‘Good’ Companies Get ‘Good’ Employees: Linking Sustainability And Employee
Engagement: A Literature Review
Refereed Papers
Abichandani, Yogita; Dirani, Khalil M.
Introduction
Employee engagement is key to achieving sustainable development in organizations. A recent survey
(Adecco Earth Day, 2007) found that more than 1/3rd of American employees (33%) would be inclined to
work for a ‘green company’. Many also said that they wanted their company to do more about the
environment. This clearly indicates that employees are conscious of their own environmental
responsibilities and want their employers to be equally or more committed to it as well. Another aspect is
they are willing to commit their allegiance to such employers by going as far as working for a certain
percentage (5%) of reduced salary (Adecco Earth Day, 2007, Harris Interactive Report).
Framework
Corporate social responsibility is an evolving HRD practice and a business imperative in today’s changing
socio-economic and ecological times (Fenwick & Bierema, 2008). Within the organizational context it
provides for strategic, cultural and operational competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2007). The
evolving corporate social responsibility framework also includes sustainable development which is social
and ecological responsibility of organizations along with being economically viable (Alvesson & Willmott,
2003).
Employee engagement is a desired ‘holy grail’ for HRD and management theorists and practitioners and
is characterized by employee commitment and job satisfaction and organizational pride (Saks, 2006).
More than 50% of ("Gallup Study: Engaged Employees Inspire Company Innovation," 2008) employees
are disengaged and are causing organizations a loss of their customer service and innovations ("Gallup
Study: Engaged Employees Inspire Company Innovation," 2008). “Genuine” social responsibility
(Alvesson & Willmott, 2003) can however enhance employee engagement but little known about how
responsible organization behavior can lead to better employee engagement.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to connect corporate social responsibility and employee engagement using
the lens of critical Human Resource Development (CHRD). The research question guiding this study is:
What can CHRD offer to understand connection between employee engagement and corporate social
responsibility?
Methods
In this paper, the authors present the results of a review of the literature on employee engagement,
CHRD, and corporate social responsibility. The authors conduct a detailed and systematic review of
related literature on the above variables within organizational contexts. For validity purposes, they will
satisfy the primary requirements in the integrative literature review process. A database search will be
conducted including Academic Premier, Business Source Premier, EBSCO, Google Scholar for keywords
and phrases related to the focus of this study. Also, appropriate books published in the past 10 years by
scholars who addressed the issues under review in the workplace will be included in the review process.
This paper will aim to provide a framework upon which the variables are better understood and factors
affecting corporate social responsibility and employee engagement are explored. Both empirical and
theory based manuscripts will be included in the review.
Results
Employee engagement and corporate social responsibility are connected. This hypothesis will be
explored by reviewing the literature and presenting the case from a CHRD perspective.
Critical HRD
Authors in the field of HRD have challenged that HRD research focus excludes many issues such as
power, social justice, gender, politics, racism, sexism, environment, sustainability etc (Bierema & Cseh,
2003; Fenwick, 2004; Githens, 2007; Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schley, 2008; Trehan, et al.,
2006). The focus on narrow topics such as human performance, organization performance; impact of
human performance on organization performance; profitability, economics of functioning in society,
commodification of human quality and/or relationships (Bierema, 2000, 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Elliott &
Turnbull, 2005; Fenwick & Bierema, 2008) has limited the role of HRD in organizational management and
development.
HRD research focus on these narrow topics has lead to the exclusion of some very basic factors of
human and organization performance, which are nevertheless important for the holistic growth of the
organizations and the individuals. Basic factors such as power; politics, environment and sustainability
have been excluded from HRD and management literature (Bierema & Cseh, 2003; Fenwick, 2004;
Garavan, O'Donnell, McGuire, & Watson, 2007; Githens, 2007; Senge, et al., 2008; Trehan, et al., 2006).
It is through the lens of Critical HRD we can expect to include these factors and also question the
‘neutrality’ of management in problems (Bierema, 2009b). These problems are a result of organizational
products and social-environmental interactions. The people impacted are consumers, community and the
environment i.e. the external stakeholders (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Senge, et al., 2008).
