基于企业可持续发展的业绩评价研究
|
摘要
企业业绩评价是一个长期以来不断被时代赋予活力的研究领域。进入21世纪以来,商业伦理、生态保护、自然资源紧缺等问题越来越受到社会更多的关注。在企业经营管理实践中,企业利益相关者在公司治理中的地位日益显现。以现代企业为研究对象的现代企业管理学研究正在由效率主题、利润主题、职能主题和行为主题等向以企业可持续发展为主题变迁。我国提出的构建和谐社会、实践科学发展观的社会发展导向要求企业发展必须深入贯彻落实以人为本和全面、协调的基本原则,追求经济、社会和环境效益全面协调发展。在这种新的企业环境条件下,过于追求经济业绩指标而忽视了社会福利、社会公正和环境保护的企业发展方式已经难以为继,亟需新的业绩评价来引导企业形成持续竞争优势。
从国内外企业业绩评价发展状况来看,业绩评价已经开始逐步考虑企业各利益相关者的利益,呈现出财务信息与非财务信息相结合,经济、社会和环境三方面业绩相结合的发展趋势。当前的业绩评价尽管已经涉及到许多非经济指标,但总体上仍然是侧重于经济业绩,依旧主要是为了企业最终获得经济业绩来服务的,对于社会贡献和环境保护的评价还很有限。
在这种情况下,科学发展观为我国的企业业绩评价提出了一个具有中国特色的指导原则。企业是社会经济活动的微观主体,如何引导企业全面、协调和可持续发展是贯彻落实科学发展观的关键所在,而这则需要与科学发展观相适应的业绩评价充分发挥导向作用。
为此,本文选择了企业可持续发展作为新的研究视角。在新视角下,选择以可持续发展理论、利益相关者理论和企业社会责任理论为理论依据,将企业利益相关者范围扩大到包括后代人类和非人类物种在内的广大群体,强调企业在持续经营过程中对利益相关者多样化需求的满足。这不仅突破了传统业绩评价以“资本雇佣劳动”为基础、强调股东利益至上的固有思维,而且还拓展了传统业绩评价的理论基础。
在新视角下的业绩评价框架为我国的企业业绩评价研究和科学发展观在企业层面的实施提供了参考。这一框架遵循了权变思想、整合思想、因果思想、平衡思想和系统思想,吸取了可持续发展理论、利益相关者理论和企业社会责任理论对于业绩评价的理论指导,结合了我国当前历史条件下的国情特点。在新视角下,可持续发展的企业是一个“生态.经济.社会”系统,企业业绩的形成是多个利益主体共同作用和相互妥协的结果。多元化的主体及其多元化的利益要求共同指向了经济、社会、环境这三重业绩的全面、协调发展。三重业绩之间不再是传统观点所认为的此消彼长的对立关系,而是呈现出良性的循环过程。三重业绩与整体业绩之间的关系构成了一个三角形结构,顶端体现着以利益相关者导向的综合业绩最大化,底端以反映三重业绩的各项具体指标为信息基础,中间的发展度和协调度构成了基础信息与综合业绩的连接纽带。整个结构体现出中国国情特点所需求的三重业绩“全面、协调”发展的基本内涵。
评价指标和评价方法是得出评价结论的关键,需要结合新视角下的业绩评价内涵构建其指标体系和评价方法。企业追求可持续发展应当做到在经济、社会和环境业绩这三个方面都有突出的表现。比较而言,经济业绩指标已经比较成熟,本文重点对环境业绩和社会业绩指标进行了深入研究。立足三重企业业绩评价的需要,本文对国际组织和学者关于企业社会责任理论、企业社会责任会计、环境会计的相关观点和成果进行了归纳,以文献研究、专家咨询和企业调查结果为依据,提出的新视角下的业绩指标体系更有科学性和实用性。在取得指标体系的基础上,本文结合新视角下的业绩评价特点,选择了适当的三重业绩评价方法进行研究。
在对评价指标和评价方法进行研究的过程中,本文发现目前综合评价方法的研究普遍存在着多方法评价结论的非一致性、理论研究与实际应用脱节这两个问题。本文在进行研究时,做了相应的改进:一是在确立指标体系时,通过理论分析深刻揭示所研究问题的本质,利用文献研究方法、专家意见方法、问卷调查方法加深了对于所评价对象特征的把握,使指标体系能够更全面、客观反映评价对象。二是根据被评价对象的特点,对基本评价方法的应用条件进行了认真筛选,最大程度的保证评价方法和评价过程的客观性。
根据得到指标体系和评价方法,本文进行了实证研究和应用研究。首先,根据通过问卷调查得到的数据对三重业绩指标间的关系进行了实证分析,发现社会业绩、环境业绩和经济业绩三类指标总体呈现出正向关系:不同类别的明细指标之间以显著性的正向影响关系为主,次之是显著性的不相关关系,没有显著性的负向影响关系,从而支持了本文提出的三重业绩关系。其次.按照样本企业的规模和经济性质类别分别进行了评价,并根据评价结果分析了不同规模和不同经济性质的企业在三重业绩表现上的异同。结果表明,随着企业规模的扩张,企业的三重业绩全面协调发展状态并不是稳步提升的;在中小型企业这个规模区间,三重业绩的全面协调发展状态尽管会有所上升,但是对企业规模的影响并不明显;只有达到一定规模之后,三重业绩全面协调发展状态才会有一个较大幅度的改观:国有企业和民营企业在三重业绩上的表现上水平相当。
进一步综合考察发现,大型国有企业和大型民营企业的三重业绩全面协调发展状态差异不显著,中小型企业也是如此;但是大型民营企业的三重业绩全面协调发展状态要比中小型企业突出:在民营企业中以中小企业为绝大多数,中小企业代表着民营企业的三重业绩表现。最后,本文结合实际提出了基于新视角的业绩评价的实施建议。第一,企业可持续发展是由政府行为、企业行为和公众行为这三种行为共同整合而成的社会行为。政府要发挥教育引导、协调管理、公共保障和服务职能。企业在自身的发展过程中要以人为本。公众则要发挥舆论引导、社会监督和社会服务功能。第二,企业社会责任信息和环境保护信息的披露方式应当有所创新,表现在:有关的会计科目应当单独列出,信息披露应当以会计型的信息为主、非会计型的信息为补充,并体现行业差别,企业可持续发展报告是今后被鼓励的披露方式,这既需要企业自身转变观念以增强内在动力,还需要政府出台相应的审计制度以形成约束机制。
研究过程中,本文进行了以下三点创新:第一,提出了企业业绩评价的新视角,即企业可持续发展视角。在分析传统业绩评价局限性的基础上,从理论依据和现实要求等多个层面阐述了从新视角进行业绩评价的重要性和必要性。第二,构建了新视角下的业绩评价框架。论文拓展了业绩评价的理论基础,结合新的时代特征和中国国情特点,融合三重业绩的内在联系,从而形成了利益相关者导向的业绩评价框架,为科学发展观在企业层面的实施提供参考。第三,设计了新视角下的业绩指标体系和评价方法。论文揭示了企业可持续发展内涵及对业绩评价的要求,尤其是指标体系的设计以文献研究、专家咨询和企业调研结果为依据,更具科学性和实用性。
Enterprise performance measurement is usually a research field with time constraints. In the 21st century, business ethics, environmental protection, natural resource scarcity and other issues are attracting more and more concerns of the whole of society. In the practice of business management, business stakeholders in enterprise governance play an increasingly important role. The theme of modern business management research is moving towards the theme of enterprise sustainable development after it has gone through these themes, efficiency, profits, functions and behavior. Domestic society development trend for building a harmonious socialist society and applyling the Scientific Outlook on Development calls for enterprise to pursuit economic, social, environmental achievement with thorough application of people-oriented, comprehensive and coordinated principles. Under new operating environment conditions, the development mode with too much emphasis on economic performance indicators while neglecting social welfare, social justice and environmental protection, has been unsustainable, which demands new performance measurement to guide enterprise to form a sustainable competitive advantage.
From the development situation of enterprise performance measurement at home and abroad, current performance measurement has considered progressively the interests of stakeholders with equality, and demonstrated the trends of a combination of financial and non-financial information as well as economic, social and environmental performance information. However, these are for enterprise to improve economic performance eventually. Economic performance is still the focus at present, and non-economic aspects for social contribution and environmental protection are deficient.
In this context, the Scientific Outlook on Development proposes guiding principles of Chinese characteristics for domestic enterprise performance measurement. Enterprises are the main body in micro-socio-economic activities. How to guide enterprises to achieve comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development is the key to thoroughly apply the Scientific Outlook on Development, which requires the performance measurement suited to this concept to play the guiding role.
Therefore this paper selects enterprise sustainable development as a new research perspective. For the new perspective, it chooses the sustainable development theory, stakeholder theory and enterprise social responsibility theory as the theoretical basis, which brings the offspring of human and non-human species into the range of business stakeholders and emphasizes to meet the diverse needs of stakeholders in the process of sustainable operations. That breaks through the basis of "Capital wage-labor" and the inherent way of thinking with emphasis of supremacy of interests for shareholders, which are held by traditional performance measurement, and extends the range of theoretical for traditional performance measurement.
The framework with new perspective for enterprise performance measurement provides a new reference for domestic enterprise performance measurement research, for application of the Scientific Outlook on Development at the enterprise level. It follows the contingency thought, integrating thought, causal thought, coordinated thought as well as systemic thought, and draws on the sustainable development theory, stakeholder theory and enterprise social responsibility theory for guidance, and combines with domestic society conditions under current historical conditions. From the new perspective, an enterprise of this nature is a "social-economic-ecological" system, the formation of enterprise performance is more than the combined effects of main benefits and mutual compromises. A wide range of interests and demands from various subjects points to economic, social, environmental performance of comprehensive and coordinated development. The relationship between triple performances takes on a benign cycle, instead of an opposite relationship, which is considered by the traditional view. The relationship between triple performance and entire performance constitutes a triangular structure. The top embodies the maximizing of stakeholders-oriented performance, the bottom takes specific indicators of triple performance as information basis, the indicator of development degree and coordination degree in the middle constitute the link between basic information and comprehensive performance. The entire structure totally embodies the meaning of triple performance "comprehensive and coordinated" development which is required by the situation in China.
