Improving CSR performance by hard and soft means: The role of organizational citizenship behaviours and the internalization of CSR standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study analyzes ‘hard’ (i.e. formal structures) and ‘soft’ (i.e. values) determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance, such as the effectiveness of management systems for CSR and the role of managers' organizational citizenship behaviours. Based on a sample of 130 Italian organizations that adopted management systems according to an international standard, this study shows that CSR performance depends on employees' commitment and the internalization of formalized CSR practices. The study also underlines the role of managers' organizational citizenship behaviours and the importance of leading by example in the substantial implementation of CSR practices. The integrative model proposed in the paper provides an overall picture of both the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ factors that can explain the effectiveness of CSR management standards. The paper also contributes to the literature on the internalization and key success factors of certifiable management standards. Managerial implications of the main findings and avenues for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".