Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managerial Views of Corporate Impacts and Dependencies on Ecosystem Services: A Case of International and Domestic Forestry Companies in China

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A line of research is emerging investigating the private sector impacts and dependencies on critical biodiversity and ecosystem services, and related business risks and opportunities. While the ecosystem services narrative is being forwarded globally as a key paradigm for promoting business sustainability, there is scarce knowledge of how these issues are considered at managerial level. This study thus investigates managerial views of corporate sustainability after the ecosystem services concept. We analyse interviews conducted with 20 managers from domestic and international forestry companies operating with a plantation-based business model in China. Content analysis was employed to analyse the data, with a focus on four key areas: (1) interviewee familiarity with the ecosystem services concept; (2) their views of corporate dependencies and impacts on ecosystem services; (3) related business risks and opportunities; and (4) viability of existing instruments and practices that can be employed in detecting and addressing business impacts and dependencies on ecosystem services. Through an inductive approach to the empirical findings, we refined a framework that holds operational value for developing company response strategies to ecosystem services impact/dependence assessment, ensuring that all issues are addressed comprehensively, and that related risks and opportunities are properly acknowledged.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We define CS as awareness of and pro-activeness towards social and environmental issues, in reference to the Brundtland’s concept of sustainable development. Sustainability issues include addressing stakeholders’ expectations, as well as ecological limits. In our paper, the term CS is also used in reference to the literature on corporate social (CSR) responsibility, as these concepts are closely connected.

  2. The ecosystem services concept is a short-term tool for advocating environmental conservation in dominant, efficiency-based decision-making. This concept adopts a human-centric perspective and a reductionist approach, where single benefits from nature are extrapolated for examination from the holistic system of thinking adopted in natural sciences. Critical literature argues that such a utilitarian framing of nature can “induce logics of individualism”, commodification and privatisation, and undermine “the moral sentiment for conservation” (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010, p. 1216).

  3. In particular, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) have issued several reports on the topic. Such publications also related to guidelines, training material, tutorials and software that support companies in ecosystem services assessment, accounting and risk management.

  4. Ecosystems are neither benevolent nor malevolent: while they provide ecosystem services, they may also cause disservices, conflicting with human well-being and productivity. Human activities, however, can cause or exacerbate ecosystem disservices (Zhang et al. 2007). For example, pesticide use can induce genetic resistance in pests and pathogens, triggering outbreaks. The loss of natural habitat and landscape complexity moreover reduces ecosystem capacity to mitigate these phenomena. There is, evidently, a feedback between human actions and nature’s reactions.

  5. It would be naive to postulate that true sustainability always results in win–win situations, especially in the short term (Banerjee 2001). Sustainability can lead to decreased, constant or increased costs for businesses, and can be synergic, neutral or conflicting with economic goals (Baumgartner and Ebner 2010), depending on the context and observed time scale. While short-term profit is unfit with the spirit of sustainability, companies must ensure their viability by meeting the needs of both current and future stakeholders (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). The temporal dimensions of CS represents a source of potential trade-offs at individual, organisational, industry and societal level (Hahn et al. 2010).

References

  • Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G., & Yeh, R. (2008). Private firms in China: Building legitimacy in an emerging economy. Journal of World Business, 43, 385–399. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2001). Managerial views of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 489–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauhus, J., van der Meer, P. J., & Kanninen, M. (2010). Ecosystem goods and services from plantation forests. London: EarthScan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18, 76–89. doi:10.1002/sd.447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2002). Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Planning, 35(3), 291–317. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00047-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A plus GRI reports. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071. doi:10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O., & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2015). Managing biodiversity through stakeholders involvement: Why, who, and for what initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2668-3 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondy, K., & Starkey, K. (2012). The dilemmas of internationalization: Corporate social responsibility in the multinational corporation. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 4–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00840.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockerhoff, E. G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J. A., & Ferraz, S. F. B. (2013). Role of eucalypt and other planted forests in biodiversity conservation and the provision of biodiversity-related ecosystem services. Forest Ecology and Management, 301, 43–50. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S. D., Cash, S. B., Dyke, J., & Thornton, S. (2006). Motivations for the forestry industry to participate in collaborative ecosystem management initiatives. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(2), 123–134. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brønn, P. S., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social initiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carle, J., & Holmgren, P. (2008). Wood from planted forests: a global outlook 2005–2030. Forest Productions Journal, 58(12), 6–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin-Kramer, R., Jonell, M., Guerry, A., Lambin, E. F., Morgan, A. J., Pennington, D., et al. (2015). Ecosystem service information to benefit sustainability standards for commodity supply chains. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1355(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Tikina, A., Kozak, R., Innes, J., Duinker, P., & Larson, B. (2011). The efficacy of forest certification: Views of Canadian forest products retailers. The Forestry Chronicle, 87(5), 636–643. doi:10.5558/tfc2011-070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossalter, C., & Barr C. (2005). Fast growing plantation development and industrial wood demand in China’s Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. A report prepared for Guangxi Forestry Bureau and The World Bank. Centre for International Forestry Research.