It is essential to use the Critical HRD lens as it offers to expand the ‘management view’ of problem solving
for both internal and external stakeholders. The critical lens offers emancipation from the basic
constitution and assumptions under which organizations operate. One of the largest assumptions of
organizational role has been that they are machineries to merely make profit at end (Bierema &
D'Abundo, 2004; Garavan, et al., 2007; Hopikins, 2003). While this view is not completely wrong, its
exclusive nature needs to be focused upon by looking at the greater role organizations can play in social
sustainability. The cottonseeds represent the economic hegemony of the GM organization. The macrosocial factors and the existing lack of infrastructure, availability of water, poverty, illiteracy; multiple factors
are the reason behind the suicides. The unintended consequence (in this case the suicides) (Arli and
Morrison, 2008), indicate a need towards developing organizational policies from a critical HRD stance
where multiple stakeholder view is invited as the organizational norm and not as an afterthought.
The greater role of organizations in social, environmental and economic development is through
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and involves all the stakeholders that are affected, by the firm’s
presence and product. CSR can mainstream environment, social and economic sustainability of
communities within which organizations exist. It includes ethics into the organizational functioning and
makes responsible management an integral part of core organizational values (Glover, 2007; Hopikins,
2003). The stakeholders in any organizations case would then be the entire spectrum of the natural
environment, internal and external customers, suppliers, local, national and global communities,
employees, investors and owners alike. The ability to foster the ‘sustainable development’ by recognizing
the sustainability needs of all the stakeholders and local government is through CSR (Fenwick &
Bierema, 2005; Hopikins, 2003).
The traditional role of HRD is concerned with enhancing learning and harnessing the potential of humans
for work related systems (Blok, 2009; Sambrook, 2004). It however completely ignores how this learning
can be effectively used in a holistic and creative manner for the greater impact on society and global
citizenship (Bierema, 2008). This analysis is questioning the role of power, interests and equity in an
organizations practice (Keefer & Yap, 2007) and the social borders and the dominant ideologies that have
led to the farmer suicide thus justifying the critical lens. The critical lens provides a closer nuanced view of
the interaction of the organization, with the regulators and government alike, requiring all of these units to
act in an honest and ethical manner and required full disclosure (Newell, 2007b). Critical HRDs focus on
developing ethical and honest HRD practices would then reflect the core organizational values.
Corporate social responsibility
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been considered the ‘bridge’ between organization and society;
this ‘bridge’ has addressed the profit motive and often neglected the impact of products, services and
interactions within the communities these organizations operate (Arli and Morrison, 2008). Corporate
responsibility includes “social, environmental and developmental obligations helps to ensure that firms
deliver on promises of employment, gains for the community and responsible use of natural resources ”
(Newell, 2007a, p. 678). The role of CSR is to minimize organizational impact on communities within
which they operate and generate products and services and engage stakeholders for inclusive
development.
Figure 1: A conceptual framework discussing the relationship between Stakeholders, CSR strategies
(informed by social justice and critical HRD lens) and their consequences. Adapted from “Developing a
conceptual framework of corporate social responsibility initiatives in community involvement: content
analysis of company website,” by Arli, D. I., & Morrison, P. D. (2008) Paper presented at the Australian &
New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Australia. Copyright 2008 ANZMAC.
Social Justice and Globalization
Social justice is an essential dimension of social and environmental responsibility. When profits
supersede humanity we need to question the ideologies within which businesses operate (The
Corporation, 2003). These dominant ideologies are being questioned in both the management literature
and the HRD literature (Alvesson and Wilmott, 2003, Fenwick and Bierema, 2005). Social justice,
equitable practice within the organizational context is being questioned the HRD literature (Fenwick,
2005). But the literature has not yet questioned these concepts outside the organizational context (Arli
and Morrison, 2008). To understand the outside, it is essential to differentiate the economic and the
noneconomic dimensions of Globalization. The economic dimensions include the obvious international
economic exchange and the non-economic dimensions include exchange of culture, politics, migration
and other aspects of modern life (Midgely, 2007). It is unconscionable, when the culture of an
organization, which expands itself from the parent to the host country, mutes the culture of the host
country by imposing its norms (Midgely, 2007). This is problematic and holds multiple implications for
management and HRD practices.
According to Escobar (2004) this imposition and adoption of western management practices around the
world weakens the indigenous culture and causing a disconcerting social and environmental impact.
Global social movements are countering the hegemonic globalization which includes the domination of
western culture, norms and even language as the primary means of communication and cultural
exchange and in this case bio-diversity (Escobar, 2004, Marsella, 2005, Shiva 2009). These aspects are
significant to understand the salient effects of globalization. Economic and social conflict has always
effected as business (Newell, 2007a). Thus ‘business as usual’ approach will not serve organizations any
better. When “diverse ways of life are lost in favor of a global monoculturalism with questionable
consequences” (Marsella, 2005, p.4) it is a problem.
The role of social justice in the HRD context can help organizations respect the diversity (biological,
social, environmental, people, cultural) of the world. The monoculturalization tends to take away what is
culturally unique and streamlines the dominant western way (Marsella, 2005). While the world may be
getting ‘smaller’, suppressing the diversity will create a polarization of power and money resulting with
unfathomable consequences (Marsella, 2005). The inclusion of social justice in HRD theory and practice
will help us better understand the powerful forces of global economy and develop ethical HRD practices
to discourage these consequences.
In this section, the authors have discussed critical HRD, social responsibility, social justice and
Globalization of the organizations. Each of these aspects helps us in understanding the organizational
responsibility and its implications while interacting with the external socio-economic environment.
Strategy and management literature states that stakeholder engagement will be an essential for any
organizations success and HRD can be that bridge between organization and its stakeholders.
Conclusion and Suggestions for future research:
In analysis of the literature, we found that:
1. Social justice is becoming a critical area for research with the spread of western organizations in
the global south.
2. Ethical challenges are being faced by global organizations especially in the developing countries.
3. Multiple factors influence HRD practice and include social, environmental, governmental and
legislation for operating within a certain country.
Marquardt and Berger (2003) and McLean (2001) said globalization is inevitable and the future of HRD
intertwined with it. While this paper does not explore National Human Resource Development (NHRD),
social and environmental justice has strong implications for national HRD policy specifically in a
developing country like India.
We recommend the following future research areas:
1. The impact of social, economic and environmental sustainability on global organisations.
2. The ethical role of how organisations manage their responsibility and obligations of the entire
spectrum of stakeholders.
3. The intersection of social justice and critical HRD perspectives however provides insights for
National HRD such as education and policymaking.
Implications for HRD Theory, Practice and Research
Corporate social responsibility is an evolving field especially in the context of globalization. As the
interactions of organizations and societies come under scrutiny, the nuances spell a greater need for
ethical practices of products and services of organizations. The authors suggest few HRD practices in
response to the “unintended negative effects” of the seeds would have been:
1. The extension and availability of the farmer smallholder program for farmer education and
management of seeds.
2. Engaging external stakeholders such as the NGOs and the community with the farmers for seed
and crop management of the GM seeds.
3. Voluntary community development program as an extension of the CSR to alleviate the social
and economical pressures such as developing “Grameen Bank” (Poor people bank, Yunus 2001)
and:
4. community grievance forums. Here, the authors are urging CSR professionals to deeply engage
with stakeholders to mitigate such unintended and indirect consequences of a product/ service
being offered.
The implication for exploring farmer suicides from a Critical HRD and social justice framework adds to the
emphasis of mainstreaming corporate social responsibility and ethics as emphasized by many scholars
(Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Bierema, 2009a; Bierema & D'Abundo, 2004; Blok, 2009; Elliott & Turnbull,
2005; Fenwick & Bierema, 2008; Foote & Ruona, 2008; Garavan, 1995; Sambrook, 2004). The impact of
“unquestioned adoption of western management practices” (Escobar, 2004) is also being studied in
literature. While the social justice dimension of critical HRD has been initiated in HRD research, we still do
not know how social injustices impact international MNCs HRD practices in a developing country like
India. This paper makes a contribution towards this effort. What we know from this study substantiates the
discussion that corporate social responsibility has to be ingrained in core organizational philosophy for
inclusive development.
Discussion and implications:
Sustainable development is a broad interdependent and complex concept representing social, economic
and environmental dimensions of development. However, it can be reduced to a mere PR exercise if
employees are not genuinely involved in an organizations sustainability mission. To achieve this
organizations need engaged employees. Hiring and retaining engaged talent is a difficult proposition in
today’s’ fast changing times. Employee engagement is a very broad concept and entails job satisfaction
leading to reduced’ employee turnover, customer satisfaction and higher organisation performance.
However, there is a possibility of it becoming a management fad. This paper attempts to link ‘true’
corporate social responsibility and provide a conceptual roadmap between employee engagement and
sustainable development. We are hoping that our paper will make a small but significant contribution in
providing a roadmap of how these concepts relate together. The implications for practitioners include
better implementation of social responsibility initiatives, which can make an impact on local communities
within which they operate and engage employees to the overall purpose of the organization, which is
‘doing good’. For academicians this paper is expected to provide a roadmap highlighting the significance
of the two constructs of social responsibility and employee engagement and provide future avenues of
research.
References
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (1992). Critical management studies. New Delhi: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2003). Studying management critically. New Delhi: Sage.
Arli, D. I., & Morrison, P. D. (2008). Developing a conceptual framework of corporate social responsibility
initiatives in community involvement: content analysis of company website. Paper presented at
the Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Australia.
Bierema, L. L. (2000). Moving beyond performance paradigms in workplace development. In A. Wilson
& E. Hayes (Eds.) Handbook of adult and continuing education: New edition. (p. 278-293). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bierema, L. L. (2008). Human Performance Theory and Practice: A Review of Its Contributions and
Limitations. In V. C. X. Wang & K. P. King (Eds.), Fundamentals of Human Performance and
Training. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Bierema, L. L. (2009a). Critical perspectives on OD and HRD. Implementing a critical approach to
organization development. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Bierema, L. L. (2009b). Critiquing Human Resource Development's Dominant Masculine Rationality and
Evaluating Its Impact. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 68-96. doi:
10.1177/1534484308330020
Bierema, L. L., & Cseh, M. (2003). Evaluating AHRD Research Using a Feminist Research Framework.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(1), 5-26.
Bierema, L. L., & D'Abundo, M. L. (2004). HRD with a Conscience: Practicing Socially Responsible HRD.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(5), 443-458.
Blok, P. (2009). Recalibrating HRM: Is HRM future proof? Paper presented at the 6th International Critical
Management Studies Conference, England, UK.
Bownas, R. (2008). Transnational activist networks: with or against local actors? The case of GM crops in
India. Conference Papers, Northeastern Political Science Association, 1-29.
Bt Cotton Plagued with New Problem. (2003). Asia Pacific Biotech News, 7(19), 1204-1204.
Coghlan, A. (2008). GM cotton absolved of farmer suicides. New Scientist, 199(2681), 14-14.
Dogra, B. (2006).
Organic farming, answer to farmers' suicides? Inter Press News Service
Commondreams.org, Retrieved November 19, 2010.
Elliott, C., & Turnbull, S. (Eds.). (2005). Critical thinking in human resource development. NY, New York:
Routledge.
Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, Whose nature? Biodiversity Conservation and Social Movements
Political Ecology. Journal of Political Ecology, 5, 53 - 82.
Escobar, A. (2004). Beyond the Third World: imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-globalisation
social movements. Third World Quarterly, 25(1), 207-230.
Fenwick, T. J. (2004). Toward a crtical HRD in theory and practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3), 193209.
Fenwick, T. J., & Bierema, L. L. (2005). “Corporate social responsibility”: A site for critical learning in
workplaces? Paper presented at the The 46th Annual Adult Education Research Conference,
Athens, GA.
