Study shows significant influence of HRD to shape and inspire CSR and sustainability initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The authors wrote their study in response to the pressures businesses face today to behave responsibly. More than 90% of the largest 250 MNCs in the world, they said, disclose information about various aspects of their CSR and sustainability. Meanwhile, HRD practices play a significant role in the design and effectiveness of these initiatives. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an analysis of the contents of CR reports to detect themes. They used a list of the top 100 CSR companies in the 2016 Global CSR Rep Trak 100. Overall, 55 reports were included from 23 large MNCs in 17 industries and 10 countries across Europe, Asia and North America. Household names included BMW, Campbell Soup, Dell, FedEx, Nike, Visa, Sony, Honda, Samsung, LEGO, Air Canada, Hilton Worldwide, and Fujifilm. Findings Initial analysis showed that seven areas of HRD work were the most important in supporting CSR and sustainability agendas. They were (1) Diversity, equity and inclusion. (2) Community engagement. (3) Work-life balance. (4) Employee long-term growth and development. (5) Performance management. (6) Business ethics and ethical culture and (7) Raising CSR awareness. Originality/value The study addressed two fundamental questions: First, what is the role of HRD in CSR and sustainability as portrayed in CR reports? Second, what areas of HRD work are highlighted in CR reports as important in the context of CSR and sustainability?
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".