Employees’ Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility: Corporate Volunteer and Organizational Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Although there is a growing trend of corporate volunteer plans in Taiwan, there scanty studies on the antecedent and consequence variables that influence employees’ participation in corporate volunteer. Most of existing studies concerning corporate social responsibility (CSR) explored the effects of CSR on corporate financial performance or consumer behavior, while paying little attention to the effects on the stakeholders and employees of enterprises. In practice, many enterprises often include corporate volunteer as an important part of their CSR policies. Past literature has seldom discussed the effects of the employees’ perception of CSR on their participation in corporate volunteer. Most studies concerning corporate volunteer focus on volunteer participation motivation and intention of the volunteer services outside enterprises, while few focus on corporate employees’ participation in corporate volunteer.</p><p>By convenience sampling, this study treated the 50 enterprises that received the Corporate Citizenship Award in 2012 as the targets. A total of 368 questionnaires were retrieved, including 195 paper-based questionnaires and 173 online questionnaires, among which there were 287 valid samples. The data were analyzed using SPSS18 to test the hypotheses. The findings of this study are as follows: (1) employees’ perception of CSR has a significant positive effect on their intention to participate in corporate volunteer; (2) employees’ perception of CSR has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment; (3) employees’ intention of participating in corporate volunteer has a significant positive effect on organizational commitment.</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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".