  • Cossalter, C., & Pye-Smith, C. (2003). Fast-wood forestry: Myths and realities. Bogor: Forest Perspectives, Center for International Forestry Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, D., Li, N., Rekola, M., Toppinen, A., & Lu, F.-F. (2015). Linking forest ecosystem services to corporate sustainability disclosure: A conceptual analysis. Ecosystem Services, 14, 170–178. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G. C., & Matson, P. A. (2008). Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(28), 9455–9456. doi:10.1073/pnas.0804960105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dare, M., Shirmer, J., & Vanclay, F. (2014). Community engagement and social licence to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32, 188–197. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.927108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size’. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1072–1104. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00873.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyke, J., Cash, S. B., Brody, S. D., & Thronton, S. (2005). Examining the role of the forest industry in collaborative ecosystem management: Implications for corporate strategy. Corporate Social Responsibility Environment Management, 12, 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141. doi:10.1002/bse.323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earnhart, D. H., Khanna, M., & Lyon, T. P. (2014). Corporate environmental strategies in emerging economies. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(2), 164–185. doi:10.1093/reep/reu001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance. NMBER Working Paper No. 17950.

  • Ecofys. (2013). Mapping carbon pricing initiatives. Development and prospects. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, S. C., & Costanza, R. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 375–392. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2015). Global forest resources assessment. Desk reference. http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Lederer, M. M. L. (2007). The power of business. Business and Politics, 9(3), 1469–3569. doi:10.2202/1469-3569.1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Schillebeeckx, S. J., & Liak, T. L. (2015). The management of natural resources: An overview and research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1595–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’ Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payments schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1209–1218. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M., Lofckwood, M., Vanclav, F., Hanson, D., & Schirmer, J. (2013). Divergent stakeholder views of corporate social responsibility in the Australian forest plantation sector. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 390–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (1991). Qualitative methods in management research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217–229. doi:10.1002/bse.674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Iceland, C., & Finisdore, J. (2012). The corporate ecosystem services review. Guidelines for identifying business risks & opportunities arising from ecosystem change. Washington: World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resource Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, J. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Luce, R. A. (2001). Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business and Society, 40, 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houdet, J., Trommetter, M., & Weber, J. (2012). Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 73, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hourneaux, F., Hrdlicka, H. A., Gomes, C. M., & Kruglianskas, I. (2014). The use of environmental performance indicators and size effect: A study of industrial companies. Ecological Indicators, 36, 205–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humpreys, A. (2014). How is sustainability structured? The discursive life of environmentalism. Journal of Macromarketing, 34(3), 1–17. doi:10.1177/0276146714521238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. Z. (2008). Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy and Environmental Sciences, 2, 148–173. doi:10.1039/b809990c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, N., Moon, J. J., & Yin, H. (2015). Environmental pressure and the performance of foreign firms in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2568-6 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, J., Toppinen, A., Cubbage, F., & Kuuluvainen, J. (2014). Factors driving investment in planted forests: a comparison between OECD and non-OECD countries. International Forestry Review, 16(1), 67–77. doi:10.1505/146554814811031314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorf, K. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, N. B., & Zell, D. (2010). Water and business: A taxonomy and review of the research. Organization & Environment, 23(3), 316–353. doi:10.1177/1086026610382627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. (2005). Assessing the sustainability performance of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N., & Toppinen, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility and sustainable competitive advantage in forest-based industry: Complementary or conflicting goals? Forest Policy and Economics, 13(2), 113–123. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MA—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Washington: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 71–89. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9804-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of computer information system, 54(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization Environment, 21, 245–269. doi:10.1177/1086026608321329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. J. (1993). How corporate culture drives strategy. Long Range Planning, 26(2), 110–118. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(93)90142-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, A. (2006). Global versus local CSR strategies. European Management Journal, 24(2–3), 189–198. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Othoniel, B., Rugani, D., Heijungs, R., Benetto, E., & Withagen, C. (2016). Assessment of life cycle impacts on ecosystem services: Promise, problems, and prospects. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(3), 1077–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ping, L., & Xiaobei, W. (2014). Forest land acquisition by Stora Enso in South China: Status, issues, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saumure, K., & Given, L. M. (2008). Data saturation. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412963909.n99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. M. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 30–48. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(81)90010-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S., Heerink, N., & Qu, F. (2006). Land fragmentation and its driving forces in China. Land Use Policy, 23(3), 272–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB. (2012). In J. Bishop (Ed.), The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in business and enterprise. London: Earthscan.