Fenwick, T. J., & Bierema, L. L. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility: Issues for Human Resource
Development Professionals. International Journal of Training & Development, 12(1), 24-35.
Foote, M. F., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2008). Institutionalizing Ethics: A Synthesis of Frameworks and the
Implications
for
HRD.
Human
Resource
Development
Review,
7,
16.
doi:10.1177/1534484308321844
Sheila Foster (2004), The Challenge of Environmental Justice, Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy
Gala, R. (2005). India’s Bt cotton fraud, London,UK: The Institute of Science in Society.
Garavan, T. N. (1995). Stakeholders and Strategic Human Resource Development. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 19(10), 11-16. doi: 10.1108/03090599510095825
Garavan, T. N., O'Donnell, D., McGuire, D., & Watson, S. (2007). Exploring Perspectives on Human
Resource Development: An Introduction. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 3-10.
Githens, R. P. (2007). Critical action research in human resource development. Paper presented at the
Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings, Bowling Green, OH.
Gene campaign moves SC for right biotech policy. (2004). Chemical Weekly-Bombay, 49, 123.
Green Earth Social Development Consulting Report (GCSDC) http://greenearthconsulting.org, Retrieved
October, 10 2010
Glover, D. (2007). Monsanto and Smallholder Farmers: a Case Study in CSR. Third World Quarterly,
28(4), 851-867.
Glover, D. (2009). Transgenic cotton: a ‘pro-poor’ success? Report for Institute of Development Studies.
Brighton, UK
Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Harper Business.
Hoist, J. D. (2010). Social Justice and Dispositions for Adult Education. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(3),
249-260.
Hopikins, M. (2003). The planetary bargain: corporate social responsibility matters, London, UK; Virginia,
USA: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
India says NO to GM cotton. (2001). Ecologist, 31(8), 10.
Iyer, A. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and Farmer Suicides: A Case for Benign Paternalism?
Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 429-443.
Jayaraman, K. S. (2001). Illegal Bt cotton in India haunts regulators. Nature Biotechnology, 19(12), 1090.
Keefer, J. M., & Yap, R. (2007). Critical HRD—Need for Emergence of Critters in Adult Education. Paper
presented at the Learning In Community: Proceedings of the joint international conference of the
Adult Education Research Conference (AERC) (48th National Conference) and the Canadian
Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE)/l'Association Canadienne pour l'Étude de
l'Éducation des Adultes (ACÉÉA) (26th National Conference). Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Marquardt, M., & Berger, N. O. (2003). The Future: Globalization and New Roles for HRD. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 5(3), 283.
McLean, G. (2001) Human resource development as a factor in the inevitable move to globalization, in:
O.Aliagra (Ed.) Academy of Human Resource Development 2001 Conference Proceedings, pp. 731–738
(Tulsa, OK: Academy of Human Resource Development).
Midgely, (2007) Perspectives on Globalization, Social Justice and Welfare, Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare. Vol. 34 (2), 17-35.
Marsella, Anthony (2005) “Hegemonic” Globalization and Cultural Diversity: The Risks of Global
Monoculturalism. Australian Mosaic, Issue 11 (13), 15-19.
Navdanya (Vandana Shiva). (2008) New Internationalist 29-29.
Newell, P. (2007). Biotech Firms, Biotech Politics: Negotiating GMOs in India. The Journal of
Environment Development, 16(2), 183-206. doi: 10.1177/1070496507300920
Newell, P., & Frynas, J. G. (2007). Beyond csr? Business, poverty and social justice: an introduction.
[Article]. Third World Quarterly, 28(4), 669-681. doi: 10.1080/01436590701336507
O'Donnell, D., Gubbins, C., McGuire, D., Jrgensen, K. M. l., Henriksen, L. B., & Garavan, T. N. (2007).
Social Capital and HRD: Provocative Insights From Critical Management Studies. [Article].
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(3), 413-435.
PBS
Video,
(2005),
Heeter,
C.
