Hasil untuk "Business ethics"

Mingyao Wang, Faisal Khan, Normaziah Mohd Nor et al.

This study explores the impact of financialization based on assets, debt, and income on the financial performance of Chinese non-financial listed firms in the A-share market, using a sample of 40,365 firm-year observations from 2010 to 2023. We applied fixed-effects, two-stage least squares models (IV-2SLS) using instrumental variables, and PSM-DID models, demonstrating that financialization based on assets and debt has a significantly negative impact on firm profitability. Financialization based on income, however, does not have a significant effect. Using signalling theory, agency theory, and resource-based views, the study also develops an integrated framework whereby divergence in the discourse surrounding AI and actual AI adoption (primary mechanism) is moderated, and ESG practice (secondary mechanism) mediates the effects of financialization on performance. The findings show that those firms that have a greater divergence between AI discourse and AI expenditure have lower financial performance, while superior ESG practice ameliorates the negative effects of financialization. Overall, the findings show that excessive financialization is associated with adverse performance outcomes, and the firm’s AI capability and ESG practice represent strategic forms of corporate performance.

Aisha Aijaz, Raghava Mutharaju, Manohar Kumar

Applied ethics is ubiquitous in most domains, requiring much deliberation due to its philosophical nature. Varying views often lead to conflicting courses of action where ethical dilemmas become challenging to resolve. Although many factors contribute to such a decision, the major driving forces can be discretized and thus simplified to provide an indicative answer. Knowledge representation and reasoning offer a way to explicitly translate abstract ethical concepts into applicable principles within the context of an event. To achieve this, we propose ApplE, an Applied Ethics ontology that captures philosophical theory and event context to holistically describe the morality of an action. The development process adheres to a modified version of the Simplified Agile Methodology for Ontology Development (SAMOD) and utilizes standard design and publication practices. Using ApplE, we model a use case from the bioethics domain that demonstrates our ontology's social and scientific value. Apart from the ontological reasoning and quality checks, ApplE is also evaluated using the three-fold testing process of SAMOD. ApplE follows FAIR principles and aims to be a viable resource for applied ethicists and ontology engineers.

Elisa Quintarelli, Fabio Alberto Schreiber, Kostas Stefanidis et al.

Ethics has become a major concern to the information management community, as both algorithms and data should satisfy ethical rules that guarantee not to generate dishonourable behaviours when they are used. However, these ethical rules may vary according to the situation-the context-in which the application programs must work. In this paper, after reviewing the basic ethical concepts and their possible influence on data management, we propose a bipartite conceptual model, composed of the Context Dimensions Tree (CDT), which describes the possible contexts, and the Ethical Requirements Tree (ERT), representing the ethical rules necessary to tailor and preprocess the datasets that should be fed to Data Analysis and Learning Systems in each possible context. We provide some examples and suggestions on how these conceptual tools can be used.

Noah Broestl, Benjamin Lange, Cristina Voinea et al.

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as AI Assistants in firms for support in cognitive tasks. These AI assistants carry embedded perspectives which influence factors across the firm including decision-making, collaboration, and organizational culture. This paper argues that firms must align the perspectives of these AI Assistants intentionally with their objectives and values, framing alignment as a strategic and ethical imperative crucial for maintaining control over firm culture and intra-firm moral norms. The paper highlights how AI perspectives arise from biases in training data and the fine-tuning objectives of developers, and discusses their impact and ethical significance, foregrounding ethical concerns like automation bias and reduced critical thinking. Drawing on normative business ethics, particularly non-reductionist views of professional relationships, three distinct alignment strategies are proposed: supportive (reinforcing the firm's mission), adversarial (stress-testing ideas), and diverse (broadening moral horizons by incorporating multiple stakeholder views). The ethical trade-offs of each strategy and their implications for manager-employee and employee-employee relationships are analyzed, alongside the potential to shape the culture and moral fabric of the firm.

Neda Bagherzadeh, Saeed Setayeshi, Samaneh Yazdani

Ontology is a general term used by researchers who want to share information in a specific domain. One of the hallmarks of the greatest success of a powerful manager of an organization is his ability to interpret unplanned and unrelated events. Tools to solve this problem are vital to business growth. Modern technology allows customers to be more informed and influential in their roles as patrons and critics. This can make or break a business. Research shows that businesses that employ a customer-first strategy and prioritize their customers can generate more revenue. Even though there are many different Ontologies offered to businesses, none of it is built from a cognitive perspective. The objective of this study is to address the concept of strategic business plans with a cognitive ontology approach as a basis for a new management tool. This research proposes to design a cognitive ontology model that links customer measurement with traditional business models, define relationships between components and verify the accuracy of the added financial value.

Gizem Öz, Christian Dindler, Sharon Lindberg

As emerging technologies continue to shape society, there is a growing emphasis on the need to engage with design ethics as it unfolds in practice to better capture the complexities of ethical considerations embedded in day-to-day work. Positioned within the broader "turn to practice" in HCI, the review characterizes this body of work in terms of its motivations, conceptual frameworks, methodologies, and contributions across a range of design disciplines and academic databases. The findings reveal a shift away from static and abstract ethical frameworks toward an understanding of ethics as an evolving, situated, and inherent aspect of design activities, one that can be cultivated and fostered collaboratively. This review proposes six future directions for establishing common research priorities and fostering the field's growth. While the review promotes cross-disciplinary dialogue, we argue that HCI research, given its cumulative experience with practice-oriented research, is well-equipped to guide this emerging strand of work on design ethics.

