Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management and CSR
• Integration of Decision Management Systems
with the KM platform to minimize the busi-
ness overheads and improve efficiency.
• Development of information access tools in
ways that reduce the response cycle without
compromising the accuracy of information –
this will also increase productivity.
• Dissemination and easy access to information
through knowledge centers in order to reduce
redundancies in the collection and storage of
knowledge – more time can be spent in this way
for the analysis and application of knowledge.
• Access to the online KM platform by
geographically dispersed and isolated units.
This way, the collective intelligence of all
members can be available to all.
A critical aspect of KM platforms is that they
are more than a company portals used primarily
used as document repositories. It has to be
clear that they need to be live and active online
communities where members of the organization
come as part of their normal daily activities to get
informed, exchange ideas, seek solutions, and net-
work with each other. It should be the focal point
of intellectual activities and an indistinguishable
part of the life and image of an organization.
References
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organiza-
tional knowledge management: A contingency perspec-
tive. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 23–56.
Booker, L., Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2008). The rele-
vance of knowledge management and intellectual cap-
ital research. Knowledge and Process Management,
15(4), 235–246.
Davenport, T. (2008). Enterprise 2.0: The new, new
knowledge management? Harvard Business Online,
Feb. 19, 2008.
De Michelis, G. (2001). Cooperation and knowledge
creation. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowl-
edge emergence (pp. 124–144). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Echeverri-Carroll, E. L. (1999). Knowledge flows in inno-
vation networks: A comparative analysis of Japanese
and U.S. high-technology firms. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 3(4), 296–303.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).
Knowledge management: An organizational capabili-
ties perspective. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18(1), 185–214.
1555 K
Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management:
Rhetorics and realities. London: Macmillan.
Lucier, C. E., & Torilieri, J. D. (1999). Why knowledge
programs fail: A CEO’s guide to managing learning.
In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge
management yearbook, 1999–2000 (pp. 262–279).
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge management systems:
Information and communication technologies for
knowledge management (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
McCampbell, A. T., Clare, L. M., & Glitters, S. H. (1999).
Knowledge management: The new challenge for the
21st century. Journal of Knowledge Management,
3(3), 172–179.
Preuss, L., & Córdoba-Pachon, J. R. (2009). A knowledge
management perspective of corporate social responsi-
bility. Corporate Governance, 9(4), 517–527.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999).
Knowledge management and innovation: Networks
and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management,
3(4), 262–275.
Knowledge Sharing
K
▶ Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Manage-
ment and CSR
Knowledge Transfer
▶ Technology Transfer
Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge
Management and CSR
Ikramul Hasan1, Kim Cheng Patrick Low2,3 and
Md. Zahidul Islam1
1
Faculty of Business, Economics & Policy
Studies (FBEPS), Universiti Brunei Darussalam,
Gadong, Brunei Darussalam
2
Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, Brunei
Darussalam
3
University of South Australia, Adelaide,
Australia
Synonyms
Knowledge Sharing; Organizing Knowledge;
Social Responsibility
K 1556
Definition
Knowledge Transfer
The nature of knowledge has been an elusive
concept for managerial practice, and numerous
articles have been written in order to debate the
definitions and usability of the concept
(Nicolopoulou 2011). Islam et al. (2012) and
Argote and Ingram (2000) claim that knowledge
transfer in organizations is the process through
which one group (department or division) is
affected by the experience of another group
(department or division) – e.g., people working
in the cash room (cashiers) may transfer their
knowledge (such as cash balance, liquidity level
or ratio) to people working in the loan/credit
department within the bank. Since it involves
two or more parties, there has to be a source and
a destination (Major and Cordey-Hayes 2002).
Nicolopoulou (2011) identifies the transfer of
knowledge as an intentional, logical, behavior-
ally determined act, which can, within certain
parameters, be managed; on the other hand,
Lucas and Ogilvie (2006) explained knowledge
transfer as follows: individualism/collectivism,
masculinity/femininity, conflict avoidance and
power distance are all relevant concepts which
explain the processes of knowledge transfer in
organizational contexts, while effectiveness and
institutionalization are also seen as important
factors in the process of knowledge transfer.