  • TEEB. (2011). In Patrick ten Brink (Ed.), The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy making. London: Earthscan.

  • Toppinen, A., & Korhonen-Kurki, K. (2013). GRI reporting and stakeholder relations in managing corporate responsibility: Case study of three multinationals in the forest industry. Business Ethics: European Review, 22(2), 202–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toppinen, A., Zhang, Y., Hansen, E., Korhonen-Kurki, K., & Li, N. (2014). Role of corporate responsibility: Insights from three forest-industry multinationals investing in China. In P. Katila, G. Galloway, W. de Jong, P. Pacheco, & G. Mery (Eds.), Forests under pressure: Local responses to global issues (Vol. 32, pp. 217–228). Vienna: IUFRO World Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschopp, D., & Nastanski, M. (2013). The harmonization and convergence of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuppura, A., Toppinen, A., & Jantunen, A. (2013). Proactiveness and corporate social performance in the global forest industry. International Forestry Review, 15(1), 112–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuppura, A., Toppinen, A., & Puumalainen, K. (2015). Forest certification and ISO 14001: Current state and motivation in forest companies. Business Strategy and the Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.1878 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. (2015). The financial system we need. Aligning financial system with sustainable development. Geneva: International Environment House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de ven, B., & Graafland, J. J. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22, 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Burg, S. W. K., & Bogaardt, M. J. (2014). Business and biodiversity: A frame analysis. Ecosystem Services, 8, 178–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Nes, F., Abma, T., Jonsson, H., & Deeg, D. (2010). Language differences in qualitative research: is meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing, 7, 313–316. doi:10.1007/s10433-010-0168-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vihervaara, P., & Kamppinen, M. (2009). The ecosystem approach in corporate environmental management—Expert mental models and environmental drivers in the Finnish Forest Industry. Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management, 1, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waage, S., & Kester, C. (2014). Private sector engagement with ecosystem services. BSR. http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Private_Engagement_With_Ecosystem_Services_2014.pdf.

  • Waage, S., & Stewart, E. (2008). Ecosystem services management: A briefing on relevant public policy developments and emerging tools. Flora & Fauna International. http://www.naturalvalueinitiative.org/download/documents/Publications/Ecosystem_Services_Management.pdf.

  • Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x.

  • Winn, M., & Pogutz, S. (2013). Business, ecosystems and biodiversity: New horizons for management research. Organization & Environment, 26(2), 203–229. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1086026613490173.

  • World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). (2009). Corporate ecosystem valuation: A scoping report. Geneva. http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=13554&NoSearchContextKey=true.

  • World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). (2011). A guide to corporate ecosystem valuation. A framework for improving corporate decision making. http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=104.

  • Yang, X., Wang, X., & Li, N. (2010). Combating climate change: What will China’s forestry industry do? Ambio, 39(4), 340–343. doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0037-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Luo, W., & Toppinen, A. (2015). Determinants of equity-based entry mode choice in the forest sector: The case of China. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 30(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64, 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Q., Luo, Y., & Maksimov, V. (2014). Achieving legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: The case of emerging economies firms. Journal of World Business, 50(3), 389–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Q., & Zhang, Q. (2015). Evaluating practices and drivers of corporate social responsibility: The Chinese context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 100, 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Stella Thompson for language revision, and the editor and five anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Financial support from Academy of Finland Grant 265593 is also gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Latokartanonkaari 7, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    D. D’Amato, M. Wan, M. Rekola & A. Toppinen

  2. College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, 210037, People’s Republic of China

    N. Li

Authors
  1. D. D’Amato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Rekola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Toppinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. D’Amato.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 8.

Table 8 Glossary of terms used in the conceptual framework
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Amato, D., Wan, M., Li, N. et al. Managerial Views of Corporate Impacts and Dependencies on Ecosystem Services: A Case of International and Domestic Forestry Companies in China. J Bus Ethics 150, 1011–1028 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3169-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3169-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation