Attitudes of millennials toward corporate responsibility: a 28-society multilevel analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We examined the attitudes of millennial-aged business students toward economic, social and environmental corporate responsibility (CR). Currently, these individuals are of an age that they have entered the workforce and are now ascending or have ascended into roles of leadership in which they have decision-making power that influences their company’s CR agenda and implementation. Thus, following the ecological systems perspective, we tested both the macro influence of cultural values (survival/self-expression and traditional/secular-rational values) and structural forces (income inequality, welfare socialism and environmental vulnerability) on these individuals’ attitudes toward CR. Design/methodology/approach This is a multilevel study of 3,572 millennial-aged students from 28 Asian, American, Australasian and European societies. We analyzed the data collected in 2003–2009 using hierarchical linear modeling. Findings In our multilevel analyses, we found that survival/self-expression values were negatively related to economic CR and positively related to social CR while traditional/secular-rational values was negatively related to social CR. We also found that welfare socialism was positively related to environmental CR but negatively related to economic CR while environmental vulnerability was not related to any CR. Lastly, income equality was positively related to social CR but not economic or environment responsibilities. In sum, we found that both culture-based and structure-based macro factors, to varying extents, shape the attitudes of millennial-aged students on CR in our sample. Originality/value Our study is grounded in the ecological systems theory framework, combined with research on culture, politico-economics and environmental studies. This provides a multidisciplinary perspective for evaluating and investigating the impact that societal (macro-level) factors have on shaping attitudes toward businesses’ engagement in economic, social and environmental responsibility activities. Additionally, our multilevel research design allows for more precise findings compared to a single-level, country-by-country assessment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".