The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Need-Hierarchy Framework for Assessing Corporate Social Responsibility
Abstract
We propose a microanalytic foundation for organizational analysis, using a paradigm taken from need theory. We present a taxonomic construct to assess corporate performance, and propose a yardstick to monitor its social responsibility. Though there exists an enormous literature of considerable intellectual substance critical of the traditional, or econologic, model of corporate social responsibility (CSR), little operationality inheres in the critique. The conceptualization of CSR, we feel, is more easily motivated and operationalized in the context of an organizational-need hierarchy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance
Carroll, A. B. (1979) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257850 · Cited by 10,480
Cited by
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Metadata
- Authors
- Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1981-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105603522
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