Measurement indicator and method is the key to draw conclusions, which need to integrate with the meaning of performance measurement of the new perspective. For the pursuit of sustainable development, enterprise should be outstanding in economic, social and environmental performance. Comparatively speaking, economic performance indicators have been relatively sophisticated, this paper focuses on environmental and social performance indicators and carries out in-depth research. Based on the needs of triple enterprise performance measurement, this paper summarizes relevant achievements of enterprise social responsibility theory, enterprise social responsibility accounting, environmental accounting, then proposes a new indicator system through literature research, expert advice and business surveys, which is more scientific and practical. After that, this paper selects an appropriate measurement method with characteristics of triple performance from the new perspective.
In this process, this paper finds that many current methods of comprehensive measurement are generally facing two issues, which are measurement findings of non-consistency, theoretical research and practical applications which are out of touch, and has taken efforts to minimize the negative impact. Firstly, this paper attempts to reveal the profound essence of the problem through theoretical analysis, to promote understanding of characteristics of the object through literature research, expert opinion and survey methods, so that the indicator system is able to comprehensively and objectively reflect them. Secondly, according to characteristics of the object being measured, this paper selects the application conditions of basic measurement methods, to assure the objectivity of measurement methodology and process with the greatest accuracy.
According to the indicator system and measurement method, the paper carries out empirical research and application. Firstly, according to enterprise survey data, it carries out an empirical analysis on the relationship between triple performance indicators, and finds social, environmental and economic performance indicators in general showing positive relationships. Moreover different types of detailed indicators with significant positive relationship predominate, the following are those with significant non-correlation, there is no significant negative relationship, which support the theoretical relationship of triple performance. Secondly, this paper applies the measurement method to the sample with categories of sample size and economic nature, and analyzes similarities and differences of triple performance. The results show that with the expansion of the size of enterprise, comprehensive and coordinated development situation of triple performance is not reflected by a steady increase; in small and medium size range, the situation will be increased, but it is not obvious to the size change; only after it reaches a considerable size, the situation will have a more substantial change; the situation in state-owned enterprises and private enterprises is equivalent.
Further comprehensive research finds large state-owned enterprises and large private enterprises in this situation have no significant differences, this finding also applies to small and medium-sized enterprises; but the situation of large private enterprises is more prominent than that of small and medium enterprises; small and medium private enterprises form the vast majority in private enterprises, which mainly represent the triple performance of private enterprise.
Finally this paper puts forward advices for the application of performance measurement of the new perspective. Firstly, enterprise sustainable development is a social behavior of the common integration of enterprise behavior, government and public behavior. The government has to apply educational guidance, social coordination management, public service functions. Enterprises in its own development should emphasis the role of people in particular. The public will have to exert public opinion of guidance, social supervision and social services. Secondly, the disclosure manner of enterprise social responsibility and environmental protection information should be innovated, which is reflected below. Related accounts should be listed separately, more accounting-based information should be the primary focus with non-accounting-based information to supplement, information differences in industry are necessarily reflected, enterprise sustainability reports would be encouraged as the way of information disclosure in future. All of these require not only for enterprises to change development concepts to enhance intrinsic motivation, but also for government to introduce an appropriate audit system to form a restraint mechanism.
During the research process, this paper tries to obtain three innovations below. Firstly, the paper proposes a new perspective for enterprise performance measurement, which is enterprise sustainable development. Based on the analysis of limitations of traditional performance measurement, this paper expounds the importance and necessity for performance measurement from the theoretical basis and practical requirements. Secondly, this paper builds the framework of performance measurement from the new perspective. This paper extends the theoretical basis for performance measurement, combines new characteristics of time and domestic conditions, integrates the internal contact of triple performance, and forms stakeholder-oriented framework of performance, which provides a new reference for application of the Scientific Outlook on Development at the enterprise level. Thirdly, this paper designs performance indicator system and measurement method from the new perspective. This paper reveals the meaning of enterprise sustainable development and its requirements for performance measurement, especially the indicator system is designed with literature research, expert advice and business surveys, which make the indicator system more scientific and practical.
从国内外企业业绩评价发展状况来看,业绩评价已经开始逐步考虑企业各利益相关者的利益,呈现出财务信息与非财务信息相结合,经济、社会和环境三方面业绩相结合的发展趋势。当前的业绩评价尽管已经涉及到许多非经济指标,但总体上仍然是侧重于经济业绩,依旧主要是为了企业最终获得经济业绩来服务的,对于社会贡献和环境保护的评价还很有限。
在这种情况下,科学发展观为我国的企业业绩评价提出了一个具有中国特色的指导原则。企业是社会经济活动的微观主体,如何引导企业全面、协调和可持续发展是贯彻落实科学发展观的关键所在,而这则需要与科学发展观相适应的业绩评价充分发挥导向作用。
为此,本文选择了企业可持续发展作为新的研究视角。在新视角下,选择以可持续发展理论、利益相关者理论和企业社会责任理论为理论依据,将企业利益相关者范围扩大到包括后代人类和非人类物种在内的广大群体,强调企业在持续经营过程中对利益相关者多样化需求的满足。这不仅突破了传统业绩评价以“资本雇佣劳动”为基础、强调股东利益至上的固有思维,而且还拓展了传统业绩评价的理论基础。
在新视角下的业绩评价框架为我国的企业业绩评价研究和科学发展观在企业层面的实施提供了参考。这一框架遵循了权变思想、整合思想、因果思想、平衡思想和系统思想,吸取了可持续发展理论、利益相关者理论和企业社会责任理论对于业绩评价的理论指导,结合了我国当前历史条件下的国情特点。在新视角下,可持续发展的企业是一个“生态.经济.社会”系统,企业业绩的形成是多个利益主体共同作用和相互妥协的结果。多元化的主体及其多元化的利益要求共同指向了经济、社会、环境这三重业绩的全面、协调发展。三重业绩之间不再是传统观点所认为的此消彼长的对立关系,而是呈现出良性的循环过程。三重业绩与整体业绩之间的关系构成了一个三角形结构,顶端体现着以利益相关者导向的综合业绩最大化,底端以反映三重业绩的各项具体指标为信息基础,中间的发展度和协调度构成了基础信息与综合业绩的连接纽带。整个结构体现出中国国情特点所需求的三重业绩“全面、协调”发展的基本内涵。
评价指标和评价方法是得出评价结论的关键,需要结合新视角下的业绩评价内涵构建其指标体系和评价方法。企业追求可持续发展应当做到在经济、社会和环境业绩这三个方面都有突出的表现。比较而言,经济业绩指标已经比较成熟,本文重点对环境业绩和社会业绩指标进行了深入研究。立足三重企业业绩评价的需要,本文对国际组织和学者关于企业社会责任理论、企业社会责任会计、环境会计的相关观点和成果进行了归纳,以文献研究、专家咨询和企业调查结果为依据,提出的新视角下的业绩指标体系更有科学性和实用性。在取得指标体系的基础上,本文结合新视角下的业绩评价特点,选择了适当的三重业绩评价方法进行研究。
在对评价指标和评价方法进行研究的过程中,本文发现目前综合评价方法的研究普遍存在着多方法评价结论的非一致性、理论研究与实际应用脱节这两个问题。本文在进行研究时,做了相应的改进:一是在确立指标体系时,通过理论分析深刻揭示所研究问题的本质,利用文献研究方法、专家意见方法、问卷调查方法加深了对于所评价对象特征的把握,使指标体系能够更全面、客观反映评价对象。二是根据被评价对象的特点,对基本评价方法的应用条件进行了认真筛选,最大程度的保证评价方法和评价过程的客观性。
根据得到指标体系和评价方法,本文进行了实证研究和应用研究。首先,根据通过问卷调查得到的数据对三重业绩指标间的关系进行了实证分析,发现社会业绩、环境业绩和经济业绩三类指标总体呈现出正向关系:不同类别的明细指标之间以显著性的正向影响关系为主,次之是显著性的不相关关系,没有显著性的负向影响关系,从而支持了本文提出的三重业绩关系。其次.按照样本企业的规模和经济性质类别分别进行了评价,并根据评价结果分析了不同规模和不同经济性质的企业在三重业绩表现上的异同。结果表明,随着企业规模的扩张,企业的三重业绩全面协调发展状态并不是稳步提升的;在中小型企业这个规模区间,三重业绩的全面协调发展状态尽管会有所上升,但是对企业规模的影响并不明显;只有达到一定规模之后,三重业绩全面协调发展状态才会有一个较大幅度的改观:国有企业和民营企业在三重业绩上的表现上水平相当。
进一步综合考察发现,大型国有企业和大型民营企业的三重业绩全面协调发展状态差异不显著,中小型企业也是如此;但是大型民营企业的三重业绩全面协调发展状态要比中小型企业突出:在民营企业中以中小企业为绝大多数,中小企业代表着民营企业的三重业绩表现。最后,本文结合实际提出了基于新视角的业绩评价的实施建议。第一,企业可持续发展是由政府行为、企业行为和公众行为这三种行为共同整合而成的社会行为。政府要发挥教育引导、协调管理、公共保障和服务职能。企业在自身的发展过程中要以人为本。公众则要发挥舆论引导、社会监督和社会服务功能。第二,企业社会责任信息和环境保护信息的披露方式应当有所创新,表现在:有关的会计科目应当单独列出,信息披露应当以会计型的信息为主、非会计型的信息为补充,并体现行业差别,企业可持续发展报告是今后被鼓励的披露方式,这既需要企业自身转变观念以增强内在动力,还需要政府出台相应的审计制度以形成约束机制。
研究过程中,本文进行了以下三点创新:第一,提出了企业业绩评价的新视角,即企业可持续发展视角。在分析传统业绩评价局限性的基础上,从理论依据和现实要求等多个层面阐述了从新视角进行业绩评价的重要性和必要性。第二,构建了新视角下的业绩评价框架。论文拓展了业绩评价的理论基础,结合新的时代特征和中国国情特点,融合三重业绩的内在联系,从而形成了利益相关者导向的业绩评价框架,为科学发展观在企业层面的实施提供参考。第三,设计了新视角下的业绩指标体系和评价方法。论文揭示了企业可持续发展内涵及对业绩评价的要求,尤其是指标体系的设计以文献研究、专家咨询和企业调研结果为依据,更具科学性和实用性。
Enterprise performance measurement is usually a research field with time constraints. In the 21st century, business ethics, environmental protection, natural resource scarcity and other issues are attracting more and more concerns of the whole of society. In the practice of business management, business stakeholders in enterprise governance play an increasingly important role. The theme of modern business management research is moving towards the theme of enterprise sustainable development after it has gone through these themes, efficiency, profits, functions and behavior. Domestic society development trend for building a harmonious socialist society and applyling the Scientific Outlook on Development calls for enterprise to pursuit economic, social, environmental achievement with thorough application of people-oriented, comprehensive and coordinated principles. Under new operating environment conditions, the development mode with too much emphasis on economic performance indicators while neglecting social welfare, social justice and environmental protection, has been unsustainable, which demands new performance measurement to guide enterprise to form a sustainable competitive advantage.
