Green certification and organizational attractiveness: The moderating role of firm ownership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At a time of critical talent shortages and environmental challenges, it is necessary to increase understanding of how green employer certification (GEC), as an ethical market signal, affects job seekers' perceptions. This study examines whether the relationship between GEC in recruitment advertisements and organizational attractiveness is mediated by firms' perceived prestige and person‐organization (PO) fit and if it varies according to firm ownership (i.e., investor‐owned vs. member‐owned). Results from a controlled online experiment firstly show that the communication of GEC has an indirect positive influence on organizational attractiveness via the mediating effects of perceived prestige and perceived PO fit. Secondly, depending upon firm ownership, people interpret the same certification differently: the communication of GEC thus has an indirect influence on organizational attractiveness and significantly improves firms' perceived prestige and PO fit among member‐owned firms but not among investor‐owned firms. Hence, practitioners should consider the value of including environmental certification in their recruitment advertising strategy while considering the issue of firm ownership.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".