Caio Caesar Dib

Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash ABSTRACT Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint of irresponsible actions by individuals and organizations. However, these fields of knowledge are seldom explored together. This article attempts to explain the motives behind the gap between bioethics and CSR, while arguing that their shared agenda – combined with their contrasting principles and goals – suggests there is potential for fruitful dialogue that enables the actualization of bioethical agendas and provides a direction for CSR in health-related organizations. INTRODUCTION Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) seem to be cut from the same cloth: the concern for human rights and the response to scandal. Both are tools for the governance of organizations, shaping how power flows and decisions are made. They have taken the shape of specialized committees, means of stakeholder inclusion at deliberative forums, compliance programs, and internal processes. It should be surprising, then, that these two fields of study and practice have developed separately, only recently re-approaching one another. There have been displays of this reconnection both in academic and corporate spaces, with bioethics surfacing as part of the discourse of CSR and compliance initiatives. However, this is still a relatively timid effort. Even though the bioethics-CSR divide presents mostly reasonable explanations for this difficult relationship between the disciplines, current proposals suggest there is much to be gained from a stronger relationship between them. This article explores the common history of bioethics and corporate social responsibility and identifies their common features and differences. It then explores the dispute of jurisdictions due to professional and academic “pedigree” and incompatibilities in the ideological and teleological spheres as possible causes for the divide. The discussion turns to paths for improving the reflexivity of both disciplines and, therefore, their openness to mutual contributions. I.     Cut Out of the Same Cloth The earliest record of the word “bioethics” dates back to 1927 as a term that designates one’s ethical responsibility toward not only human beings but other lifeforms as well, such as animals and plants.[1] Based on Kantian ethics, the term was coined as a response to the great prestige science held at its time. It remained largely forgotten until the 1970s, when it resurfaced in the United States[2] as the body of knowledge that can be employed to ensure the responsible pursuit and application of science. The resurgence was prompted by a response to widespread irresponsible attitudes toward science and grounded in a pluralistic perspective of morality.[3] In the second half of the twentieth century, states and the international community assumed the duty to protect human rights, and bioethics became a venue for discussing rights.[4] There is both a semantic gap and a contextual gap between these two iterations, with some of them already being established. Corporate social responsibility is often attributed to the Berle-Dodd debate. The discussion was characterized by diverging views on the extent of the responsibility of managers.[5] It was later settled as positioning the company, especially the large firm, as an entity whose existence is fomented by the law due to its service to the community. The concept has evolved with time, departing from a largely philanthropic meaning to being ingrained in nearly every aspect of a company’s operations. This includes investments, entrepreneurship models, and its relationship to stakeholders, leading to an increasing operationalization and globalization of the concept.[6] At first sight, these two movements seem to stem from different contexts. Despite the difference, it is also possible to tell a joint history of bioethics and CSR, with their point of contact being a generalized concern with technological and social changes that surfaced in the sixties. The publishing of Silent Spring in 1962 by Rachel Carson exemplifies this growing concern over the sustainability of the ruling economic growth model of its time by commenting on the effects of large-scale agriculture and the use of pesticides in the population of bees, one of the most relevant pollinators of crops consumed by humans. The book influenced both the author responsible for the coining bioethics in the 1971[7] and early CSR literature.[8] By initiating a debate over the sustainability of economic models, the environmentalist discourse became a precursor to vigorous social movements for civil rights. Bioethics was part of the trend as it would be carried forward by movements such as feminism and the patients’ rights movement.[9] Bioethics would gradually move from a public discourse centered around the responsible use of science and technology to academic and government spaces.[10]  This evolution led to an increasing emphasis on intellectual rigor and governance. The transformation would unravel the effort to take effective action against scandal and turn bioethical discourse into governance practices,[11] such as bioethics and research ethics committees. The publication of the Belmont Report[12] in the aftermath of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, as well as the creation of committees such as the “God Committee,”[13] which aimed to develop and enforce criteria for allocating scarce dialysis machines, exemplify this shift. On the side of CSR, this period represents, at first, a stronger pact between businesses and society due to more stringent environmental and consumer regulations. But afterward, a joint trend emerged: on one side, the deregulation within the context of neoliberalism, and on the other, the operationalization of corporate social responsibility as a response to societal concerns.[14] The 1990s saw both opportunities and crises that derived from globalization. In the political arena, the end of the Cold War led to an impasse in the discourse concerning human rights,[15] which previously had been split between the defense of civil and political rights on one side and social rights on the other. But at the same time, agendas that were previously restricted territorially became institutionalized on a global scale.[16] Events such as the European Environment Agency (1990), ECO92 in Rio de Janeiro (1992), and the UN Global Compact (2000) are some examples of the globalization of CSR. This process of institutionalization would also mirror a crisis in CSR, given that its voluntarist core would be deemed lackluster due to the lack of corporate accountability. The business and human rights movement sought to produce new binding instruments – usually state-based – that could ensure that businesses would comply with their duties to respect human rights.[17] This rule-creation process has been called legalization: a shift from business standards to norms of varying degrees of obligation, precision, and delegation.[18] Bioethics has also experienced its own renewed identity in the developed world, perhaps because of its reconnection to public and global health. Global health has been the object of study for centuries under other labels (e.g., the use of tropical medicine to assist colonial expeditions) but it resurfaced in the political agenda recently after the pandemics of AIDS and respiratory diseases.[19] Bioethics has been accused from the inside of ignoring matters beyond the patient-provider relationship,[20] including those related to public health and/or governance. Meanwhile, scholars claimed the need to expand the discourse to global health.