Moral commitments to community: mapping social responsibility and its ambiguities among small business owners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to map the different moral positions articulated by small business owners in relation to social responsibility (SR) commitment and practice. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study utilized collaborative action research with 25 small business owners in two Canadian provinces and used combined methods of group dialogue, personal semi‐structured interviews, and thematic analysis through researcher triangulation. Findings We found that the morality underpinning business owners' social responsibility tended to be embedded in a sense of relationship with and commitment to the well‐being of the local geographic community. However, this was threaded with felt ambiguities, revealing their understanding of a spectrum of SR practices. Research limitations/implications Through an ethical analysis, we argue that this moral commitment to community is connected to a relational worldview as part of a distinctive ethical vision while, at the same time, the small business owner‐managers were continuing to pursue business within an environment of orthodox economic ethics and practices. This substantially impacted the shape of their commitment as social change agents and their engagement in collective activities with like‐minded peers. Practical implications Further research is needed to reveal how much the lack of engagement in collective social change activities and collective promotion of social responsibility is related to the practical issues of time famine, maintenance of a business niche, or an individualist ethos. Originality/value This study contributes several original findings by identifying a range of SR practices and the ethics behind each, from the perspective of small business owners, how they position themselves, as well as the paradoxical constraints they experience.
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 | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".