From the development situation of enterprise performance measurement at home and abroad, current performance measurement has considered progressively the interests of stakeholders with equality, and demonstrated the trends of a combination of financial and non-financial information as well as economic, social and environmental performance information. However, these are for enterprise to improve economic performance eventually. Economic performance is still the focus at present, and non-economic aspects for social contribution and environmental protection are deficient.
In this context, the Scientific Outlook on Development proposes guiding principles of Chinese characteristics for domestic enterprise performance measurement. Enterprises are the main body in micro-socio-economic activities. How to guide enterprises to achieve comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development is the key to thoroughly apply the Scientific Outlook on Development, which requires the performance measurement suited to this concept to play the guiding role.
Therefore this paper selects enterprise sustainable development as a new research perspective. For the new perspective, it chooses the sustainable development theory, stakeholder theory and enterprise social responsibility theory as the theoretical basis, which brings the offspring of human and non-human species into the range of business stakeholders and emphasizes to meet the diverse needs of stakeholders in the process of sustainable operations. That breaks through the basis of "Capital wage-labor" and the inherent way of thinking with emphasis of supremacy of interests for shareholders, which are held by traditional performance measurement, and extends the range of theoretical for traditional performance measurement.
The framework with new perspective for enterprise performance measurement provides a new reference for domestic enterprise performance measurement research, for application of the Scientific Outlook on Development at the enterprise level. It follows the contingency thought, integrating thought, causal thought, coordinated thought as well as systemic thought, and draws on the sustainable development theory, stakeholder theory and enterprise social responsibility theory for guidance, and combines with domestic society conditions under current historical conditions. From the new perspective, an enterprise of this nature is a "social-economic-ecological" system, the formation of enterprise performance is more than the combined effects of main benefits and mutual compromises. A wide range of interests and demands from various subjects points to economic, social, environmental performance of comprehensive and coordinated development. The relationship between triple performances takes on a benign cycle, instead of an opposite relationship, which is considered by the traditional view. The relationship between triple performance and entire performance constitutes a triangular structure. The top embodies the maximizing of stakeholders-oriented performance, the bottom takes specific indicators of triple performance as information basis, the indicator of development degree and coordination degree in the middle constitute the link between basic information and comprehensive performance. The entire structure totally embodies the meaning of triple performance "comprehensive and coordinated" development which is required by the situation in China.
Measurement indicator and method is the key to draw conclusions, which need to integrate with the meaning of performance measurement of the new perspective. For the pursuit of sustainable development, enterprise should be outstanding in economic, social and environmental performance. Comparatively speaking, economic performance indicators have been relatively sophisticated, this paper focuses on environmental and social performance indicators and carries out in-depth research. Based on the needs of triple enterprise performance measurement, this paper summarizes relevant achievements of enterprise social responsibility theory, enterprise social responsibility accounting, environmental accounting, then proposes a new indicator system through literature research, expert advice and business surveys, which is more scientific and practical. After that, this paper selects an appropriate measurement method with characteristics of triple performance from the new perspective.
In this process, this paper finds that many current methods of comprehensive measurement are generally facing two issues, which are measurement findings of non-consistency, theoretical research and practical applications which are out of touch, and has taken efforts to minimize the negative impact. Firstly, this paper attempts to reveal the profound essence of the problem through theoretical analysis, to promote understanding of characteristics of the object through literature research, expert opinion and survey methods, so that the indicator system is able to comprehensively and objectively reflect them. Secondly, according to characteristics of the object being measured, this paper selects the application conditions of basic measurement methods, to assure the objectivity of measurement methodology and process with the greatest accuracy.
According to the indicator system and measurement method, the paper carries out empirical research and application. Firstly, according to enterprise survey data, it carries out an empirical analysis on the relationship between triple performance indicators, and finds social, environmental and economic performance indicators in general showing positive relationships. Moreover different types of detailed indicators with significant positive relationship predominate, the following are those with significant non-correlation, there is no significant negative relationship, which support the theoretical relationship of triple performance. Secondly, this paper applies the measurement method to the sample with categories of sample size and economic nature, and analyzes similarities and differences of triple performance. The results show that with the expansion of the size of enterprise, comprehensive and coordinated development situation of triple performance is not reflected by a steady increase; in small and medium size range, the situation will be increased, but it is not obvious to the size change; only after it reaches a considerable size, the situation will have a more substantial change; the situation in state-owned enterprises and private enterprises is equivalent.
Further comprehensive research finds large state-owned enterprises and large private enterprises in this situation have no significant differences, this finding also applies to small and medium-sized enterprises; but the situation of large private enterprises is more prominent than that of small and medium enterprises; small and medium private enterprises form the vast majority in private enterprises, which mainly represent the triple performance of private enterprise.
Finally this paper puts forward advices for the application of performance measurement of the new perspective. Firstly, enterprise sustainable development is a social behavior of the common integration of enterprise behavior, government and public behavior. The government has to apply educational guidance, social coordination management, public service functions. Enterprises in its own development should emphasis the role of people in particular. The public will have to exert public opinion of guidance, social supervision and social services. Secondly, the disclosure manner of enterprise social responsibility and environmental protection information should be innovated, which is reflected below. Related accounts should be listed separately, more accounting-based information should be the primary focus with non-accounting-based information to supplement, information differences in industry are necessarily reflected, enterprise sustainability reports would be encouraged as the way of information disclosure in future. All of these require not only for enterprises to change development concepts to enhance intrinsic motivation, but also for government to introduce an appropriate audit system to form a restraint mechanism.
During the research process, this paper tries to obtain three innovations below. Firstly, the paper proposes a new perspective for enterprise performance measurement, which is enterprise sustainable development. Based on the analysis of limitations of traditional performance measurement, this paper expounds the importance and necessity for performance measurement from the theoretical basis and practical requirements. Secondly, this paper builds the framework of performance measurement from the new perspective. This paper extends the theoretical basis for performance measurement, combines new characteristics of time and domestic conditions, integrates the internal contact of triple performance, and forms stakeholder-oriented framework of performance, which provides a new reference for application of the Scientific Outlook on Development at the enterprise level. Thirdly, this paper designs performance indicator system and measurement method from the new perspective. This paper reveals the meaning of enterprise sustainable development and its requirements for performance measurement, especially the indicator system is designed with literature research, expert advice and business surveys, which make the indicator system more scientific and practical.
引文
[1]高晨.汤谷良.管理控制工具的整合模式:理论分析与中国企业的创新[J].会计研究,2007(8):68-75.
[1]肖海林,王芳华.企业增长、企业发展与企业可持续发展[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2004(4):46-50,109.
[1]Arie De Geus.长寿公司[M].王晓霞.刘吴译.北京:经济日报出版社,1998:20-30.
[2]约翰·黑格尔第三,约翰·斯利·布朗.领跑未来:打造企业可持续的竞争优势[M].张桦译.北京:商务印书馆.2006:151-152.
[3]埃尔金顿.茧经济:通向企业公民模式的企业转型[M].庞海丽译.上海:上海人民出版社.2005:5,20,57.
[1]P德鲁克.未来的管理[M].李小刚译.四川人民大学出版社,2000:2.
[2]加里·阿什沃思.整合绩效管理[M].北京:电子工业出版社.2002:4.
[1]张鼎昆.硬考核能为软文化做什么[J].中外管理,2001(2):58-60.
[1]朱元午.关于财务控制系统的三维思考[J].新理财,2004(7):20-24.
[2]池国华.内部管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].预测,2006,25(3):12-16,37.
[3]北京工商大学会计学院课题组.论管理会计系统的权变性[J].北京工商大学学报:社会科学版.2003,18(6):49-52.
[1]杨瑞龙,周业安.一个关于企业所有权安排的规范性分析框架及其理论意义[J].经济研究,1997(1):1-22.
[1]罗珉.管理学前沿理论研究[M].成都:西南财经大学出版社,2006:105-130.
[1]张建同.朱立龙.企业的社会责任与企业绩效的相关性研究[J].华东经济管理,2007,21(7):94-97.
[2]Christopher Ittner,David Larcker.改革公司业绩评价标准[J].国外社会科学文摘,2001(4):69-71.
[1]Charan R,Colvin G.Why CEOs Fail[J].Fortune,1999,140(6):69.
[1]史蒂文·F·沃克,杰弗里·E·马尔.利益相关者权力[M].北京:经济管理出版社.2003:12-13.
[1]加文·凯利,多米尼克·凯利,安德鲁·甘布尔.利害相关者资本主义[M].欧阳英译.重庆:重庆出版社.2001:198.
[1]Orts Eric W.Beyond shareholders:Interpreting corporate constituency statues[J].George Washington Law Review,1992(17):14-135.
[1]Arie De Geus.长寿公司[M].王晓霞,刘吴译.北京:经济日报出版社,1998:132-145.
[1]罗伯特·S·卡普兰,安东尼·A·阿特金森.高级管理会计[M].东北财经大学出版社.1999:313.
[1]加文·凯利,多米尼克·凯利,安德鲁·甘布尔.利害相关者资本主义[M].欧阳英译.重庆:重庆出版社,2001:279.
[1]McWilliams A,Siegel D,W right P.Corporate social responsibility:Strategic implications[J].Journal of Management Studies,2006(43):1-18.
[1]斯蒂芬·波尔托兹基.创造环保型企业价值[M].孙海龙译.北京:机械工业出版社,2002:68.
[1]肖特嘉,布里特.现代环境会计[M].肖华,李建发译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2004:325-326.
[1]这两个概念来源于对科学发展观体系特征的描述,本文借用了这一名称。参见《2004中国可持续发展报告》第22-24页。
[1]马庆国.管理统计[M].北京:科学出版社,2002:320.
[2]徐尚昆.杨汝岱.企业社会责任概念范畴的归纳性分析[J].中国工业经济.2007(5):71-79.
