A Multilevel Model of Responsibility Towards Employees as a Dimension of Corporate Social Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multilevel study addresses labor relations (LA) and human resource management (HRM) practices within the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The study adds to the growing literature on multilevel CSR by addressing the specific aspect of responsibility towards employees through LA-HRM practices in industrial firms. We design a multidimensional model of LA-HRM oriented CSR with the wider institutional environment, industrial setting and organizational setting as antecedents. The model and findings allow for a broad view of factors associated with practices of LA-HRM as important attributes of CSR. The predictive power of the institutional setting as well as industrial setting are shown to be moderately strong, while contrary the research hypothesis the organizational setting generally exhibits weak predictive power. The former finding reinforces the central role of the external environment and actors in firms’ internal application of LA-HRM practices and CSR. The later finding suggests that contrary to previous assertions, LA-HRM is generally not within the discretional power and influence of firms, and not a not a key area in the context of firms’ voluntary CSR policy but is dominated by externally mandated regulatory requirements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".