[21] In some countries, bioethics developed a tight relationship with public health, such as Brazil,[22] due to its connections to the sanitary reform movement. The United Kingdom has also followed a different path, prioritizing governance practices and the use of pre-established institutions in a more community-oriented approach.[23] The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Rights followed this shift toward a social dimension of bioethics despite being subject to criticism due to its human rights-based approach in a field characterized by ethical pluralism.[24] This scenario suggests bioethics and CSR have developed out of similar concerns: the protection of human rights and concerns over responsible development – be it economic, scientific, or technological. However, the interaction between these two fields (as well as business and human rights) is fairly recent both in academic and business settings. There might be a divide between these fields and their practitioners. II.     A Tale of Jurisdictions It can be argued that CSR and business and human rights did not face jurisdictional disputes. These fields owe much of their longevity to their roots in institutional economics, whose debates, such as the Berle-Dodd debate, were based on interdisciplinary dialogue and the abandonment of sectorial divisions and public-private dichotomies.[25] There was opposition to this approach to the role of companies in society that could have implications for CSR’s interdisciplinarity, such as the understanding that corporate activities should be restricted to profit maximization.[26] Yet, those were often oppositions to CSR or business and human rights themselves. The birth of bioethics in the USA can be traced back to jurisdictional disputes over the realm of medicine and life sciences.[27] The dispute unfolded between representatives of science and those of “society’s conscience,” whether through bioethics as a form of applied ethics or other areas of knowledge such as theology.[28] Amid the civil rights movements, outsiders would gain access to the social sphere of medicine, simultaneously bringing it to the public debate and emphasizing the decision-making process as the center of the medical practice.[29] This led to the emergence of the bioethicist as a professional whose background in philosophy, theology, or social sciences deemed the bioethicist qualified to speak on behalf of the social consciousness. In other locations this interaction would play out differently: whether as an investigation of philosophically implied issues, a communal effort with professional institutions to enhance decision-making capability, or a concern with access to healthcare.[30] In these situations, the emergence and regulation of bioethics would be way less rooted in disputes over jurisdictions. This contentious birth of bioethics would have several implications, most related to where the bioethicist belongs. After the civil rights movements subsided, bioethics moved from the public sphere into an ivory tower: intellectual, secular, and isolated. The scope of the bioethicist would be increasingly limited to the spaces of academia and hospitals, where it would be narrowed to the clinical environment.[31] This would become the comfort zone of professionals, much to the detriment of social concerns. This scenario was convenient to social groups that sought to affirm their protagonism in the public arena, with conservative and progressive movements alike questioning the legitimacy of bioethics in the political discourse.[32] Even within the walls of hospitals and clinics, bioethics would not be excused from criticism. Afterall, the work of bioethicists is often unregulated and lacks the same kind of accountability that doctors and lawyers have. Then, is there a role to be played by the bioethicist? This trend of isolation leads to a plausible explanation for why bioethics did not develop an extensive collaboration with corporate social responsibility nor with business and human rights. Despite stemming from similar agendas, bioethics’ orientation towards the private sphere resulted in a limited perspective on the broader implications of its decisions. This existential crisis of the discipline led to a re-evaluation of its nature and purpose. Its relevance has been reaffirmed due to the epistemic advantage of philosophy when engaging normative issues. Proper training enables the bioethicist to avoid falling into traps of subjectivism or moralism, which are unable to address the complexity of decision-making. It also prevents the naïve seduction of “scientifying” ethics.[33] This is the starting point of a multitude of roles that can be attributed to the bioethicists. There are three main responsibilities that fall under bioethics: (i) activism in biopolicy, through the engagement in the creation of laws, jurisprudence, and public policies; (ii) the exercise of bioethics expertise, be it through the specialized knowledge in philosophical thought, its ability to juggle multiple languages related to various disciplines related to bioethics, or its capacity to combat and avoid misinformation and epistemic distortion; (iii) and, intellectual exchange, by exercising awareness that it is necessary to work with specialists from different backgrounds to achieve its goals.[34] All of those suggest the need for bioethics to improve its dialogue with CSR and business and human rights. Both CSR and business and human rights have been the arena of political disputes over the role of regulations and corporations themselves, and the absence of strong stances by bioethicists risks deepening their exclusion from the public arena. Furthermore, CSR and business and human rights are at the forefront of contemporary issues, such as the limits to sustainable development and appropriate governance structures, which may lead to the acceptance of values and accomplishment of goals cherished by bioethics. However, a gap in identifying the role and nature of bioethics and CSR may also be an obstacle for bridging the chasm between bioethics and CSR. III.     From Substance to Form: Philosophical Groundings of CSR and Bioethics As mentioned earlier, CSR is, to some extent, a byproduct of institutionalism. Institutional economics has a philosophical footprint in the pragmatic tradition[35], which has implications for the purpose of the movement and the typical course of the debate. The effectiveness of regulatory measures is often at the center of CSR and business and human rights debates: whatever the regulatory proposal may be, compliance, feasibility, and effectiveness are the kernel of the discussion. The axiological foundation is often the protection of human rights. But discussions over the prioritization of some human rights over others or the specific characteristics of the community to be protected are often neglected.[36] It is worth reinforcing that adopting human rights as an ethical standard presents problems to bioethics, given its grounding in the recognition of ethical pluralism. Pragmatism adopts an anti-essentialist view, arguing that concepts derive from their practical consequences instead of aprioristic elements.[37] Therefore, truth is transitory and context dependent. Pragmatism embraces a form of moral relativism and may find itself in an impasse in the context of political economy and policymaking due to its tendency to be stuck between the preservation of the status quo and the defense of a technocratic perspective, which sees technical and scientific progress as the solution to many of society’s issues.