Knowledge Management
To date, there is no single, agreed upon definition
of knowledge for organizations. Knowledge
management (KM), in turn, can be thought of as
ensuring people to have the correct information at
the exact time and in the right format to increase
their performance personally and collectively in
the organizations (Preuss and Co’rdoba-Pachon
2009). According to Handzic (2011), KM can be
characterized by three schools of thought, that is,
the economic, the behavioral, and the techno-
cratic schools. In general, representatives of the
economics school are concerned with extracting
the value from organizational knowledge (assets)
by maximizing the interrelationship between
the various types of organizational intellectual
Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management and CSR
capital. Those from the behavioral school recog-
nize KM as “the systematic and organizationally
specified process for acquiring, organizing and
communicating knowledge of individual
employees so that other employees may make
use of it to be more effective, efficient, and pro-
ductive in their work” (Handzic 2011; italics
authors’). Nonaka’s (1998) Socialization Exter-
nalization Combination Internalization (SECI) is
probably the most popular KM approach from
this group. Some scholars emphasize that KM is
also concerned with socio-technical factors that
may enable or facilitate knowledge processes and
thus foster the development of working knowl-
edge that impacts performance. Another wide-
spread classification of KM recognizes two
broad classes of strategies: personalization and
codification (Hansen et al. 1999). The personali-
zation strategy assumes that tacit knowledge is
shared through interpersonal communication.
Codification assumes that knowledge can be
effectively extracted and codified.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Defining CSR is a complex issue since it is
a relatively new management idea, and the defi-
nition of CSR is not yet well developed and still
remains vague and unclear to academics and
practitioners. When defining CSR, Skudiene and
Auruskeviciene (2012) and Davis (1973, p. 312)
refer to “the firm’s consideration of, and response
to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical,
and legal requirements of the firm” which means,
that a firm has to evaluate its decisions consider-
ing the effects on the society. According to
Katsoulakos and Katsoulacos (2007), CSR and
corporate sustainability involve the assessment
of the company’s economic, social, and environ-
mental impact, taking steps to improve it in line
with stakeholders’ requirements and reporting on
relevant and responsible measurements. Corpo-
rate governance reflects the way companies
address legal responsibilities and therefore
provides the foundations upon which CSR and
corporate sustainability practices can be built
upon to enhance responsible business operations.
It is also proposed that CSR is a broad concept
and that businesses are more than just
Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management and CSR
profit-seeking entities and they, therefore, have
an obligation to benefit society; CSR should be
integrated into the firm’s strategic perspective
and operations because it brings long-term bene-
fits to the organization (and to the society).
Opportunity Cost
According to economists, an opportunity cost is
about a choice between two alternatives. Oppor-
tunity cost is not always a number because the
opportunity cost of any action is simply the next
best alternative to that action – or put more sim-
ply, “what you would have done if you didn’t
make the choice that you did” (Moffatt 2008).
Introduction
In today’s modern organizational practice,
knowledge has been widely recognized as a key
resource for success. And the creation, transfor-
mation, and utilization of knowledge have
become an important concern for management
research and practice in the twenty-first century.
As a result, there is growing demand from man-
agement research to determine the key elements
of knowledge management (KM) and their inter-
actions. Also, there is a need to provide KM
practice with effective KM initiatives to improve
organizational performance in the ever-changing
global environment (Handzic 2011). Ditlev-
Simonsen’s (2010) study found that the perfor-
mance of companies has increasingly come under
scrutiny, and it is now widely recognized that
companies should take a broader responsibility
and not just make short-term profits; they must
initiate and act on their corporate social respon-
sibility (CSR) initiatives in social and environ-
mental issues. Aligning with these concerns, the
growing scale of “environmental and social
externalities” (Ditlev-Simonsen 2010, p. 517)
caused by the current economic system has led
to calls for a fundamental change for more sus-
tainable organizations. Organizational change,
however, is crucially influenced by the processes
of knowledge creation and sense-making,
whether or not the company aims to launch
a new product or address its social and
1557 K
environmental footprint (Preuss and Co’rdoba-
Pachon 2009). Now addressing these issues,
a question arises: How can knowledge manage-
ment contribute to CSR? At first glance, this may
seem to be an unusual question, as KM is a,
predominantly, internally focused issue whereas
CSR is associated with external stakeholders
such as gaining new consumers or staving off
unwanted nongovernment agency’s (NGO) atten-
tion through being (perceived as) a company that
takes seriously its responsibilities to the society.
However, Preuss and Co’rdoba-Pachon (2009)
found similarities between CSR and KM emerge
as both functions have used similar methods of
personification and metaphorization to analyze
their functions’ task(s); e.g., the CSR literature
has adopted the notion of citizenship and has
queried the extent to which the civil, political,
and welfare rights can be extended from the
individual to the organization. Transferring the
concept of responsibility to organizations is itself K
a form of personification which has prompted the
question of whether organizations can actually
have a responsibility that is different from the
responsible actions of their members. Knowledge
management and the various corporate functions
need to go hand in hand and learn from each other
in a more free-flowing (organic and continuous
improvement) way so that CSR can be put into
use and practice. Another issue is how knowledge
transfer can be managed and the question of
where the link between knowledge transfer and
CSR is, and this link can be seen by what has been
proposed by Nicolopoulou (2011), who has indi-
cated three ways: intergenerational perspective,
collaborative innovation perspective, and diver-
sity perspective of knowledge transfer that are
associated with the CSR activities. Ditlev-
Simonsen (2010) also defines the transfer process
but in the individualistic view. That view is that
to transfer knowledge in organizations, organiza-
tions need translators who are people coming
from different departments and from different
levels in the corporate hierarchy to make
decisions on CSR matters.
While corporate sustainability is likely to be
a challenging issue for the business world
because of globalization, firms are simply forced
K 1558 Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management and CSR

Knowledge Transfer, Element View of CSR Process View of CSR

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
Management and CSR,
Fig. 1 The interaction of Absorption aided by: Application aided by:
element and process view Precursors – prior CSR – organisation–wide
of CSR knowledge support
of CSR knowledge
(Source: Preuss and
knowledge – overlapping CSR – political skills of CSR
Co’rdoba-Pachon (2009))
knowledge staff
– legitimacy

Elements of CSR
knowledge Process of CSR
Content of – technical CSR knowledge
CSR knowledge – new way of working
knowledge – CSR knowledge with internal and
held by other external stakeholders
functions – co-location of decision-
making on CSR

Outcomes of CSR
element knowledge Outcomes of CSR
– codification and process knowledge
standardisation of – stakeholder dialogue
Outcomes CSR knowledge – communication of CSR
of CSR
– top-down performance
knowledge
imposition (e.g. on – self-development of
supply chains) organisational
– comparability of members and external
CSR performance stakeholders

to do or engage in CSR activities. Knowledge is knowledge is found to be insufficient, an “ele-

considered as a key resource for the firm’s
success and its CSR activities, as well as its
sustainability. It would thus be interesting to see
how both KM perspectives, the element and the
process view, are managed – see Fig. 1.
Element View of Knowledge Management
The element view of knowledge management
highlights a range of explicit knowledge that
organizations need to tap into when designing
and implementing their CSR strategy. This con-
cerns the technical knowledge of CSR practi-
tioners and the elements of CSR knowledge that
reside in other departments such as human
resources, external affairs, marketing, or supply
chain management. Where internal CSR
ment view of KM” can aid to identify the gaps to
be filled through external CSR experts. One key
outflow of the “element view of KM” is the
growing amount of knowledge codification CSR
had undergone with a set of coherent standards,
which other individuals within and without the
organization can understand, compare, and
potentially replicate. Since decisions that require
explicit, easily aggregated knowledge can be
centralized (Grant 1997), explicit knowledge
(experts, stakeholders, societal, or outside knowl-
edge) elements of CSR strengthen the role of the
CSR department as the organizational gate-
keeper. The static “element view of KM” thus
highlights the significant degrees of codification
and standardization of CSR knowledge, since the
Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management and CSR
impact of an element-driven approach to CSR
knowledge is notable in the top-down imposition
of many CSR standards, e.g., in value chain. On
the one hand, these developments allow for
a greater amount of comparability across organi-
zations and industries which have in turn fostered
the emergence of targets and indicators for key
CSR impact areas. On the other hand, all kinds of
knowledge are not amenable or imitable to codi-
fication to the same degree; there is also a danger
that codification encourages a one-size-fits-all
approach, and a box-ticking mentality can dilute
the whole process (Preuss and Co’rdoba-Pachon
2009).
Process View of Knowledge Management
On the other hand, the more dynamic process
view of KM highlights that efforts are needed to
generate organizational buy-in for CSR. This
implies a new way of working both within the
organization and with key external stakeholders
with communication flows that combine top-
down with bottom-up communication patterns.
The process view highlights the political skills
proponents of CSR that need to generate
organization-wide support for the integration of
social and environmental externalities into the
corporate strategy. In terms of an enabling con-
text, the process view of KM also highlights the
opportunities provided, through organizational
routines and spatial design, for organizational
members to engage in small group exchanges
on CSR topics. The process view of KM
does not only stress the importance of socializa-
tion in work groups inside the firm, it is also
a forceful argument in support of the stakeholder
dialogue as a major tool for determining the CSR
priorities of an organization (Roloff 2008).
Therefore, the greater organizational buy-in for
CSR initiatives should lead to an increased
legitimacy for CSR as both an organizational
activity and corporate function and they can be
seen as a way of sustaining and developing busi-
ness opportunities for nascent companies, or as
a way of transforming existing business activities
for those with an already established niche,
who see their future in CSR (Preuss and
Co’rdoba-Pachon 2009).
1559 K
Knowledge Transfer and Corporate Social
Responsibility
To determine the knowledge transfer in the
domain of CSR, three things emerge. First,
the intergenerational perspective: this refers to
the characteristics of different generations pre-
sent in the workplaces of today which connect
different values in the workforce, how they inter-
act with each other and circumscribe the dynam-
ics of differences versus similarities in thinking.
This is important in the context of knowledge
transfer for CSR and sustainability, as different
company members could potentially have differ-
ent, if not opposing, worldviews to the underlying
values and norms of CSR and sustainability. Such
worldviews can easily reflect their individual
experiences, frames of reference, career identi-
ties, and sense of belonging (Chinn 2009).
Second is the collaborative innovation perspec-
tive: this perspective refers to the capacity to
build collaboratively based on the innovation K
dynamics related to any project or program of
CSR and sustainability which seeks to transfer
knowledge from a more “developed” context into
a “developing” context. This takes place by
appropriating it, and not only correcting it to the
local realities, but also by proactively seeking to
engage local stakeholders in the “problem iden-
tification” and “solution creation” place. Third is
the diversity perspective: this refers to the orga-
nizational environment, particularly in terms of
its policies and procedures from the human
resource management (HRM) perspective, and
the ways in which it is conducive – or not – in
facilitating the processes of knowledge transfer in
CSR and sustainability. Also, it largely incorpo-
rates the conceptualization of career identities as
a key factor which influences the practice of
knowledge transfer by globally mobile profes-
sionals (Wilson and Deaney 2010). Connected
to these issues, the authors wish to stress the
critical importance of Røvik’s (2007) process
theory of knowledge transfer. This is because
Røvik’s (2007) model is based on pragmatic
institutionalism, and is positioned between the
modernistic and the social constructivist para-
digm. Interestingly, the model focuses on how
individuals shape and transform ideas, and has
K 1560
Knowledge Transfer, Process of Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge
Management and CSR, Intergenerational perspective
Fig. 2 Process of Collaborative innovation
knowledge transfer in CSR perspective
Diversity perspective
Knowledge Translator
common features with other pragmatic research
approaches along the line of sense making (e.g.,
identity, retrospect, enactment, social contact,
ongoing events, cues, and plausibility) and
“storytelling” (Ditlev-Simonsen 2010). In view
of the literature review on KT and CSR as
discussed, a model can be proposed considering
the existing literature, depicted in (Fig. 2).
Opportunity Cost and Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge management literature emphasizes
the importance of knowledge as a valuable asset
for firms (Bou-Llusar and Segarra-Ciprés 2006).
