Organizations’ Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review of Business Articles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze the early COVID-19 crisis management practices implemented in organizations based on a scoping review of relevant business articles published on this issue in newspapers and magazines between March and May 2020. In total, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria on 2707 potentially relevant articles, 246 articles describing organizational initiatives to manage COVID-19 were selected and analyzed in detail. The results of this study highlight the opportunities and threats arising from the pandemic as well as the most innovative measures put in place, particularly in the areas of health, human resources management (HRM), work organization, social and environmental responsibility, and crisis management. The description of the main practices identified and their illustration through various examples show the importance of corporate sustainability in managing the pandemic and demonstrate the cross-cutting nature of this crisis, which affects most corporate functions simultaneously. This study also makes it possible to identify certain leaders’ approaches that can be considered exemplary or, in contrast, that should be avoided, while highlighting the paradoxes and difficulties of assessing corporate social responsibility in times of crisis.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".