Corporate Social Responsibility of Financial Cooperatives: A Multi-Level Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperatives, which have a dual mission that includes both business and social goals, are of particular interest for the study of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The aim of this study was to examine how cooperative directors influence the CSR strategies of their organization. We used a multi-level conceptual framework, consisting of micro, meso, and macro levels, to analyze qualitative data (20 interviews, observation of two board meetings and analysis of over 25 public documents) collected through a case study design that focused on the directors of three financial cooperatives operating under a large group of Canadian financial service cooperatives. Our study contributes first by building on prior studies that link CSR goals to the cooperatives’ dual mission and commitment to improving their community. We enrich prior findings by showing how directors play a crucial role in the enactment of the social dimension of CSR, but that conversely, cooperatives are vehicles for directors who want to contribute to the improvement of their community, thus creating a virtuous circle. Secondly, comparing bureaus operating in urban and rural areas allows us to show how the specificities of the community in which a cooperative evolves influence the approach of the directors towards the environmental dimension of CSR.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".