This study identifies the relationship between local stakeholder pressures and Korean foreign subsidiaries’ corporate social responsibility. Analyzing the survey data of 177 Korean foreign subsidiaries yielded two important findings. First, local primary stakeholders have a positive impact on responsive CSR activities, but have no influence on strategic CSR activities. Second, local secondary stakeholders in host countries have a strong influence on both responsive and strategic CSR activities. Secondary stakeholders have more influence on strategic than on responsive CSR activities. This article (...) suggests a change in managerial philosophy toward primary and secondary stakeholders, which may have important implications for multinational enterprises in achieving greater success with the design of their CSR activities. (shrink)

An atheist argument usually goes like this. If God exists and is omnipotent as believed, He could have created any possible world as he pleased. The existence of moral evil, though, makes problematic the existence of God or His omnipotence at least. Plantinga's answer to an atheist is: it is not that God, as omnipotent, could have created any possible world as he pleased, but rather it is that God, even though omnipotent could not have created the world as he (...) pleased. I formulate an atheist's view of moral evil which resulted from the free will of human beings, and examine Plantinga's view that distinguishes between an act of creation, and an act of actualization of state of affairs. He asserts that creation of earth, heaven, or Socrates can be attributed to God, but the actualization ofnecessary states of affairs, and among contingent states of affairs, false possible states of affairs cannot be attributed to God. And I explain Plantinga's view that God cannot be held responsible for actualizing state of affairs implemented by free choice, and that human action with free will can only be attributed to human being, not to God. At last, I will criticize Plantinga's view not to be a genuine compatibilism between the existence of God and moral evil, and sketch the compatibilism between providential determinism and moral evil. (shrink)

An atheist argument usually goes like this. If God exists and is omnipotent as believed, He could have created any possible world as he pleased. The existence of moral evil, though, makes problematic the existence of God or His omnipotence at least. Plantinga's answer to an atheist is: it is not that God, as omnipotent, could have created any possible world as he pleased, but rather it is that God, even though omnipotent could not have created the world as he (...) pleased. I formulate an atheist's view of moral evil which resulted from the free will of human beings, and examine Plantinga's view that distinguishes between an act of creation, and an act of actualization of state of affairs. He asserts that creation of earth, heaven, or Socrates can be attributed to God, but the actualization ofnecessary states of affairs, and among contingent states of affairs, false possible states of affairs cannot be attributed to God. And I explain Plantinga's view that God cannot be held responsible for actualizing state of affairs implemented by free choice, and that human action with free will can only be attributed to human being, not to God. At last, I will criticize Plantinga's view not to be a genuine compatibilism between the existence of God and moral evil, and sketch the compatibilism between providential determinism and moral evil. (shrink)