MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151913197

Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement : The Moderating Role of CSR-Specific Relative Autonomy and Individualism

2018· article· en· W3151913197 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah E. Rupp, Ruodan Shao, Daniel P. Skarlicki, Elizabeth Layne Paddock, Tae‐Yeol Kim, Thierry Nadisic

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityAutonomyEmployee engagementIndividualismOrganizational justicePerceptionWork engagementPublic relationsSocial psychologyEconomic JusticePsychologyWork (physics)Political scienceOrganizational commitment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing evidence suggests that employees' perceptions of their employer's corporate social responsibility (CSR) relates positively to employee work engagement. This is an important connection given the impact of work engagement on both employee health and organizational productivity, as well as the importance of CSR for society. In this paper, however, we argue that the CSR perceptions-work engagement relationship cannot be assumed to be universal, and that both individual and contextual factors will place meaningful boundary conditions on this effect. Integrating motivation and cross-cultural theories, we propose that the relationship between employees' CSR perceptions and their work engagement will be stronger among employees who perceive higher CSR-specific relative autonomy (i.e., employees' contextualized motivation for complying with, advocating for, and/or participating in CSR activities); and that this amplification effect will be stronger among employees who are higher on individualism (studied at the individual-level of analysis). These predictions were mostly supported among a sample of 673 working adults from five different regions (Canada, China [mainland], France, Hong Kong, and Singapore), and while controlling for first-party justice perceptions, moral identity, employee demographics, and employer/nation characteristics. Theoretical and practical implications 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207