[1]李怀祖.管理研究方法论[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2版.2004:147.
[1]曾珍香.顾培亮.可持续发展的系统分析与评价[M].北京:科学出版杜.2000:124.
[2]孙宪华.稳健统计在经济指标中的应用及其启示[J].现代财经.2003(12):36-38.
[3]王静龙,梁小筠.非参数统计分析[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2004:18.
[1]杨震宁等.企业入驻科技园的动机及影响因素模型研究[J].科学学研究.2008.26(5).137-143.198.
[1]徐国样,檀向球,胡穗华.上市公司经营业绩综合评价及其实证研究[J].统计研究,2000(9):44-51.
[2]苏为华.多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究[D].厦门:厦门大学统计系.2000.
[1]池国华(?)旭升 我国上市公司经营业绩评价系统研究[J]会计研究.2003(8):45-47.
[1]隋映辉.协调发展论[M]青岛:青岛海洋大学出版社,1990:20-21.
[1]何晓群.现代统计分析方法与应用[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2版.2007:378-387.
[1]S西格尔.非参数统计[M].北星 译.北京:科学出版社,1986:187-188.
[1]Jenkins H A.Critique of conventional CSR theory:An SME perspective[J].Journal of General Management.2004,29(4):37-57.
[1]Allenby B R.工业生态学IM].翁瑞译.北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
[2]Williams R S.业绩管理[M].赵正斌等译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2003.
[3]安德烈·A·德瓦尔.绩效管理魔力[M].汪开虎译.上海:上海交通大学出版社,2002.
[4]安迪·尼利,克里斯·亚当斯,迈克·肯尼尔利.战略业绩管理:超越平衡记分卡[M].李剑锋等译.北京:电子工业出版社,2004.
[5]埃尔金顿.茧经济:通向企业公民模式的企业转型[M].庞海丽译.上海:上海人民出版社.2005.
[6]陈长杰,马晓微,魏一鸣,傅小峰.基于可持续发展的中国经济-资源系统协调性分析[J].系统工程,2004,22(3):34-39.
[7]陈共荣,曾峻.企业绩效评价主体的演进及其对绩效评价的影响[J].会计研究,2005(4):65-68.
[8]陈国宏,李美娟,陈衍泰.组合评价及其计算机集成系统研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2007.
[9]陈维政,吴继红,任佩瑜.企业社会绩效评价的利益相关者模式[J].中国工业经济,2002(7):57-63.
[10]陈玉清,马丽丽.我国上市公司社会责任会计信息市场反应实证分析[J].会计研究,2005(11):76-81.
[11]池国华.内部管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].预测,2006,25(3):12-16,37.
[12]池国华.基于发展逻辑的管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].南开管理评论,2006,9(2):24-30.
[13]丹·安德森.企业生存:可持续发展风险管理[M].郑伟等译.北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[14]董俊武,陈震红.国外企业本质理论的演进与评述[J].经济管理,2007,29(5):91-96.
[15]杜胜利.企业经营业绩评价[M].北京:经济科学出版社.1999.
[16]范中启,曹明.能源-经济-环境系统可持续发展协调状态的测度与评价[J].预测,2006(4):66-70.
[17]菲利普·科特勒,南希·李.企业的社会责任[M].姜文波等译.北京:机械工业出版社,2006.
[18]高晨,汤谷良.管理控制工具的整合模式:理论分析与中国企业的创新[J].会计研究,2007(8):68-75.
[19]高晨.主观业绩评价研究:述评与启示[J].会计研究,2008(4):84-88.
[20]郭亚帆.稳健统计以及几种统计量的稳健性比较分析[J].统计研究,2007,24(9):82-85.
[21]郭亚军.综合评价理论、方法及应用IM].北京:科学出版社,2007.
[22]哈佛商业评论.企业与环境[M].思铭译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[23]贺小刚,陆一婷.公司社会责任与价值创造:基于社会调查的数据分析[J].科学经济社会,2008,26(112):62-69
[24]贺远琼,田志龙,陈昀.企业社会绩效与经济绩效的互动关系研究[J].软科学,2007,21(1):1-4.
[25]黄速建,卢晟.上市公司可持续发展的若干问题[J].经济管理,2002(3):9-12.
[26]黄速建,余菁.国有企业的性质、目标与社会责任[J].中国工业经济,2006(2):68-76.
[27]贾生华,陈宏辉,田传浩.基于利益相关者理论的企业绩效评价[J].科研管理,2003,24(4):94-101.
[28]金立印.企业社会责任运动测评指标体系实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2006(6):114-120.
[29]罗伯特·S·卡普兰,大卫·P·诺顿.战略地图[M].刘俊勇,孙薇译.广州:广东经济出版社,2005.
[30]李桂荣.矿区生态环境与经济协调发展评价方法与对策[J].大连轻工业学院学报,2002,21(2):152-156.
[31]李国柱.经济增长与环境协调发展的计量分析[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007.
[32]李怀祖.管理研究方法论[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2版.2004.
[33]李立清,李燕凌.企业社会责任研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[34]李苹莉.经营者业绩评价[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社.2001.
[35]李树业.可持续发展理念探新[J].科学管理研究,2007,25(3):9-11.
[36]李心合,利益相关者财务论[M].北京:中财政经济出版社,2003.
[37]李艳、曾珍香、武优西、李艳双.经济-环境系统协调发展评价方法研究及应用[J].系统工程理论与实践,2003(5):54-58.
[38]李占祥.论矛盾管理学[J].中国工业经济,1999(9):59-63.
[39]李占祥.为企业可持续成长(长寿)而管理[J].经济理论与经济管理,2002(8):54-58.
[40]李章华,朱燕.三重基线21世纪企业可持续发展解码[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2008.
[41]李正.社会责任与企业价值的相关性研究[J].中国工业经济,2006(2):77-83.
[42]联合国贸易与发展会议.企业环境业绩与财务业绩指标的结合[M].刘刚,高轶文,陈毓圭译.中国财政经济出版社,2003.
[43]林钟高,刘骏.平衡计分卡在社会责任会计中的应用[J].安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版),2006,23(3):90-92.
[44]刘力钢.企业持续发展论[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2001.
[45]刘力钢.企业可持续发展模式研究[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000,28(3):12-15.
[46]刘丽敏,杨淑娥,袁振兴.国际环境绩效评价标准综述[J].统计与决策(理论版),2007(8):150-153.
[47]刘思华.可持续发展经济学企业范式[J].当代财经,2001(3):16-21.
[48]刘思华.企业经济可持续发展论[M].中国环境科学出版社.2002.
[49]刘艳清.区域经济可持续发展系统的协调度研究[J].社会科学辑刊,2000(5):79-83.
[50]陆庆平.以企业价值最大化为导向的企业绩效评价体系[J].会计研究,2006(3):56-62.
[51]罗伯特·S·卡普兰,安东尼·A·阿特金森.高级管理会计[M].吕长江等译.东 北财经大学出版社,1999.
[52]孟庆松,韩文秀.复合系统协调度模型研究[J].天津大学学报,2000,33(4):444-446.
[53]芮明杰,孙继伟.企业可持续发展理论分析[J].上海经济研究,1998(4):56-59.
[54]芮明杰,吴光飙.可持续发展:国有企业战略性改组的目标[J].中国工业经济,2001(3):48-54.
[55]沈洪涛,沈艺峰.企业社会责任思想起源与演变[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2007.
[56]舒兴强,唐小兰.论企业社会责任与经济绩效的关系[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2006,20(5):79-82.
[57]宋献中,李皎予.企业社会责任会计[M].中国财经出版社,1992.
[58]宋献中.论财务管理的社会责任目标及相关财务指标体系的建立[J].四川会计,1997(8):5-8.
[59]宋旭光.可持续发展测度方法的系统分析[M].大连:东北财经大学出版社,2003.
[60]苏鹏,孙朋丽.略论我国民营企业的社会责任[J].理论与现代化,2005(7):7-8.
[61]孙洪庆.转轨经济条件下的绩效评价体系[J].财贸研究,2002(5):66-70.
[62]田虹.企业社会责任及其推进机制[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2006.
[63]田昆儒.中国社会责任会计问题研究综述[J].会计之友,2007(12):4-7.
[64]王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价IM].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2004.
[65]王辉,忻蓉,徐淑英.中国企业CEO的领导行为及对企业经营业绩的影响[J].管理世界,2006(4):87-139.
[66]王立彦,林小池.IS014000环境管理认证与企业价值增长[J].中国中青年财务成本研究会2005年年会论文集,2005:128-136.
[67]王立彦,袁颖.环境和质量管理认证的股价效应[J].经济科学,2004(6):59-71.
[68]王天仁.中国企业社会责任评价体系的构建[J].中国工商管理研究,2008(8):55-56.
[69]王维国,协调发展的理论与方法研究[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2000.
[70]王则斌.社会责任会计与企业可持续发展[J].经济管理,2006(23):23-26.
[71]温素彬,薛恒新.基于科学发展观的企业三重绩效评价模型[J].会计研究,2005(4):60-64.
[72]温素彬.基于可持续发展的企业绩效评价研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006.
[73]温素彬.企业三重绩效评价模型[J].数学的实践与认识,2008,38(6):1-8.
[74]肖海林,王芳华.企业增长、企业发展与企业可持续发展[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2004(4):46-50,109.
[75]肖海林,王芳华.论企业可持续发展的地位与管理范式[J].管理学报,2005,2(2):210-215.
[76]肖海林,王芳华.企业可持续发展新论[J].当代财经,2004(7):69-71,75.
[77]肖海林.企业管理:主题演进与范式流变[J].经济理论与经济管理,2006(11):58-64.
[78]肖特嘉,布里特.现代环境会计[M].肖华,李建发译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2004.
[79]肖序.环境会计理论与实务研究[M].大连:东北财经大学出版社,2007.
[80]谢德仁.经理人激励的潜在业绩基础:基于股东价值创造链的分析[J].会计研究,2003(12):28-33.
[81]谢芳,李慧明.企业环境绩效评价标准的演进与整合[J].经济管理,2006(7):17-20.
[82]谢良安.社会责任会计理论研究:回顾、综述与思考[J].财会通讯(学术版),2007(7):111-113.
[83]徐尚昆,杨汝岱.企业社会责任概念范畴的归纳性分析[J].中国工业经济,2007(5):71-79.