Transfer of knowledge in organizational environ-
ment is also considered as an opportunity cost;
e.g., Bou-Llusar and Segarra-Ciprés (2006)
claimed that the success of a firm does not nec-
essarily go to the firms that know the most, but to
the firms that can make the best use of what they
know and know what is strategically most impor-
tant to the firm (Bierly et al. 2000, p. 596). Harvey
(2012) described another important aspect on
intergenerational knowledge transfer, every year
a great number of people retiring from their job
systemically where the problem starts as it is not
only a lack of bodies in the workplace but also the
skills, knowledge, experience and relationships
walk out the door every time when somebody
retires, which results in corporate amnesia, so
the intergenerational transfer of knowledge is a
matter of survival for organizations. Outsourcing
is also an issue of opportunity cost, as Al-Salti
and Hackney (2011) argued that it is not only
a matter of cost or economic benefit but also
a matter of business knowledge. Since, in the
context of IS outsourcing, the externally gener-
ated fresh knowledge can promote innovations in
new methods and practices that are not available
in-house, which can then be absorbed into the
Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management and CSR
CSR
routines and culture of an organization (Al-Salti
and Hackney 2011; Darr and Kurtzberg 2000;
Goh 2002). Therefore, the transfer of knowledge
in organizations has a relative advantage of
opportunity cost containing the best alternative
option economically and strategically to get the
maximum outcome.
Key Issues
Knowledge transfer and knowledge management
can fundamentally help businesses to cope in
their increasingly competitive setting. Operating
as a business entity in a business world, today’s
firms are facing increasing difficulties in their
day-to-day activities in sharpening their compet-
itive edge. And critical action plans (e.g., energy-
saving inventions, short-term versus long-term
plans) and ideas (e.g., branding eco-friendly
products) should, in fact, come from the
executive and top management in the form of
knowledge. This is where knowledge transfer
and knowledge management aptly fit in.
Another important issue of CSR is that it
determines up to what level the companies are
responsible for action(s) considering the society
as well as the environment in which they operate.
Companies can choose either to play a simple and
uninvolved-CSR role (e.g., employee-training on
environmental issues) or a more involved or
engaged CSR role, yet owning the CSR process
(e.g., effecting environmental campaigns and
waste management), while benefiting the busi-
ness, the community, and the environment as
a whole.
Here, this is where the role of the knowledge
translators comes in. Knowledge translators are
basically the people who are responsible for
Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Management and CSR
identifying and addressing the CSR needs and
conveying the knowledge internally and exter-
nally to fulfill the key issues so that the company
can become more socially responsible.
Thus, from these three key issues, companies
can now meaningfully factor in, relate, and
apply KT, KM, and CSR in formulating and
implementing their strategy(ies) as well as being
socially responsible yet remaining competitive.
Future Directions
Operating a firm or a business concern is not
an issue of profit maximization; nowadays, it is
also about being responsible as a corporate
citizen. Corporate social responsibility is thus
a predominant issue for any business firm oper-
ating in any industry, market, or country.
According to Preuss and Co’rdoba-Pachon
(2009), no empirical definition of knowledge
exists in the current literature, but it is being
considered that if the right knowledge can be
found in the right form from the right people,
then it would create the vital competitive advan-
tage which is an important issue for the survival
of the firm. On the other hand, organizations have
to play a CSR role and that role is critical where
knowledge is appropriately and efficiently
applied. Nonaka’s (1998) SECI model says that
socialization, internalization, combination, and
externalization of knowledge describes the inter-
link process of knowledge creation, conversion,
and utilization in a proper way. At present, KT,
KM, and CSR may be derived from the SECI
model, but from emerging/new literature.
With the SECI model as the backdrop, new con-
cepts arise, e.g., Preuss and Co’rdoba-Pachon
(2009) describe two more new terms of the ele-
ment view and the process view of knowledge
management. Businesses in the future need to
factor in and relate CSR in a learning fashion or
in a more organic way, and in this aspect,
businesses must consider the element view and
the firm’s technology-based infrastructure. The
firm’s technology-based infrastructure can help
to communicate with the stakeholder(s) and can
also help to gain knowledge for implementing
1561 K
ideas. On the other side, the top management
can also do or exercise CSR activities with the
process view approach.
Nicolopoulou’s (2011) view of knowledge
translator(s) indicates that these are the people
who initiate and actualize the knowledge transfer.
The three ways that he has highlighted are as
follows: (1) the intergenerational perspective,
(2) the collaborative innovation perspective, and
(3) the diversity perspective. The age-generation
involvement of different clusters of people may
act differently from the different organizational
positions they occupy. So, here there is a need for
greater or more collaboration among themselves
so that knowledge transfer can be effected within
and outside the organization.