[38] These characteristics mean that bioethics has a complicated relationship with pragmatism. Indeed, there are connections between pragmatism and the bioethics discourse. Both can be traced back to American naturalism.[39] The early effort in bioethics to make it ecumenical, thus building on a common but transitory morality,[40] sounds pragmatic. Therefore, scholars suggest that bioethics should rely on pragmatism's perks and characteristics to develop solutions to new ethical challenges that emerge from scientific and technological progress. Nonetheless, ethical relativism is a problem for bioethics when it bleeds from a metaethical level into the subject matters themselves. After all, the whole point of bioethics is either descriptive, where it seeks to understand social values and conditions that pertain to its scope, or normative, where it investigates what should be done in matters related to medicine, life sciences, and social and technological change. It is a “knowledge of how to use knowledge.” Therefore, bioethics is a product of disillusionment regarding science and technology's capacity to produce exclusively good consequences. It was built around an opposition to ethical relativism—even though the field is aware of the particularity of its answers. This is true not only for the scholarly arena, where the objective is to produce ethically sound answers but also for bioethics governance, where relativism may induce decision paralysis or open the way to points of view disconnected from facts.[41] But there might be a point for more pragmatic bioethics. Bioethics has become an increasingly public enterprise which seeks political persuasion and impact in the regulatory sphere. When bioethics is seen as an enterprise, achieving social transformation is its main goal. In this sense, pragmatism can provide critical tools to identify idiosyncrasies in regulation that prove change is needed. An example of how this may play out is the abortion rights movement in the global south.[42] Despite barriers to accessing safe abortion, this movement came up with creative solutions and a public discourse focused on the consequences of its criminalization rather than its moral aspects. IV.     Bridging the Divide: Connections Between Bioethics and CSR There have been attempts to bring bioethics and CSR closer to each other. Corporate responsibility can be a supplementary strategy for achieving the goals of bioethics. The International Bioethics Committee (IBC), an institution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), highlights the concept that social responsibility regarding health falls under the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR). It is a means of achieving good health (complete physical, mental, and social well-being) through social development.[43] Thus, it plays out as a condition for actualizing the goals dear to bioethics and general ethical standards,[44] such as autonomy and awareness of the social consequences of an organization’s governance. On this same note, CSR is a complementary resource for healthcare organizations that already have embedded bioethics into their operations[45] as a way of looking at the social impact of their practices. And bioethics is also an asset of CSR. Bioethics can inform the necessary conditions for healthcare institutions achieving a positive social impact. When taken at face value, bioethics may offer guidelines for ethical and socially responsible behavior in the industry, instructing how these should play out in a particular context such as in research, and access to health.[46] When considering the relevance of rewarding mechanisms,[47] bioethics can guide the establishment of certification measures to restore lost trust in the pharmaceutical sector.[48] Furthermore, recognizing that the choice is a more complex matter than the maximization of utility can offer a nuanced perspective on how organizations dealing with existentially relevant choices understand their stakeholders.[49] However, all of those proposals might come with the challenge of proving that something can be gained from its addition to self-regulatory practices[50] within the scope of a dominant rights-based approach to CSR and global and corporate law. It is evident that there is room for further collaboration between bioethics and CSR. Embedding either into the corporate governance practices of an organization tends to be connected to promoting the other.[51] While there are some incompatibilities, organizations should try to overcome them and take advantage of the synergies and similarities. CONCLUSION Despite their common interests and shared history, bioethics and corporate social responsibility have not produced a mature exchange. Jurisdictional issues and foundational incompatibilities have prevented a joint effort to establish a model of social responsibility that addresses issues particular to the healthcare sector. Both bioethics and CSR should acknowledge that they hold two different pieces of a cognitive competence necessary for that task: CSR offers experience on how to turn corporate ethical obligations operational, while bioethics provides access to the prevailing practical and philosophical problem-solving tools in healthcare that were born out of social movements. Reconciling bioethics and CSR calls for greater efforts to comprehend and incorporate the social knowledge developed by each field reflexively[52] while understanding their insights are relevant to achieving some common goals. - [1]. Fritz Jahr, “Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau Über Die Ethischen Beziehungen Des Menschen Zu Tier Und Pflanze,” Kosmos - Handweiser Für Naturfreunde 24 (1927): 2–4. [2]. Van Rensselaer Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 14, no. 1 (1970): 127–53, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1970.0015. [3]. Maximilian Schochow and Jonas Grygier, eds., “Tagungsbericht: 1927 – Die Geburt der Bioethik in Halle (Saale) durch den protestantischen Theologen Fritz Jahr (1895-1953),” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics 21 (June 11, 2014): 325–29, https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02807-2. [4] George J. Annas, American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). [5] Philip L. Cochran, “The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Business Horizons 50, no. 6 (November 2007): 449–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.06.004. p. 449. [6] Mauricio Andrés Latapí Agudelo, Lára Jóhannsdóttir, and Brynhildur Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility,” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 4, no. 1 (December 2019): 23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y. [7] Potter, “Bioethics, the Science of Survival.” p. 129. [8] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” p. 4. [9] Albert R. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). p. 368-371. [10] Jonsen. p. 372. [11] Jonathan Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice,” Health Care Analysis 24, no. 1 (March 2016): 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0310-2. [12]. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research” (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, April 18, 1979), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf. [13] Shana Alexander, “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies,” in LIFE, by Time Inc, 19th ed., vol. 53 (Nova Iorque: Time Inc, 1962), 102–25. [14]. Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [15]. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, “Por Uma Concepção Multicultural Dos Direitos Humanos,” Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, no. 48 (June 1997): 11–32. [16] Latapí Agudelo, Jóhannsdóttir, and Davídsdóttir, “A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.” [17]. Anita Ramasastry, “Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability,” Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 2 (April 3, 2015): 237–59, https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953. [18]. Kenneth W Abbott et al., “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Legalization and World Politics, 54, no. 3 (2000): 401–4019. [19]. Jens Holst, “Global Health – Emergence, Hegemonic Trends and Biomedical Reductionism,” Globalization and Health 16, no. 1 (December 2020): 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00573-4. [20]. Albert R. Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 78, no. 1 (March 1, 2001): 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/78.1.21. [21]. Solomon R Benatar, Abdallah S Daar, and Peter A Singer, “Global Health Challenges: The Need for an Expanded Discourse on Bioethics,” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 7 (July 26, 2005): e143, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020143. [22]. Márcio Fabri dos Anjos and José Eduardo de Siqueira, eds., Bioética No Brasil: Tendências e Perspectivas, 1st ed., Bio & Ética (São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Bioética, 2007). [23]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8-9. [24]. Aline Albuquerque S. de Oliveira, “A Declaração Universal Sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos e a Análise de Sua Repercussão Teórica Na Comunidade Bioética,” Revista Redbioética/UNESCO 1, no. 1 (2010): 124–39. [25] John R. Commons, “Law and Economics,” The Yale Law Journal 34, no. 4 (February 1925): 371, https://doi.org/10.2307/788562; Robert L. Hale, “Bargaining, Duress, and Economic Liberty,” Columbia Law Review 43, no. 5 (July 1943): 603–28, https://doi.org/10.2307/1117229; Karl N. Llewellyn, “The Effect of Legal Institutions Upon Economics,” The American Economic Review 15, no. 4 (1925): 665–83; Carlos Portugal Gouvêa, Análise Dos Custos Da Desigualdade: Efeitos Institucionais Do Círculo Vicioso de Desigualdade e Corrupção, 1st ed. (São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2021). p. 84-94. [26] Milton Friedman, “A Friedman Doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970, sec. Archives, https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html. [27] Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” p. 8. [28] John Hyde Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View, 1st ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). [29] David J. Rothman, Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making, 2nd pbk. ed, Social Institutions and Social Change (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2003). p. 3. [30] Volnei Garrafa, Thiago Rocha Da Cunha, and Camilo Manchola, “Access to Healthcare: A Central Question within Brazilian Bioethics,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27, no. 3 (July 2018): 431–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000810. [31] Jonsen, “Social Responsibilities of Bioethics.” [32] Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics. p. 75-79, 94-96. [33] Julian Savulescu, “Bioethics: Why Philosophy Is Essential for Progress,” Journal of Medical Ethics 41, no. 1 (January 2015): 28–33, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102284. [34] Silvia Camporesi and Giulia Cavaliere, “Can Bioethics Be an Honest Way of Making a Living? A Reflection on Normativity, Governance and Expertise,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 3 (March 2021): 159–63, https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105954; Jackie Leach Scully, “The Responsibilities of the Engaged Bioethicist: Scholar, Advocate, Activist,” Bioethics 33, no. 8 (October 2019): 872–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12659. [35] Philip Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues, Evolutionary Economics I: Foundations of Institutional Thought, 21, no. 3 (September 1987): 1001–38. [36] David Kennedy, “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 (2002): 101–25. [37] Richard Rorty, “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53, no. 6 (August 1980): 717+719-738. [38]. Mirowski, “The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics.” [39]. Glenn McGee, ed., Pragmatic Bioethics, 2nd ed, Basic Bioethics (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2003). [40]. Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). [41]. Montgomery, “Bioethics as a Governance Practice.” [42]. Debora Diniz and Giselle Carino, “What Can Be Learned from the Global South on Abortion and How We Can Learn?,” Developing World Bioethics 23, no. 1 (March 2023): 3–4, https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12385. [43]. International Bioethics Committee, On Social Responsibility and Health Report (Paris: Unesco, 2010). [44]. Cristina Brandão et al., “Social Responsibility: A New Paradigm of Hospital Governance?,” Health Care Analysis 21, no. 4 (December 2013): 390–402, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-012-0206-3. [45] Intissar Haddiya, Taha Janfi, and Mohamed Guedira, “Application of the Concepts of Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Ethics to Healthcare Organizations,” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Volume 13 (August 2020): 1029–33, https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S258984. [46]The Biopharmaceutical Bioethics Working Group et al., “Considerations for Applying Bioethics Norms to a Biopharmaceutical Industry Setting,” BMC Medical Ethics 22, no. 1 (December 2021): 31–41, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00600-y. [47] Anne Van Aaken and Betül Simsek, “Rewarding in International Law,” American Journal of International Law 115, no. 2 (April 2021): 195–241, https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.2. [48] Jennifer E. Miller, “Bioethical Accreditation or Rating Needed to Restore Trust in Pharma,” Nature Medicine 19, no. 3 (March 2013): 261–261, https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0313-261. [49] John Hardwig, “The Stockholder – A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?,” Journal of Business Ethics 91, no. 3 (February 2010): 329–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0086-0. [50] Stefan van Uden, “Taking up Bioethical Responsibility?: The Role of Global Bioethics in the Social Responsibility of Pharmaceutical Corporations Operating in Developing Countries” (Mestrado, Coimbra, Coimbra University, 2012). [51] María Peana Chivite and Sara Gallardo, “La bioética en la empresa: el caso particular de la Responsabilidad Social Corporativa,” Revista Internacional de Organizaciones, no. 13 (January 12, 2015): 55–81, https://doi.org/10.17345/rio13.55-81. [52] Teubner argues that social spheres tend to develop solutions autonomously, but one sphere interfering in the way other spheres govern themselves tends to result in ineffective regulation and demobilization of their autonomous rule-making capabilities. These spheres should develop “reflexion mechanisms” that enable the exchange of their social knowledge and provide effective, non-damaging solutions to social issues. See Gunther Teubner, “Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law,” Law & Society Review 17, no. 2 (1983): 239–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/3053348.

