Responsible human resource management: A theoretical assessment and discourse analysis of Canadian banks’ practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, our aim is to analyze how the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), both in theory and in practice, may be applied to the renewal of strategic human resource management (SHRM). A thorough literature review on the themes of CSR and SHRM has been conducted in order to examine to what extent knowledge about CSR is useful in advancing knowledge about SHRM (theory). The discourse of the six largest Canadian banks on their CSR practices related to work and workers has been studied in order to identify the main logic underlying what they consider as responsible human resource management (practice). As regards theory, we conclude that institutional-based approaches from economic and sociological disciplines, used in the theoretical analysis of CSR and focusing on concepts such as social representations, regulation, social construction, and institutionalization, may offer new insights into the study of SHRM. As regards practice, our results indicate that the current observable change reflects a shift from a logic of efficiency to that of strategic positioning.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".