In terms of the diversity perspective, that is,
knowledge flows through the various and differ-
ent functions within the organization, CSR issues
need to be synergistically handled and dealt
with, and each function within the organization K
cannot operate in a silo fashion or knowledge
cannot be compartmentalized or contained within
each function.
Cross-References
▶ Knowledge Management
References and Readings
Al-Salti, Z., & Hackney, R. (2011). Factors impacting
knowledge transfer success in information systems
outsourcing. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 24(5), 455–468.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer:
A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
82(1), 150–169.
Bierly, P. E., III, Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W.
(2000). Organizational learning, knowledge and
wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-
ment, 13(6), 595–618.
Bou-Llusar, J. C., & Segarra-Ciprés, M. (2006). Strategic
knowledge transfer and its implications for
competitive advantage: An integrative conceptual
framework. Journal of Knowledge Management,
10(4), 100–112.
K 1562
Chinn, P. (2009). Authentic science experiences as
a vehicle for assessing orientation towards science
and science careers relating to identity and agency:
A response to learning from the path followed
by Brad. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4,
629–647.
Darr, E., & Kurtzberg, T. (2000). An investigation of
partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer.
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 82(1), 28–44.
Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business
assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of
Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322.
Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D. (2010). From corporate social
responsibility awareness to action? Social Responsi-
bility Journal, 6(3), 452–468.
Goh, S. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer:
An integrative framework and some practice
implications. Journal of Knowledge Management,
6(1), 23–30.
Grant, R. M. (1997). The knowledge-based view of the
firm: Implications for management practice. Long
Range Planning, 30(3), 450–454.
Handzic, M. (2011). Integrated socio-technical knowl-
edge management model: An empirical evaluation.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 198–211.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s
your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard
Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.
Harvey, J.-F. (2012). Managing organizational memory
with intergenerational knowledge transfer. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 16(3), 400–417.
Islam, M. Z., Low, K. C. P., & Rahman, M. H. (2012).
Towards understanding knowledge transfer: In search
of a theoretical construct. Global Education, 2012(1),
142–159.
Katsoulakos, T., & Katsoulacos, Y. (2007). Strategic
management, corporate responsibility and stakeholder
management Integrating corporate responsibility prin-
ciples and stakeholder approaches into mainstream
strategy: A stakeholder-oriented and integrative
strategic management framework. Corporate Gover-
nance, 7(4), 355–369.
Lucas, L. M., & Ogilvie, D. (2006). Things are not always
what they seem: How reputations, culture and incen-
tives influence knowledge transfer. The Learning
Organisation, 13(1), 7–24.
Major, E., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (2002). Knowledge trans-
lation: A new perspective on knowledge transfer and
foresight. Foresight, 2(4), 1–23.
Moffatt, M. (2008). What are opportunity costs?.
Available at: http://economics.about.com/b/2008/12/
30/adjusting-for-opportunity-costs-rather-than-inflation.
htm
Nicolopoulou, K. (2011). Towards a theoretical
framework for knowledge transfer in the field of CSR
and sustainability. Equality Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal, 30(6), 524–538.
Kyoto Protocol
Nonaka, I. (1998). The knowledge-creating company.
Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Manage-
ment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Preuss, L., & Co’rdoba-Pachon, J.-R. (2009).
A knowledge management perspective of corporate
social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 9(4),
517–527.
Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholders
networks: Issue-focused stakeholder Management.
Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233–250.
Røvik, K. A. (2007). Trender og Translasjoner – Ideer som
former det 21. a rhundrets organisasjon, Universitets-
forlaget, Oslo.
Skudiene, V., & Auruskeviciene, V. (2012). The contri-
bution of corporate social responsibility to internal
employee motivation. Baltic Journal of Management,
7(1), 49–67.
Wilson, E., & Deaney, R. (2010). Changing career and
changing identity: How do teacher career changers
exercise agency in identity construction? Social
Psychology of Education, 13, 169–183.
Kyoto Protocol
Rodica Milena Zaharia
Department of International Business and
Economics, Academy of Economic Studies from
Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
Synonyms
Climate change protocol; Global warming
protocol
Definition
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement
linked to the United Nations Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Kyoto
Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized
countries and the European community for reduc-
ing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The proto-
col covers six of the most important GHGs:
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6). The protocol sets GHG emission reduction