(Producer)
Seeds
of
suicide,
retrieved
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html, October 10, 2010
from
PBS Video, (2007) Lazaro, Sam (Reporter), Agricultural Problems Lead to Farmer Suicides in India,
Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june07/farmers_06-26.html, October 10, 2010
Rajivlochan, M. (2007). Farmer's Suicide - Facts & Possible Policy Interventions. Gyanmudra: Journal of
Rural Development, 26(2), 307-309.
Prahalad, C. K. (2001). The Bottom Of The Pyramid. Siliconindia, 5(10), 76.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2007). Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage
and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business School Publication Corp. (85). 136-137.
Qaim, M. (2003). Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections. World Development,
31(12), 2115-2127.
Qaim, M., & Zilberman, D. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries.
Science, 299(5608), 900-902.
Qayum, A., & Sakkhari, K. (2005). Report- Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh- a three year assessment. A.P.,
India: Deccan Development Society Andhra Pradesh Coalition on Defence of Diversity.
Sainath, P. (2006). Death in the Countryside, The Hindu.
Sambrook, S. (2004). A “critical” time for HRD? Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(8/9), 611-624.
doi: 10.1108/03090590410566543
Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The Necessary Revolution- How
Individuals and Organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. NY,New York:
DoubleDay Publishing Group.
Sharma, D. (2005). No Pesticides, No Bt Cotton, No Pests ! Retrieved November 21, 2009.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Pesticides-Bt-Cotton-Pests1mar05.htm
Sheridan, C. (2009). Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide. Nature
Biotechnology, 27(1), 9-10.
Shiva, V. (1999). Monocultures, Monopolies, Myths and the Masculinization of Agriculture. Development,
42(2), 35.
Shiva, V. (2004). The Future of Food: Countering Globalisation and Recolonisation of Indian Agriculture.
Futures, 36(6-7), 715-732.
Shiva, V. (2007). Bioprospecting as Sophisticated Biopiracy. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 32(2), 307-313. doi: doi:10.1086/508502
Shiva, V. (2009). Soil Not Oil Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis. Alternatives Journal (35):
University of Waterloo. 18-23.
Shiva, V., & Jafri, A. H. (2003). Failure of the GMOs in India Retrieved October 22, 2009, from
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/India-GMO-Failure-Shiva31may03.htm
Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting The Corporate Social
Performance Model. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 43-64.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Stone, G. D. (2007). Agricultural Deskilling and the Spread of Genetically Modified Cotton in Warangal.
Current Anthropology, 48(1), 67-103.
“Summer 2007” (2007), Suhail Tatari (Director), Indian Feature Film with Farmer suicide in the
Background. http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-33976620080609
“The Dying Fields” (2007), In India, Farmers in Debt Reach the Depths of Despair, PBS Documentary,
Retrieved
October,
10
2010
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/the-dyingfields/introduction/967/
“The Corporation” (2003) http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46, Retrieved October 10,
2010
Trehan, K., Rigg, C., & Stewart, J. (2006). Critical Human Resource Development, International Journal of
Training & Development, pp. 2-3.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=19901924&site=ehost-live
Venugepal, D., & Jagadisha. (2000). An Indian Perspective of Farmer Stress - a Priority Area for Future
Research.
International
Journal
of
Social
Psychiatry,
46(3),
231-232.
doi:
10.1177/002076400004600309
Williamson, S., Little, A., Ali, M. A., Kimani, M., Meir, C., & Oruko, L. (2003). Aspects of Cotton and
Vegetable Farmers' Pest Management Decision-making in India and Kenya. International Journal
of Pest Management, 49(3), 187.
Yamaguchi, T., & Harris, C. K. (2004). The Economic Hegemonization of Bt Cotton Discourse in India.
Discourse & Society, 15(4), 467-491.
Yanhui, L., Kongming, W., Yuying, J., Bing, X., Ping, L., Hongqiang, F., et al. (2010). Mirid Bug Outbreaks
in Multiple Crops Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China. Science, 328(5982),
1151-1154.