Accountants' construction of CSR competencies and commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The article's main purpose is to investigate the relationship between organizational and professional commitment and accountants' construction of corporate social responsibility (CSR) competencies. Design/methodology/approach – A survey of accounting professionals in Canada (chief financial officers/finance directors) was conducted to ask them about their organization's CSR position, their openness to CSR, involvement in related activities, the codified knowledge they use and their organizational and professional commitment. Findings – The results show the dominance of normative commitment to the profession or organization and its relationship with professional CSR training. Professional CSR training and organizational and other CSR training activities are also related to the professional's openness to CSR. Research limitations/implications – The study's main limitation is the small number of participants. Future research is needed to investigate the conditions under which normative commitment is developed. Practical implications – The results make a practical contribution by suggesting that organizations seeking to involve accounting professionals in CSR activities might want to consider encouraging them to get CSR training using professional resources because of its link to both forms of normative commitment. Further, the findings indicate that the profession could integrate CSR issues more extensively in its accreditation process to enhance its role as a resource provider in the construction of accountants' CSR competencies. Originality/value – To the authors' knowledge, the study is the first one to investigate the relationship between organizational and professional commitment and accountants' construction of CSR competencies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".