Richard C. van Kleef, Mieke Reuser, Pieter J.A. Stam et al.

Abstract Many health insurance markets are organized by principles of regulated competition. Regulators of these markets typically apply risk equalization (aka risk adjustment) and risk sharing to mitigate risk selection. Risk equalization and risk sharing can have various positive and negative effects on efficiency and fairness. This paper provides a comprehensive framework for ex-ante evaluation of these effects. In a first step, we distinguish 22 potential effects. In a second step, we summarize and discuss quantitative measures used for evaluating risk equalization and risk sharing schemes in academic research. To underline the relevance of our work, we compare our framework with an existing framework that was previously used in the Dutch regulated health insurance market. We conclude that this framework is incomplete and uses inappropriate measures. To avoid suboptimal policy choices, we recommend policymakers (1) to consider the entire spectrum of potential effects and (2) to select their measures carefully.

Santiago Ruiz-Navas, Pajaree Ackaradejraungsri, Sandra Dijk

IntroductionGamification can support the practical application of Inclusive Teaching. However, gamification literature reviews to implement Inclusive Teaching are scarce or not existent. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of gamification literature reviews to identify what themes are covered and specifically if Inclusive Teaching has been explored.MethodThe scoping literature review comprises network and content analyses of gamification literature reviews retrieved from the Web of Science. We analyzed a multimode network of papers and keywords and used their eigenvector centrality to identify themes. The content analysis comprised of a human and automatic tagging process to identify each paper’s discipline/context.ResultsWe mapped the themes explored in 125 gamification literature reviews to answer our first research question, what are the areas of knowledge covered by gamification literature reviews? The central topic is gamification and education to increase motivation, followed by gamification itself and understanding the implementation of gamification in various contexts. We identified 12 contexts and the top five frequent were Education, Business, Gamification, and Political Science. From the year-by-year analysis, we separated the themes into four periods: beginning (2014–2015), understanding (2016–2017), focus 2018 and focus and emergence (2019–2022). Regarding our second research question, how is the topic of Inclusive Teaching explored in gamification literature reviews? We did not find literature reviews about gamification to support Inclusive Teaching in the existing dataset.DiscussionWe report on the benefits of organizing central keywords by quartiles and using multimode networks to support scoping reviews; and disadvantages and advantages of using literature reviews as data sources for scoping reviews. We invite researchers to create more gamification literature reviews, to investigate gamification ethics in the light of recent technological developments such as generative models, and to reconnect gamification to the game design elements part of its definition, which goes beyond game elements.

Fabrizio Fornari, Ivan Compagnucci, Massimo Callisto De Donato et al.

Modern organizations necessitate continuous business processes improvement to maintain efficiency, adaptability, and competitiveness. In the last few years, the Internet of Things, via the deployment of sensors and actuators, has heavily been adopted in organizational and industrial settings to monitor and automatize physical processes influencing and enhancing how people and organizations work. Such advancements are now pushed forward by the rise of the Digital Twin paradigm applied to organizational processes. Advanced ways of managing and maintaining business processes come within reach as there is a Digital Twin of a business process - a virtual replica with real-time capabilities of a real process occurring in an organization. Combining business process models with real-time data and simulation capabilities promises to provide a new way to guide day-to-day organization activities. However, integrating Digital Twins and business processes is a non-trivial task, presenting numerous challenges and ambiguities. This manifesto paper aims to contribute to the current state of the art by clarifying the relationship between business processes and Digital Twins, identifying ongoing research and open challenges, thereby shedding light on and driving future exploration of this innovative interplay.

Leonardo Tonetto, Pauline Kister, Nitinder Mohan et al.