[84]许家林,孟凡利.环境会计[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2004.
[85]颜剩勇.企业社会责任的财务评价研究[J].科技进步与对策,2006(8):175-177.
[86]阳秋林.刍论社会责任会计的计量方法[J].企业经济,2003(1):136-137.
[87]阳秋林.再论社会责任会计的计量方法[J].南华大学学报,2005,6(1):44-47.
[88]杨东宁,周长辉.企业自愿采用标准化环境管理体系的驱动力:理论框架及实证分析[J].管理世界,2005(2):85-107.
[89]杨震宁,吕萍,王以华.企业入驻科技园的动机及影响因素模型研究[J].科学学研究,2008,26(5).137-143,198
[90]叶陈刚,曹波.企业社会责任评价体系的构建[J].财会月刊,2008(6):41-44.
[91]约翰·黑格尔第三,约翰·斯利·布朗.领跑未来:打造企业可持续的竞争优势[M].张桦译.北京:商务印书馆.2006.
[92]曾珍香,顾培亮.可持续发展的系统分析与评价[M].北京:科学出版社,2000.
[93]张建同,朱立龙.企业的社会责任与企业绩效的相关性研究[J].华东经济管理,2007,21(7):94-97.
[94]张陆彪,刘书楷.生态经济效益协调发展的表征判断[J].生态经济,1992(1):17-20.
[95]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社.2002.
[96]张涛,文新三.企业绩效评价研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社.2002.
[97]张晓东.中国区域经济与环境协调度预测分析[J].资源科学,2003,25(2):1-6.
[98]张炎,翟卫菁.基于经营绩效评价表的经营绩效评价体系[J].南开管理评沦,2002(1):37-42.
[99]张彦宁,陈兰通.2007中国企业社会责任发展报告[M].北京:中国电力出版社,2008.
[100]张志学,张文慧.认知需要与战略决策过程之间的关系[J].心理科学,2004,27(2):358-360.
[101]赵涛,李恒煜.能源-经济-环境(3E)系统协调度评价模型研究[J].北京 理工大学学报(社会科学版),2008,10(2):11-16.
[102]赵涛,刘保民,朱永明.基于员工权益的企业社会责任评价体系探讨[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008,41(2):80-82.
[103]钟朝宏,干胜道.全球报告倡议组织及其可持续发展报告指南[J].社会科学,2006(6):54-58.
[104]钟朝宏.企业可持续发展报告的国际经验[J].科技管理研究,2008(5):77-78,89.
[105]Art Schneideman.Why balanced scored Fall[J].Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement,1999(January):6-11.
[106]Aupperle K E,Carroll A B,Hatfield J D.An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability[J].Academy of Management Journal,1985(28):446-463.
[107]Backhaus K B,Stone B A,Heiner K.Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness[J].Business and Society,2002,41(3):292-328.
[108]Bamett,Sabmon Michael L etal.Beyond dichotomy:The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance[J].Strategic Management Journal,2006(27):1101-1122.
[109]Borucki C C,Burke M J.An examination of service-related antecedents to retail store performance[J].Journal of Organizational Behavior,1999,20(6):943-962.
[110]Carroll A B.A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance[J].Academy of Management Review,1979,4(4):497-505.
[111]Carroll A B.The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders[J].Business Horizons,1991(34):39-48.
[112]Charan R,Colvin G.Why CEOs Fail[J].Fortune,1999,140(6):69.
[111]Chenhall R H,Morris D.The impact of structure,environment and interdependencies on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems[J].Accounting Review,1986(61):16-35.
[114] Clarkson M B E. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(1):92-117.
[115] Cornell Bradford, Shapiro Alan C. Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance[J]. Financial Management, 1988,16(1):5-14.
[116] Cross Klevin, Lynch Richard. Tailoring performance measures to suit your business[J]. Journal of Accounting and EDP, 1990,6(1):17-25.
[117] D Maxwell, R vander Vorst. Developing sustainable products and services[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003, 11(8):883-895.
[118] Daveport K. Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it[J]. Business and Society, 2000, 39(2):210-219.
[119] Derwall J.Gunster N, Bauer R, Koedijk K. The eco-efficiency premium puzzle[J]. Financial Analysts Journal, 2005,61(2):51-63.
[120] Dirk Matten, Andrew Crane, Wendy Chappie. Behind the ask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2003(45):109-120.
[121] Donaldson, T. The stakeholder revolution and the Clarkson principles[J]. Business Ethnics Quarterly, 2002,12(2): 108.
[122] Elkington J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century business[J]. Environmental Quality Management, 1998(1):37-51.
[123] Fisher J G. Contingency theory, management control systems and firm outcomes: Past results and future directions[J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 1998(10): 47-64.
[124] Freeman R. Edward, Evan William. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation[J] Journal of Behavioral Economics, 1990, 19(4):354.
[125] G P Alexander. Establishing shared values through management training programs[J]. Training and Development Journal, 1987(2):45-47.
[126] Gibbs Michael, Merchant Kenneth A, Van der Stede Wim A, Vargus Mark E. Detmminants and effects of subjectivity in incentives[J]. The Accounting Rcvicw, 2004,79(2):409-436.
[127] Hackett J T. Corporate citizenship[J]. Business Horizons, 1969,12(5):69-74.
[128] Hofstede G H. The cultural relativity of life quality of life concept[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1984(27):389-398.
[129] Husted B W. Acontingency theory of corporate social performance [J]. Business and Society, 2000,39(1):24-48.
[130] Idalina Dias-Sardinha, Lucas Reijinders, Puala Antunes. From environmental performance evaluation to eco-efficiency and sustainability balanced scorecards[J]. Environmental Quality Management, 2002(Winter):51-64.
[131] Igalens J, Gond J P. Measuring corporate social performance in France:A critical and empirical analysis of Arese data[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2005, 56(2):131-148.
[132] Ittner C D, Larcker D F. Are non-financial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction[J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 1998,36(3): 1-47.
[133] J Fisher, L Maines, G Sprinkle. An experimental investigation of employer discretion in employee performance evaluation and compensation, 2005,80(2):563-583.
[134] J Hill. Thinking about a more sustainable business-an indicators approach[J]. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2001,8(1):30-38.
[135] Jacabs M. The environmental as stakeholder[J]. Business Strategy Review, 1997, 8(2):25-28.
[136] Jacques Cremer, Fahad Khalit, Jean-charles Rocket. Strategic information gathering before a contract is offered[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 1998(July):19-47.
[137] Jawahar I M, Mclaughlin Gary L. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26(3):397-414.
[138] Jeffery M Bacidore, John A Boquist, Todd T Mibourn, Anjan V Thakor. The search for the best financial performance measure[J]. Financial Analysts Journal, 1997(May/June):11-20.
[139] Jenkins H A. Critique of conventional CSR theory:An SME perspective[J]. Journal of General Management, 2004,29(4):37-57.
[140] John Mayfield. Economic value management [J]. Management Accounting, 1997(September):32-33.
[141] Johngseok Bae, Shyh-jer Chen et al. Human resource strategy and firm performance in Pacific Rim countries[J]. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2003,14(8):1308-1332.
[142] Johnson H J. The emerging pattern of corporate citizenship[J]. Vital Speeches of the Day, 1958,24(9):285-289.
[143] Jon-Arild J, Bjorn O. Knowledge management and sustainable competitive advantages: The impacts of dynamic contextual training[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2003, 23(4): 277-289.
[144] Jones Thomas M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999,20(2):404-437.
[145] Kaplan R, Norton D. putting the balanced scorecard to work[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1993, 71(5): 134-142.
[146] Kaplan R, Norton D. The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1992, 70(1):71-79.
[147] Kaplan R, Norton D. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1996, 74(1):75-85.
[148] Lebas M J. Performance measurement and performance management[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 1995,41(1):24.
[149] Lerner Linda D, Fryxell Gerald E. An empirical study of the predictors of corpotate social performance:A multi-dimensional analysis[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 1988, 951-959.
[150] Mark L Frigo. Nonfinancial performance measures and strategy execution[J]. Strategic Finance, 2002, 84(8):6-9.
[151] Mark L Frigo. Strategy, business execution and performance measures[J]. Strategic Finance, 2002, 83(5):6-8.
[152] Matten D, A Crane, W Chappie. Behind the mask: Resvealing the true face of corporate citizenship[J] Journal of Business Ethics, 2002,45(1/2): 109-120.
[153] McGuire J B, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1988, 31(4):854-872.
[154] Mc Williams A, Siegel D, W right P. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2006(43): 1-18.
[155] Mc Williams A, Siegel D. Additional reflections on the strategic implications of corporate social responsibility[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27(1):15-16.
[156] Michael F Morley. The value added statement in Britain[J]. The Accounting Review, 1979,54(3): 618-629.
[157] Orlitzky M, Schmidt F L, Rynes S L. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis[J]. Organization Studies, 2003,24(3):403-441.
[158] Orts Eric W. Beyond shareholders: Interpreting corporate constituency statues[J]. George Washington Law Review, 1992(17):14-135.
[159] Peterson R, P Martorana, D Smith, P Owens. The impact of chief executive Officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(5):795-808.
[160] Posnikoff J F. Disinvestment from South Africa: They did well by doing good[J]. Contemporary Economic Policy, 1997(15):76-86.
[161] Preston Lee E, O'Bannon Douglas P. The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis[J]. Business and Society, 1997, 36(4):419-429.
[162] Rao S M. The effect of published reports of environmental pollution on stock prices[J]. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions. 1996, 9(1):25-32.
[163] Robert M Bushman, Raffi J Indejikian. Accounting income, stock price and managerial compensation[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1993(16):3-23.
[164] Rockville, Annk Willis. Aligning performance measurements with organizational strategies[J]. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 2001, 22(2):54-63.
[165] Rowley Tim, Berman Shawn. A brand new brand of corporate social performance[J]. Business and Society, 2000,39(4):397-418
[166] Ruf BM, Muralidhar K, Brown RM, J J Janney, K Paul. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2001,32(2): 143-156.
[167] Sethi S P. Dimensions of corporate social responsibility[J]. California Management Review, 1975,17(3):58-64.
[168] Shawn L Berman, Andrew C Wicks, Suresh Kotha, Thomas M Jones. Does stakeholder orientation matter?The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1999,42(5):488-506.
