Integrated Management System Frameworks for Corporate Social Responsibility and Related Concepts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Although integrated management system (IMS) is known as an approach that can systematically and progressively integrate requirements of multiple stakeholders into the business processes, there is surprisingly a dearth of research on the adoption of this approach for the implementation and integration of stakeholder oriented concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its related concepts, namely corporate sustainability (CS) or sustainable development (SD). This literature review is intended to support future research on this topic by providing a comprehensive overview of the past research on IMS frameworks that were developed for CSR and CS/SD as well as an analysis of twelve different IMS frameworks for the implementation, integration and management of these concepts. Although CSR and CS/SD are concepts that are often used synonymously, different approaches were adopted for the implementation of both concepts. Our analysis of the frameworks revealed that there is a tendency to adopt only specific international standards such as SA 8000, ISO 26000 or AA 1000 in the IMS approaches for the implementation of CSR. However, in the case of CS/SD, a combination of different management systems standards (MSSs) was incorporated into the IMS approaches for the implemention of the three dimensions of CS/SD.</p><p><br /><strong></strong></p>
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it