Networking research, especially focusing on human mobility, has evolved significantly in the last two decades and now relies on collection and analyzing larger datasets. The increasing sizes of datasets are enabled by larger automated efforts to collect data as well as by scalable methods to analyze and unveil insights, which was not possible many years ago. However, this fast expansion and innovation in human-centric research often comes at a cost of privacy or ethics. In this work, we review a vast corpus of scientific work on human mobility and how ethics and privacy were considered. We reviewed a total of 118 papers, including 149 datasets on individual mobility. We demonstrate that these ever growing collections, while enabling new and insightful studies, have not all consistently followed a pre-defined set of guidelines regarding acceptable practices in data governance as well as how their research was communicated. We conclude with a series of discussions on how data, privacy and ethics could be dealt within our community.

Ernesto Giralt Hernández

This article analyzes the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on contemporary society and the importance of adopting an ethical approach to its development and implementation within organizations. It examines the technocritical perspective of some philosophers and researchers, who warn of the risks of excessive technologization that could undermine human autonomy. However, the article also acknowledges the active role that various actors, such as governments, academics, and civil society, can play in shaping the development of AI aligned with human and social values. A multidimensional approach is proposed that combines ethics with regulation, innovation, and education. It highlights the importance of developing detailed ethical frameworks, incorporating ethics into the training of professionals, conducting ethical impact audits, and encouraging the participation of stakeholders in the design of AI. In addition, four fundamental pillars are presented for the ethical implementation of AI in organizations: 1) Integrated values, 2) Trust and transparency, 3) Empowering human growth, and 4) Identifying strategic factors. These pillars encompass aspects such as alignment with the company's ethical identity, governance and accountability, human-centered design, continuous training, and adaptability to technological and market changes. The conclusion emphasizes that ethics must be the cornerstone of any organization's strategy that seeks to incorporate AI, establishing a solid framework that ensures that technology is developed and used in a way that respects and promotes human values.

Robin J Borchert, Charlotte R Hickman, Jack Pepys et al.

BackgroundChatGPT is a large language model that has performed well on professional examinations in the fields of medicine, law, and business. However, it is unclear how ChatGPT would perform on an examination assessing professionalism and situational judgement for doctors. ObjectiveWe evaluated the performance of ChatGPT on the Situational Judgement Test (SJT): a national examination taken by all final-year medical students in the United Kingdom. This examination is designed to assess attributes such as communication, teamwork, patient safety, prioritization skills, professionalism, and ethics. MethodsAll questions from the UK Foundation Programme Office’s (UKFPO’s) 2023 SJT practice examination were inputted into ChatGPT. For each question, ChatGPT’s answers and rationales were recorded and assessed on the basis of the official UK Foundation Programme Office scoring template. Questions were categorized into domains of Good Medical Practice on the basis of the domains referenced in the rationales provided in the scoring sheet. Questions without clear domain links were screened by reviewers and assigned one or multiple domains. ChatGPT's overall performance, as well as its performance across the domains of Good Medical Practice, was evaluated. ResultsOverall, ChatGPT performed well, scoring 76% on the SJT but scoring full marks on only a few questions (9%), which may reflect possible flaws in ChatGPT’s situational judgement or inconsistencies in the reasoning across questions (or both) in the examination itself. ChatGPT demonstrated consistent performance across the 4 outlined domains in Good Medical Practice for doctors. ConclusionsFurther research is needed to understand the potential applications of large language models, such as ChatGPT, in medical education for standardizing questions and providing consistent rationales for examinations assessing professionalism and ethics.

Darmawati Darmawati, Muhammad Afif Ridha', Rahmah Afifah et al.

Digitalization has rapidly permeated various fields in today's era, with marketing being a prominent recipient of its transformative effects. The business landscape has witnessed a pronounced inclination towards ventures that are grounded in digital marketing. It captures the interest of diverse market segments, including both business entities and the general public. This research endeavors to examine the alignment of digital marketing practices with Islamic business ethics. Employing a qualitative research methodology with a descriptive analytical approach, this study gathered the data through a comprehensive review of relevant documentation. The study focuses on digital social marketing technologies employed on social media platforms and marketplaces as primary samples. Findings reveal that the application of digital marketing in the Indonesian context falls short of complete compliance with Sharia principles. Despite this, certain marketing processes do exhibit adherence to aspects of Islamic business ethics. Notably, emphasis within this context tends to be more pronounced in elements related to products and promotional media.

Jose Berengueres, Marybeth Sandell

This paper explores how AI-owners can develop safeguards for AI-generated content by drawing from established codes of conduct and ethical standards in other content-creation industries. It delves into the current state of ethical awareness on Large Language Models (LLMs). By dissecting the mechanism of content generation by LLMs, four key areas (upstream/downstream and at user prompt/answer), where safeguards could be effectively applied, are identified. A comparative analysis of these four areas follows and includes an evaluation of the existing ethical safeguards in terms of cost, effectiveness, and alignment with established industry practices. The paper's key argument is that existing IT-related ethical codes, while adequate for traditional IT engineering, are inadequate for the challenges posed by LLM-based content generation. Drawing from established practices within journalism, we propose potential standards for businesses involved in distributing and selling LLM-generated content. Finally, potential conflicts of interest between dataset curation at upstream and ethical benchmarking downstream are highlighted to underscore the need for a broader evaluation beyond mere output. This study prompts a nuanced conversation around ethical implications in this rapidly evolving field of content generation.

Gilles Dowek

When a decision, such as the approval or denial of a bank loan, is delegated to a computer, an explanation of that decision ought to be given with it. This ethical need to explain the decisions leads to the search for a formal definition of the notion of explanation. This question meets older questions in logic regarding the explanatory nature of proof.