[169] Sirgy M J. Measuring corporate performance by building on the stakeholdersmodel of business ethics[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2002(35): 143-162.
[170] Stanwick Petert A, Stanwick Sarah D. The determinants of corporate social performance: An empirical examination[J]. American Business Review, 1998, 16(1):86-93.
[171] Starick M. Is the environment organizational stakeholders? Naturally![J]. International Association for Business and Society(IABS) Proceeding, 1993:466-471.
[172] Sustainability, UNER, Standard & Poor's. Risk & Opportunity: Best practice in non-financial reporting [EB/OL]. http://www.sustainability.com/aboutsustainability/article_previous.asp?id=128.
[173] Swanson Diane L. Adding a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(1):43-64.
[174] Swanson Diane L. Toward an intetrative theory of business and society:A research strategy for corporate social performance[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3):506-521.
[175] Sybil C Mobley. The challenges of socio-economic accounting[J]. The Accounting Review, 1970,45(4): 762-768.
[176] Tahir Nisar. Evaluation of subjectivity in incentive pay[J]. Journal of Financial Services Research, 2007(31):53-73.
[177] The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD). Accounting and financial reporting for environmental costs and liabilities[EB/OL]. http://ecolu-info.unige.ch/recherche/supprem/content/unctad/reference_material/ CAET-UNCTAD-MANUAL.pdf.
[178] Vittorio C, Raffaella M, Giuliano N. Towards a Sustainable Viwe of the Competitive System[J]. Long Rabge Planning, 1999,32(10):519-530.
[179] Waddock S A, Graves S B. The corporate social performance-financial performance link[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997(18):303-319.
[180] Walbert Laura. The stern Stewart performance 1000:using EVA to build market value[J]. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1994, Winter(6):109-120.
[181] Wang D, Tsui A S, Zhang Y, Ma L. Employment relationships and firm performance:from an emerging economy[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003,24(5):511-535.
[182] Wartick S L, Cohran P L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1985,10(4):758-769.
[183] WBCSD. Eco-efficient leadership for improved economic and environmental performance[EB/OL]. http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/DlFMcUZj32ZOMj5xNMXq/eeleadership.pdf.
[184] WBCSD. The business case for sustainable development: Making a difference towards the earth summit 2002 and beyond[J]. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2002,9(3): 226-235.
[185] Welch C P Wazzan. The effect of socially activist investment policies on the financial markets: Evidence from the South African boycott[J]. Journal of Business, 1999, 72(1):35-89.
[186] Wheeler D, M Sillanpaa. Including the stakeholder: The Business Case Long Range Planning, 1998,31(2):201-210.
[187] William M, Michael B. Design for the triple top line: New tools for sustainable commerce[J]. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2002, 9(3):251-258.
[188] Wood D J. Corporate social performance revisited[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1991,16(4):691-718.
[189] Wood D J. Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance[J]. Journal of Management, 1991,17(2):383-406.
[190] Wood D J. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance[J]. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1995, 3(3):229-267.
[191] Wood D J. Toward improving corporate social performance[J]. Business Horizons, 1991, 34(4):66-73.
[192] Wright P, Ferris S P. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997(18):77-83.
[193] Wu M L. Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance and firm size: A meta-analysis [J]. Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge, 2006, 8(1):163-171.
[194] Yadong Luo, Seung Ho Park. Strategic alignment and performance of market-seeking MNCs in China[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22(2):141-155.
[195] Yamashita M, Sen S, Roberts M C. The rewards for environmental conscientiousness in the US capital markets[J]. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions. 1999,12(1):73-82.
[1]肖海林,王芳华.企业增长、企业发展与企业可持续发展[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2004(4):46-50,109.
[1]Arie De Geus.长寿公司[M].王晓霞.刘吴译.北京:经济日报出版社,1998:20-30.
[2]约翰·黑格尔第三,约翰·斯利·布朗.领跑未来:打造企业可持续的竞争优势[M].张桦译.北京:商务印书馆.2006:151-152.
[3]埃尔金顿.茧经济:通向企业公民模式的企业转型[M].庞海丽译.上海:上海人民出版社.2005:5,20,57.
[1]P德鲁克.未来的管理[M].李小刚译.四川人民大学出版社,2000:2.
[2]加里·阿什沃思.整合绩效管理[M].北京:电子工业出版社.2002:4.
[1]张鼎昆.硬考核能为软文化做什么[J].中外管理,2001(2):58-60.
[1]朱元午.关于财务控制系统的三维思考[J].新理财,2004(7):20-24.
[2]池国华.内部管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].预测,2006,25(3):12-16,37.
[3]北京工商大学会计学院课题组.论管理会计系统的权变性[J].北京工商大学学报:社会科学版.2003,18(6):49-52.
[1]杨瑞龙,周业安.一个关于企业所有权安排的规范性分析框架及其理论意义[J].经济研究,1997(1):1-22.
[1]罗珉.管理学前沿理论研究[M].成都:西南财经大学出版社,2006:105-130.
[1]张建同.朱立龙.企业的社会责任与企业绩效的相关性研究[J].华东经济管理,2007,21(7):94-97.
[2]Christopher Ittner,David Larcker.改革公司业绩评价标准[J].国外社会科学文摘,2001(4):69-71.
[1]Charan R,Colvin G.Why CEOs Fail[J].Fortune,1999,140(6):69.
[1]史蒂文·F·沃克,杰弗里·E·马尔.利益相关者权力[M].北京:经济管理出版社.2003:12-13.
[1]加文·凯利,多米尼克·凯利,安德鲁·甘布尔.利害相关者资本主义[M].欧阳英译.重庆:重庆出版社.2001:198.
[1]Orts Eric W.Beyond shareholders:Interpreting corporate constituency statues[J].George Washington Law Review,1992(17):14-135.
[1]Arie De Geus.长寿公司[M].王晓霞,刘吴译.北京:经济日报出版社,1998:132-145.
[1]罗伯特·S·卡普兰,安东尼·A·阿特金森.高级管理会计[M].东北财经大学出版社.1999:313.
[1]加文·凯利,多米尼克·凯利,安德鲁·甘布尔.利害相关者资本主义[M].欧阳英译.重庆:重庆出版社,2001:279.
[1]McWilliams A,Siegel D,W right P.Corporate social responsibility:Strategic implications[J].Journal of Management Studies,2006(43):1-18.
[1]斯蒂芬·波尔托兹基.创造环保型企业价值[M].孙海龙译.北京:机械工业出版社,2002:68.
[1]肖特嘉,布里特.现代环境会计[M].肖华,李建发译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2004:325-326.
[1]这两个概念来源于对科学发展观体系特征的描述,本文借用了这一名称。参见《2004中国可持续发展报告》第22-24页。
[1]马庆国.管理统计[M].北京:科学出版社,2002:320.
[2]徐尚昆.杨汝岱.企业社会责任概念范畴的归纳性分析[J].中国工业经济.2007(5):71-79.
[1]李怀祖.管理研究方法论[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2版.2004:147.
[1]曾珍香.顾培亮.可持续发展的系统分析与评价[M].北京:科学出版杜.2000:124.
[2]孙宪华.稳健统计在经济指标中的应用及其启示[J].现代财经.2003(12):36-38.
[3]王静龙,梁小筠.非参数统计分析[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2004:18.
[1]杨震宁等.企业入驻科技园的动机及影响因素模型研究[J].科学学研究.2008.26(5).137-143.198.
[1]徐国样,檀向球,胡穗华.上市公司经营业绩综合评价及其实证研究[J].统计研究,2000(9):44-51.
[2]苏为华.多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究[D].厦门:厦门大学统计系.2000.
[1]池国华(?)旭升 我国上市公司经营业绩评价系统研究[J]会计研究.2003(8):45-47.
[1]隋映辉.协调发展论[M]青岛:青岛海洋大学出版社,1990:20-21.
[1]何晓群.现代统计分析方法与应用[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2版.2007:378-387.
[1]S西格尔.非参数统计[M].北星 译.北京:科学出版社,1986:187-188.
[1]Jenkins H A.Critique of conventional CSR theory:An SME perspective[J].Journal of General Management.2004,29(4):37-57.
[1]Allenby B R.工业生态学IM].翁瑞译.北京:清华大学出版社,2005.
[2]Williams R S.业绩管理[M].赵正斌等译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2003.
[3]安德烈·A·德瓦尔.绩效管理魔力[M].汪开虎译.上海:上海交通大学出版社,2002.
[4]安迪·尼利,克里斯·亚当斯,迈克·肯尼尔利.战略业绩管理:超越平衡记分卡[M].李剑锋等译.北京:电子工业出版社,2004.
[5]埃尔金顿.茧经济:通向企业公民模式的企业转型[M].庞海丽译.上海:上海人民出版社.2005.
[6]陈长杰,马晓微,魏一鸣,傅小峰.基于可持续发展的中国经济-资源系统协调性分析[J].系统工程,2004,22(3):34-39.
[7]陈共荣,曾峻.企业绩效评价主体的演进及其对绩效评价的影响[J].会计研究,2005(4):65-68.
[8]陈国宏,李美娟,陈衍泰.组合评价及其计算机集成系统研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2007.
[9]陈维政,吴继红,任佩瑜.企业社会绩效评价的利益相关者模式[J].中国工业经济,2002(7):57-63.
[10]陈玉清,马丽丽.我国上市公司社会责任会计信息市场反应实证分析[J].会计研究,2005(11):76-81.
[11]池国华.内部管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].预测,2006,25(3):12-16,37.
[12]池国华.基于发展逻辑的管理业绩评价系统设计框架[J].南开管理评论,2006,9(2):24-30.
[13]丹·安德森.企业生存:可持续发展风险管理[M].郑伟等译.北京:经济科学出版社,2007.
[14]董俊武,陈震红.国外企业本质理论的演进与评述[J].经济管理,2007,29(5):91-96.
[15]杜胜利.企业经营业绩评价[M].北京:经济科学出版社.1999.
[16]范中启,曹明.能源-经济-环境系统可持续发展协调状态的测度与评价[J].预测,2006(4):66-70.
[17]菲利普·科特勒,南希·李.企业的社会责任[M].姜文波等译.北京:机械工业出版社,2006.
[18]高晨,汤谷良.管理控制工具的整合模式:理论分析与中国企业的创新[J].会计研究,2007(8):68-75.
[19]高晨.主观业绩评价研究:述评与启示[J].会计研究,2008(4):84-88.
