How do corporate charitable and economic social responsibility practices help to improve the quality of work life for employees?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study compares the corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions of two sectors of hospitality, tourism and travel (hotels and airlines) by researching what Six Sense hotels (a hotel brand) and Air Canada (an airline company) have been doing in order to respond to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and how they apply the concept of CSR in their operational activities. The article also considers how these activities align with quality-of-life (QoL) dimensions and contemporary CSR dimensions. Design/methodology/approach Provides a detailed comparative, case study analysis of the reported CSR practices of companies in different sectors of the hospitality and tourism industry based on competitive strategy; environmental protection; internationalization of CSR; and transparency and accountability. The impact of the varied initiatives on quality of work life (QWL) and QoL is also considered together with implications for the circular economy (CE). Findings Analysis of the two case study examples suggests that these companies' activities are designed to promote sustainability. The findings also suggest that there is a positive relationship between CSR activities and QoL that the case study companies are aware of this and are doing all they can to sustain this relationship given the benefits it yields. Originality/value Uses case study analysis of Six Senses Hotels Resorts & Spas and Air Canada to conduct a comparative analysis of the reported CSR practices of companies in different tourism sectors based on competitive strategy; environmental protection; internationalization of CSR; and transparency and accountability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".