Corporate Support for Employee Volunteerism Within Canada: A Cross-Cultural Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Company support for employee volunteerism (CSEV) is one mechanism whereby businesses meet the escalating expectation for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Institutional theory is applied to examine patterns of convergence and divergence in CSR programs cross culturally, with a particular focus on intra-country cultural differences. Using a national (Canada) survey of businesses, we examine cross-cultural differences regarding CSEV in two regions of Canada—French Canada (Quebec) and English Canada. Our results suggest that cultural differences, rooted in historical conditions, may shape CSEV program implementation in Canada. Quebec companies are less likely to engage in CSEV. If they do encourage employee volunteerism, they may exclude certain cause types from support and appear to focus more on the external benefits of CSEV, such as community perception, than do firms in English Canada. Recognizing that no nation is culturally homogenous, our study illustrates that CSR and CSEV may vary significantly whenever or wherever cultural differences occur. Businesses and nonprofit organizations need to consider culture as an important variable when implementing corporate volunteer programs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".