[20]郭亚帆.稳健统计以及几种统计量的稳健性比较分析[J].统计研究,2007,24(9):82-85.
[21]郭亚军.综合评价理论、方法及应用IM].北京:科学出版社,2007.
[22]哈佛商业评论.企业与环境[M].思铭译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[23]贺小刚,陆一婷.公司社会责任与价值创造:基于社会调查的数据分析[J].科学经济社会,2008,26(112):62-69
[24]贺远琼,田志龙,陈昀.企业社会绩效与经济绩效的互动关系研究[J].软科学,2007,21(1):1-4.
[25]黄速建,卢晟.上市公司可持续发展的若干问题[J].经济管理,2002(3):9-12.
[26]黄速建,余菁.国有企业的性质、目标与社会责任[J].中国工业经济,2006(2):68-76.
[27]贾生华,陈宏辉,田传浩.基于利益相关者理论的企业绩效评价[J].科研管理,2003,24(4):94-101.
[28]金立印.企业社会责任运动测评指标体系实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2006(6):114-120.
[29]罗伯特·S·卡普兰,大卫·P·诺顿.战略地图[M].刘俊勇,孙薇译.广州:广东经济出版社,2005.
[30]李桂荣.矿区生态环境与经济协调发展评价方法与对策[J].大连轻工业学院学报,2002,21(2):152-156.
[31]李国柱.经济增长与环境协调发展的计量分析[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2007.
[32]李怀祖.管理研究方法论[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2版.2004.
[33]李立清,李燕凌.企业社会责任研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2005.
[34]李苹莉.经营者业绩评价[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社.2001.
[35]李树业.可持续发展理念探新[J].科学管理研究,2007,25(3):9-11.
[36]李心合,利益相关者财务论[M].北京:中财政经济出版社,2003.
[37]李艳、曾珍香、武优西、李艳双.经济-环境系统协调发展评价方法研究及应用[J].系统工程理论与实践,2003(5):54-58.
[38]李占祥.论矛盾管理学[J].中国工业经济,1999(9):59-63.
[39]李占祥.为企业可持续成长(长寿)而管理[J].经济理论与经济管理,2002(8):54-58.
[40]李章华,朱燕.三重基线21世纪企业可持续发展解码[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2008.
[41]李正.社会责任与企业价值的相关性研究[J].中国工业经济,2006(2):77-83.
[42]联合国贸易与发展会议.企业环境业绩与财务业绩指标的结合[M].刘刚,高轶文,陈毓圭译.中国财政经济出版社,2003.
[43]林钟高,刘骏.平衡计分卡在社会责任会计中的应用[J].安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版),2006,23(3):90-92.
[44]刘力钢.企业持续发展论[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2001.
[45]刘力钢.企业可持续发展模式研究[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000,28(3):12-15.
[46]刘丽敏,杨淑娥,袁振兴.国际环境绩效评价标准综述[J].统计与决策(理论版),2007(8):150-153.
[47]刘思华.可持续发展经济学企业范式[J].当代财经,2001(3):16-21.
[48]刘思华.企业经济可持续发展论[M].中国环境科学出版社.2002.
[49]刘艳清.区域经济可持续发展系统的协调度研究[J].社会科学辑刊,2000(5):79-83.
[50]陆庆平.以企业价值最大化为导向的企业绩效评价体系[J].会计研究,2006(3):56-62.
[51]罗伯特·S·卡普兰,安东尼·A·阿特金森.高级管理会计[M].吕长江等译.东 北财经大学出版社,1999.
[52]孟庆松,韩文秀.复合系统协调度模型研究[J].天津大学学报,2000,33(4):444-446.
[53]芮明杰,孙继伟.企业可持续发展理论分析[J].上海经济研究,1998(4):56-59.
[54]芮明杰,吴光飙.可持续发展:国有企业战略性改组的目标[J].中国工业经济,2001(3):48-54.
[55]沈洪涛,沈艺峰.企业社会责任思想起源与演变[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2007.
[56]舒兴强,唐小兰.论企业社会责任与经济绩效的关系[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2006,20(5):79-82.
[57]宋献中,李皎予.企业社会责任会计[M].中国财经出版社,1992.
[58]宋献中.论财务管理的社会责任目标及相关财务指标体系的建立[J].四川会计,1997(8):5-8.
[59]宋旭光.可持续发展测度方法的系统分析[M].大连:东北财经大学出版社,2003.
[60]苏鹏,孙朋丽.略论我国民营企业的社会责任[J].理论与现代化,2005(7):7-8.
[61]孙洪庆.转轨经济条件下的绩效评价体系[J].财贸研究,2002(5):66-70.
[62]田虹.企业社会责任及其推进机制[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2006.
[63]田昆儒.中国社会责任会计问题研究综述[J].会计之友,2007(12):4-7.
[64]王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价IM].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2004.
[65]王辉,忻蓉,徐淑英.中国企业CEO的领导行为及对企业经营业绩的影响[J].管理世界,2006(4):87-139.
[66]王立彦,林小池.IS014000环境管理认证与企业价值增长[J].中国中青年财务成本研究会2005年年会论文集,2005:128-136.
[67]王立彦,袁颖.环境和质量管理认证的股价效应[J].经济科学,2004(6):59-71.
[68]王天仁.中国企业社会责任评价体系的构建[J].中国工商管理研究,2008(8):55-56.
[69]王维国,协调发展的理论与方法研究[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2000.
[70]王则斌.社会责任会计与企业可持续发展[J].经济管理,2006(23):23-26.
[71]温素彬,薛恒新.基于科学发展观的企业三重绩效评价模型[J].会计研究,2005(4):60-64.
[72]温素彬.基于可持续发展的企业绩效评价研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2006.
[73]温素彬.企业三重绩效评价模型[J].数学的实践与认识,2008,38(6):1-8.
[74]肖海林,王芳华.企业增长、企业发展与企业可持续发展[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2004(4):46-50,109.
[75]肖海林,王芳华.论企业可持续发展的地位与管理范式[J].管理学报,2005,2(2):210-215.
[76]肖海林,王芳华.企业可持续发展新论[J].当代财经,2004(7):69-71,75.
[77]肖海林.企业管理:主题演进与范式流变[J].经济理论与经济管理,2006(11):58-64.
[78]肖特嘉,布里特.现代环境会计[M].肖华,李建发译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2004.
[79]肖序.环境会计理论与实务研究[M].大连:东北财经大学出版社,2007.
[80]谢德仁.经理人激励的潜在业绩基础:基于股东价值创造链的分析[J].会计研究,2003(12):28-33.
[81]谢芳,李慧明.企业环境绩效评价标准的演进与整合[J].经济管理,2006(7):17-20.
[82]谢良安.社会责任会计理论研究:回顾、综述与思考[J].财会通讯(学术版),2007(7):111-113.
[83]徐尚昆,杨汝岱.企业社会责任概念范畴的归纳性分析[J].中国工业经济,2007(5):71-79.
[84]许家林,孟凡利.环境会计[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2004.
[85]颜剩勇.企业社会责任的财务评价研究[J].科技进步与对策,2006(8):175-177.
[86]阳秋林.刍论社会责任会计的计量方法[J].企业经济,2003(1):136-137.
[87]阳秋林.再论社会责任会计的计量方法[J].南华大学学报,2005,6(1):44-47.
[88]杨东宁,周长辉.企业自愿采用标准化环境管理体系的驱动力:理论框架及实证分析[J].管理世界,2005(2):85-107.
[89]杨震宁,吕萍,王以华.企业入驻科技园的动机及影响因素模型研究[J].科学学研究,2008,26(5).137-143,198
[90]叶陈刚,曹波.企业社会责任评价体系的构建[J].财会月刊,2008(6):41-44.
[91]约翰·黑格尔第三,约翰·斯利·布朗.领跑未来:打造企业可持续的竞争优势[M].张桦译.北京:商务印书馆.2006.
[92]曾珍香,顾培亮.可持续发展的系统分析与评价[M].北京:科学出版社,2000.
[93]张建同,朱立龙.企业的社会责任与企业绩效的相关性研究[J].华东经济管理,2007,21(7):94-97.
[94]张陆彪,刘书楷.生态经济效益协调发展的表征判断[J].生态经济,1992(1):17-20.
[95]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社.2002.
[96]张涛,文新三.企业绩效评价研究[M].北京:经济科学出版社.2002.
[97]张晓东.中国区域经济与环境协调度预测分析[J].资源科学,2003,25(2):1-6.
[98]张炎,翟卫菁.基于经营绩效评价表的经营绩效评价体系[J].南开管理评沦,2002(1):37-42.
[99]张彦宁,陈兰通.2007中国企业社会责任发展报告[M].北京:中国电力出版社,2008.
[100]张志学,张文慧.认知需要与战略决策过程之间的关系[J].心理科学,2004,27(2):358-360.
[101]赵涛,李恒煜.能源-经济-环境(3E)系统协调度评价模型研究[J].北京 理工大学学报(社会科学版),2008,10(2):11-16.
[102]赵涛,刘保民,朱永明.基于员工权益的企业社会责任评价体系探讨[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008,41(2):80-82.
[103]钟朝宏,干胜道.全球报告倡议组织及其可持续发展报告指南[J].社会科学,2006(6):54-58.
[104]钟朝宏.企业可持续发展报告的国际经验[J].科技管理研究,2008(5):77-78,89.
[105]Art Schneideman.Why balanced scored Fall[J].Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement,1999(January):6-11.
[106]Aupperle K E,Carroll A B,Hatfield J D.An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability[J].Academy of Management Journal,1985(28):446-463.
[107]Backhaus K B,Stone B A,Heiner K.Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness[J].Business and Society,2002,41(3):292-328.
[108]Bamett,Sabmon Michael L etal.Beyond dichotomy:The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance[J].Strategic Management Journal,2006(27):1101-1122.
[109]Borucki C C,Burke M J.An examination of service-related antecedents to retail store performance[J].Journal of Organizational Behavior,1999,20(6):943-962.
[110]Carroll A B.A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance[J].Academy of Management Review,1979,4(4):497-505.
[111]Carroll A B.The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders[J].Business Horizons,1991(34):39-48.
[112]Charan R,Colvin G.Why CEOs Fail[J].Fortune,1999,140(6):69.
[111]Chenhall R H,Morris D.The impact of structure,environment and interdependencies on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems[J].Accounting Review,1986(61):16-35.
