The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Human Resource Management: GDF SUEZ’s Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to analyse GDF SUEZ’s sustainable development report, focusing on its involvement in socially responsible Human Resource Management practices. We seek to know how Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) affects HR functions, roles, and activities. According to Fortune magazine, GDF SUEZ ranks first among companies in the world in terms of social responsibility and is among the top 10 global companies across all sectors. Our research focuses on the following practices: recruitment and employment access, training and career development, and well-being in the workplace. These HRM practices seem important to analyse given the context in which companies will have to evolve: ageing of the population, risks of labour shortage, or the war for talent. Our results imply that CSR has a positive influence on employees’ advocacy role (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005) because the Group integrates concerns regarding equal treatment, health and safety, and diversity. We also believe that GDF SUEZ Group desires to develop its brand further by presenting itself as a responsible employer to harvest the benefits that flow from that label.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".