The authors have systematically reviewed 534 corporate social responsibility communication (CSRC) papers, updating the current debate about the ontological and…
The authors have systematically reviewed 534 corporate social responsibility communication (CSRC) papers, updating the current debate about the ontological and epistemological paradigms that characterize the field, and providing evidence of the interactions between these paradigms and the related methodological choices. The purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical and methodological implications for future research in the CSRC research domain.
The authors used the Scopus database to search for titles, abstracts and related keywords with two queries sets relating to corporate social responsibility (e.g. corporate ethical, corporate environmental, social responsibility, corporate accountability) and CSRC (e.g. reporting, disclosure, dialogue, sensemaking). The authors identified 534 empirical papers (2000–2016), which the authors coded manually to identify the research methods and research designs (Creswell, 2013). The authors then developed an ad hoc dictionary whose keywords relate to the three primary CSRC approaches (instrumental, normative and constitutive). Using the software Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, the authors undertook an automated content analysis in order to measure these approaches’ relative popularity and compare the methods employed in empirical research.
The authors found that the instrumental approach, which belongs to the functionalist paradigm, dominates the CSRC literature with its relative weight being constant over time. The normative approach also belongs to the functionalist paradigm, but plays a minor yet enduring role. The constitutive approach belongs to the interpretive paradigm and grew slightly over time, but still remains largely beyond the instrumental approach. In the instrumental approach, many papers report on descriptive empirical analyses. In the constitutive approach, theory-method relationships are in line with the various paradigmatic traits, while the normative approach presents critical issues. Regarding methodology, according to the findings, the literature review underlines three major limitations that characterize the existing empirical evidence and provides avenues for future research. While multi-paradigmatic research is promoted in the CRSC literature (Crane and Glozer, 2016; Morsing, 2017; Schoeneborn and Trittin, 2013), the authors found no empirical evidence.
This is the first paper to systematically review empirical research in the CSRC field and is also the first to address the relationship between research paradigms, theoretical approaches, and methods. Further, the authors suggest a novel way to develop systematic reviews (i.e. via quantitative, automated content analysis), which can now also be applied in other literature streams and in other contexts.
In the 1980s, a profound change in the information technology (IT) market forced IBM to modify the organisation and management of its selling structure. There was only an…
In the 1980s, a profound change in the information technology (IT) market forced IBM to modify the organisation and management of its selling structure. There was only an internal sales channel at first and IBM had interactive relationships with individual customers. The process of change began when the number of customers increased and their average size decreased. IBM began to support its internal channel of sales representatives with an external channel of business partners for the distribution of high volume products. Having to face new problems, like business partner loyalty and the loss of market control, IBM has decided to adopt, as a general strategy, a new go‐to‐market model called the hybrid model. By mixing and coordinating direct activities, such as mailings, phone calls and tele‐coverage, with commercial business partner actions and operations, IBM now has a new competitive advantage.
Head and neck cancers are multi-factorial diseases that can affect many sides of people's life and are due to a lot of risk factors. According to their characteristics…
Head and neck cancers are multi-factorial diseases that can affect many sides of people's life and are due to a lot of risk factors. According to their characteristics, the treatment can be surgical, use of radiation or chemotherapy. The use of a surgical treatment can lead to surgical infections that are a main theme in medicine. At the University hospital of Naples “Federico II”, two antibiotics were employed to tackle the issue of the infections and they are compared in this paper to find which one implies the lowest length of hospital stay (LOS) and the reduction of infections.
The Six Sigma methodology and its problem-solving strategy DMAIC (define, measure, analyse, improve, control), already employed in the healthcare sector, were used as a tool of a health technology assessment between two drugs. In this paper the DMAIC roadmap is used to compare the Ceftriaxone (administered to a group of 48 patients) and the association of Cefazolin plus Clindamycin (administered to a group of 45 patients).
The results show that the LOS of patients treated with Ceftriaxone is lower than those who were treated with the association of Cefazolin plus Clindamycin, the difference is about 41%. Moreover, a lower number of complications and infections was found in patients who received Ceftriaxone. Finally, a greater number of antibiotic shifts was needed by patients treated with Cefazolin plus Clindamycin.
While the paper enhances clearly the advantages for patients' outcomes regarding the LOS and the number of complications, it did not analyse the costs of the two antibiotics.
Employing the Ceftriaxone would allow the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery to obtain lower LOS and a limited number of complications/infections for recovered patients, consequently reducing the hospitalization costs.
There is a double value in this paper: first of all, the comparison between the two antibiotics gives an answer to one of the main issues in medicine that is the reduction of hospital-acquired infections; secondly, the Six Sigma through its DMAIC cycle can be employed also to compare two biomedical technologies as a tool of health technology assessment studies.