[114] Clarkson M B E. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(1):92-117.
[115] Cornell Bradford, Shapiro Alan C. Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance[J]. Financial Management, 1988,16(1):5-14.
[116] Cross Klevin, Lynch Richard. Tailoring performance measures to suit your business[J]. Journal of Accounting and EDP, 1990,6(1):17-25.
[117] D Maxwell, R vander Vorst. Developing sustainable products and services[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003, 11(8):883-895.
[118] Daveport K. Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and identifying measures for assessing it[J]. Business and Society, 2000, 39(2):210-219.
[119] Derwall J.Gunster N, Bauer R, Koedijk K. The eco-efficiency premium puzzle[J]. Financial Analysts Journal, 2005,61(2):51-63.
[120] Dirk Matten, Andrew Crane, Wendy Chappie. Behind the ask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2003(45):109-120.
[121] Donaldson, T. The stakeholder revolution and the Clarkson principles[J]. Business Ethnics Quarterly, 2002,12(2): 108.
[122] Elkington J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century business[J]. Environmental Quality Management, 1998(1):37-51.
[123] Fisher J G. Contingency theory, management control systems and firm outcomes: Past results and future directions[J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 1998(10): 47-64.
[124] Freeman R. Edward, Evan William. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation[J] Journal of Behavioral Economics, 1990, 19(4):354.
[125] G P Alexander. Establishing shared values through management training programs[J]. Training and Development Journal, 1987(2):45-47.
[126] Gibbs Michael, Merchant Kenneth A, Van der Stede Wim A, Vargus Mark E. Detmminants and effects of subjectivity in incentives[J]. The Accounting Rcvicw, 2004,79(2):409-436.
[127] Hackett J T. Corporate citizenship[J]. Business Horizons, 1969,12(5):69-74.
[128] Hofstede G H. The cultural relativity of life quality of life concept[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1984(27):389-398.
[129] Husted B W. Acontingency theory of corporate social performance [J]. Business and Society, 2000,39(1):24-48.
[130] Idalina Dias-Sardinha, Lucas Reijinders, Puala Antunes. From environmental performance evaluation to eco-efficiency and sustainability balanced scorecards[J]. Environmental Quality Management, 2002(Winter):51-64.
[131] Igalens J, Gond J P. Measuring corporate social performance in France:A critical and empirical analysis of Arese data[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2005, 56(2):131-148.
[132] Ittner C D, Larcker D F. Are non-financial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction[J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 1998,36(3): 1-47.
[133] J Fisher, L Maines, G Sprinkle. An experimental investigation of employer discretion in employee performance evaluation and compensation, 2005,80(2):563-583.
[134] J Hill. Thinking about a more sustainable business-an indicators approach[J]. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2001,8(1):30-38.
[135] Jacabs M. The environmental as stakeholder[J]. Business Strategy Review, 1997, 8(2):25-28.
[136] Jacques Cremer, Fahad Khalit, Jean-charles Rocket. Strategic information gathering before a contract is offered[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 1998(July):19-47.
[137] Jawahar I M, Mclaughlin Gary L. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26(3):397-414.
[138] Jeffery M Bacidore, John A Boquist, Todd T Mibourn, Anjan V Thakor. The search for the best financial performance measure[J]. Financial Analysts Journal, 1997(May/June):11-20.
[139] Jenkins H A. Critique of conventional CSR theory:An SME perspective[J]. Journal of General Management, 2004,29(4):37-57.
[140] John Mayfield. Economic value management [J]. Management Accounting, 1997(September):32-33.
[141] Johngseok Bae, Shyh-jer Chen et al. Human resource strategy and firm performance in Pacific Rim countries[J]. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2003,14(8):1308-1332.
[142] Johnson H J. The emerging pattern of corporate citizenship[J]. Vital Speeches of the Day, 1958,24(9):285-289.
[143] Jon-Arild J, Bjorn O. Knowledge management and sustainable competitive advantages: The impacts of dynamic contextual training[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2003, 23(4): 277-289.
[144] Jones Thomas M. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999,20(2):404-437.
[145] Kaplan R, Norton D. putting the balanced scorecard to work[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1993, 71(5): 134-142.
[146] Kaplan R, Norton D. The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1992, 70(1):71-79.
[147] Kaplan R, Norton D. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1996, 74(1):75-85.
[148] Lebas M J. Performance measurement and performance management[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 1995,41(1):24.
[149] Lerner Linda D, Fryxell Gerald E. An empirical study of the predictors of corpotate social performance:A multi-dimensional analysis[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 1988, 951-959.
[150] Mark L Frigo. Nonfinancial performance measures and strategy execution[J]. Strategic Finance, 2002, 84(8):6-9.
[151] Mark L Frigo. Strategy, business execution and performance measures[J]. Strategic Finance, 2002, 83(5):6-8.
[152] Matten D, A Crane, W Chappie. Behind the mask: Resvealing the true face of corporate citizenship[J] Journal of Business Ethics, 2002,45(1/2): 109-120.
[153] McGuire J B, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1988, 31(4):854-872.
[154] Mc Williams A, Siegel D, W right P. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2006(43): 1-18.
[155] Mc Williams A, Siegel D. Additional reflections on the strategic implications of corporate social responsibility[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27(1):15-16.
[156] Michael F Morley. The value added statement in Britain[J]. The Accounting Review, 1979,54(3): 618-629.
[157] Orlitzky M, Schmidt F L, Rynes S L. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis[J]. Organization Studies, 2003,24(3):403-441.
[158] Orts Eric W. Beyond shareholders: Interpreting corporate constituency statues[J]. George Washington Law Review, 1992(17):14-135.
[159] Peterson R, P Martorana, D Smith, P Owens. The impact of chief executive Officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(5):795-808.
[160] Posnikoff J F. Disinvestment from South Africa: They did well by doing good[J]. Contemporary Economic Policy, 1997(15):76-86.
[161] Preston Lee E, O'Bannon Douglas P. The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis[J]. Business and Society, 1997, 36(4):419-429.
[162] Rao S M. The effect of published reports of environmental pollution on stock prices[J]. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions. 1996, 9(1):25-32.
[163] Robert M Bushman, Raffi J Indejikian. Accounting income, stock price and managerial compensation[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1993(16):3-23.
[164] Rockville, Annk Willis. Aligning performance measurements with organizational strategies[J]. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 2001, 22(2):54-63.
[165] Rowley Tim, Berman Shawn. A brand new brand of corporate social performance[J]. Business and Society, 2000,39(4):397-418
[166] Ruf BM, Muralidhar K, Brown RM, J J Janney, K Paul. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2001,32(2): 143-156.
[167] Sethi S P. Dimensions of corporate social responsibility[J]. California Management Review, 1975,17(3):58-64.
[168] Shawn L Berman, Andrew C Wicks, Suresh Kotha, Thomas M Jones. Does stakeholder orientation matter?The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1999,42(5):488-506.
[169] Sirgy M J. Measuring corporate performance by building on the stakeholdersmodel of business ethics[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2002(35): 143-162.
[170] Stanwick Petert A, Stanwick Sarah D. The determinants of corporate social performance: An empirical examination[J]. American Business Review, 1998, 16(1):86-93.
[171] Starick M. Is the environment organizational stakeholders? Naturally![J]. International Association for Business and Society(IABS) Proceeding, 1993:466-471.
[172] Sustainability, UNER, Standard & Poor's. Risk & Opportunity: Best practice in non-financial reporting [EB/OL]. http://www.sustainability.com/aboutsustainability/article_previous.asp?id=128.
[173] Swanson Diane L. Adding a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(1):43-64.
[174] Swanson Diane L. Toward an intetrative theory of business and society:A research strategy for corporate social performance[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3):506-521.
[175] Sybil C Mobley. The challenges of socio-economic accounting[J]. The Accounting Review, 1970,45(4): 762-768.
[176] Tahir Nisar. Evaluation of subjectivity in incentive pay[J]. Journal of Financial Services Research, 2007(31):53-73.
[177] The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD). Accounting and financial reporting for environmental costs and liabilities[EB/OL]. http://ecolu-info.unige.ch/recherche/supprem/content/unctad/reference_material/ CAET-UNCTAD-MANUAL.pdf.
[178] Vittorio C, Raffaella M, Giuliano N. Towards a Sustainable Viwe of the Competitive System[J]. Long Rabge Planning, 1999,32(10):519-530.
[179] Waddock S A, Graves S B. The corporate social performance-financial performance link[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997(18):303-319.
[180] Walbert Laura. The stern Stewart performance 1000:using EVA to build market value[J]. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1994, Winter(6):109-120.
[181] Wang D, Tsui A S, Zhang Y, Ma L. Employment relationships and firm performance:from an emerging economy[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003,24(5):511-535.
[182] Wartick S L, Cohran P L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1985,10(4):758-769.
[183] WBCSD. Eco-efficient leadership for improved economic and environmental performance[EB/OL]. http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/DlFMcUZj32ZOMj5xNMXq/eeleadership.pdf.
[184] WBCSD. The business case for sustainable development: Making a difference towards the earth summit 2002 and beyond[J]. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2002,9(3): 226-235.
[185] Welch C P Wazzan. The effect of socially activist investment policies on the financial markets: Evidence from the South African boycott[J]. Journal of Business, 1999, 72(1):35-89.
[186] Wheeler D, M Sillanpaa. Including the stakeholder: The Business Case Long Range Planning, 1998,31(2):201-210.
[187] William M, Michael B. Design for the triple top line: New tools for sustainable commerce[J]. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 2002, 9(3):251-258.
[188] Wood D J. Corporate social performance revisited[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1991,16(4):691-718.
[189] Wood D J. Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance[J]. Journal of Management, 1991,17(2):383-406.
[190] Wood D J. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance[J]. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1995, 3(3):229-267.
[191] Wood D J. Toward improving corporate social performance[J]. Business Horizons, 1991, 34(4):66-73.
[192] Wright P, Ferris S P. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997(18):77-83.
[193] Wu M L. Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance and firm size: A meta-analysis [J]. Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge, 2006, 8(1):163-171.
[194] Yadong Luo, Seung Ho Park. Strategic alignment and performance of market-seeking MNCs in China[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22(2):141-155.
[195] Yamashita M, Sen S, Roberts M C. The rewards for environmental conscientiousness in the US capital markets[J]. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions. 1999,12(1):73-82.