的地位和行业特点;3、企业的直接经济环境，包括人均实际收入、平均消费取向、消费支出分配模式。

>

When the concept of corporate environmental performance came out, it was vague; therefore, it was a bit difficult to measure. (Pava and Krausz, 1996) However, corporate social responsibility (CSR) was defined as ‘policies or actions which identify a company as being concerned with society-related issues’ in the empirical studies. (Roberts, 1992)

Ullmann (1985) pointed out that the CEP measures chosen were quite different, which leads to the inconsistent results. Meanwhile, Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield (1985) also suggested that some indexes of CER were questionable and it was difficult to develop valid measures.

There are three main methods to measure CER in the previous studies, namely ‘expert evaluations of corporate policies’, analysis of relative corporate documents, (McGuire, Sundgren and Schneeweis, 1988) and using a proxy measure. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Now I take ‘expert evaluations of corporate policies’ for example. McGuire, Sundgren and Schneeweis (1988), Fombrun and Shanley (1990) and Stanwick and Stanwick (1998) used the Fortune’s Corporate Reputation Index, which is a popular CER measure in the research studies. And they all found a positive relationship between CER and CFP. Though McGuire, Sundgren and Schneeweis (1988) was not sure that whether Fortune data is valid or not, they suggested that Fortune Index is different from the other measures, as it could be affected by the biases of the evaluators. Moreover, Fryxell and Wang (1994) argued that Corporate Reputation Index could not represent the firm’s environmental commitment well, as it is weighted based on the financial perspective of the company. Then there is definitely a strong positive relationship between Corporate Reputation Index and financial performance; therefore, the results might be less valuable. Later Stanwick and Stanwick (1998) further checked the validity of Fortune Index, and the results show that Fortune Index is valid indicator of corporate environmental performance.

Salama (2005) chose Corporate Reputation Index of ‘Britain’s Most Admired Companies’ (MAC), which follows the same methodology as Fortune Index, to measure CER and found a strong positive relationship. This index reflects the CER of 239 firms in forms of ‘Community and Environmental Responsibility’, and it was published in Management Today since 1994. (Salama, 2005)

In the recent studies, the ratings of corporate social performance provided by the firm Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini (KLD) is widely used as the indicator of CEP. KLD rates the CEP of companies according to a range of attributes, which are related to different stakeholder concerns. (Waddock and Graves, 1997) Apart from being a multidimensional assessment, KLD has many other merits, such as independent researchers, the same set of criteria, and both internal and external information of a wide range of companies considered. Therefore, KLD is a useful measurement of CEP, and many studies chose KLD as an indicator of CEP achieved the satisfied results, such as Waddock and Graves (1997); Hull and Rothenberg (2008); Godfrey, Merrill and Hansen (2009).

There are also other professional ratings of CEP used in the empirical studies, such as the Social本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。