Fakhrul Hasan, Mohammad Raijul Islam, Faria Ishrat

The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the main impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain structures and arrangements of UK-based multinational manufacturing companies. The main objectives of this research are (1) to establish the main risks posed by COVID-19 to the existing supply chains established by multinational manufacturers in the UK, and (2) to evaluate whether multinational manufacturing businesses in the UK can learn from challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic by referring to the concept of supply chain resilience and (3) to provide practical recommendations to multinational manufacturers in the UK on how the key impacts of COVID-19 could be overcome and leveraged as a source of new knowledge in the area of supply chain management. The posed objectives were realized via the mixed methods research strategy involving a quantitative survey and its triangulation with the results of qualitative interviews conducted with managers of such organizations. We used two different data collection channels (1) LinkedIn and (2) Reddit. Our data set was constructed with 12 questionnaires and three interviewers. Using these data sets, our findings strongly suggest that the seven identified risk dimensions influenced the supply chain integrity of these companies both before and after the global COVID-19 pandemic. It could be attributed to the insular state of the UK and other macro-environmental factors limiting the procurement capabilities of local firms. However, most of these dimensions were severely affected by the pandemic, demonstrated by both the performed Friedman tests and the statements voiced by the interviewees. While some mitigation strategies were cited as relatively effective for addressing the emerging risks, most of the respondents noted that the systemic nature of encountered problems and their magnitude made it difficult for individual companies to avoid, mitigate, or transfer these risks.

Gabriela Andrișan, Andra Modreanu

This article highlights the opportunities and consequences of the Fourth Industrial Revolution for business management daily. The primary objective of the research is to comprehend how the economy has evolved over the last two centuries and the implications for business and market competition. Contemporary events have contributed to the continued evolution of the opportunities and adaptability that the Industrial Revolution offered the business community. These two concepts have enabled a much more appropriate risk management approach. Many businesses have begun to utilize their resources in novel and innovative ways, allowing them to remain afloat even during the current global pandemic. The authors have found that with the help of the tools provided by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, businesses and business owners can better navigate these trying times and have been permitted to reinvent themselves easier. Thus, this article presents a theoretical framework for analyzing how the Industrial Revolutions have been perceived throughout history, emphasizing the most recent one. A formulation of the most pervasive features and the aspects associated with them would be derived as an outcome of the existing literature review, allowing space for further analysis in future studies in which one can elaborate on each aspect presented in this current paper. The findings indicate that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a vast subject that can be approached in various ways. The business perspective allows the reader to dive into the current economic situation and helps provide a broad picture of all the sectors affected by this global crisis, be it political, geographical, or cultural. The results of the research can be used to gain a better understanding of the position where the business world finds itself, and the importance of adaptability and innovation in this scenario.

Nicole K Y Tang, Caroline Meyer, Talar Rita Moukhtarian et al.

Introduction One in six workers experience some form of mental health problems at work costing the UK economy an estimated £70 billion/year. Digital interventions provide low cost and easily scalable delivery methods to implement psychological interventions in the workplace. This trial tests the feasibility of implementing a self-guided 8-week digital cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for subthreshold to clinical depression and/or anxiety versus waitlist control (ie, life as usual) in the workplace.Methods and analysis Feasibility of implementation will be tested using a mixed-methods evaluation of the two-arm randomised waitlist-control trial. Evaluation will include examination of organisational buy-in, and the engagement of employees through the trial indicated by the completion of outcome measures. In addition, we also explore how participants use the platform, the appropriateness of the analysis both with reference to the outcome measures and linear modelling. Finally, we examine the acceptability of the intervention based on participants experiences using qualitative interviews. Assessments take place at baseline (T0), at 8 weeks post-treatment (T1), at short-term follow-up 4 weeks post-treatment (T2) and long-term follow-ups (6 and 12 months after-end of treatment). We will recruit from 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021 for employees and self-employed workers with depression and anxiety symptoms (subclinical and clinical levels) who are not seeking or engaged in treatment at the time of the trial.Ethics and dissemination Full approval was given by the University of Warwick Biomedical and Research Ethics Committee (BSREC 45/20–21). The current protocol version is 2.8 (August 2021). Publication of results in peer-reviewed journals will inform the scientific, clinical and business communities. We will disseminate results through webinars, conferences, newsletter as well as a lay summary of results on the study website (mhpp.me).Trial registration number ISRCTN31161020.

Vajhollah Ghorbanizadeh, Nahid Zamani, Mirali Seyed Naghavi et al.

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to identify the outcomes of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Iranian organizations using a meta-analysis approach. This is an applied research and is descriptive in terms of purpose. The statistical population is articles published in the field of CSR in Iran from 2011 to 2021. According to the defined protocol, 56 studies were eligible to be used, as samples which were utilized in the meta-analysis process. These studies were reviewed and analyzed using CMA2 software (comprehensive meta-analysis software). Findings revealed that among the outcomes of CSR at individual levels, the variables of person-organization fit (0.904); altruism (0.619) and customer-oriented behavior (0.557) have a high effect size (more than 0.5). Among the outcomes of CSR at the organizational level, the variables of organizational identity (0.940), culture (0.785), organizational trust (0.653), organizational eloquence (0.631), competitive advantage (0.597), brand value (0.564), financial performance (0.528) and brand image (0.506) have high effect size. Also, among the outcomes of CSR at the level of external stakeholders, the variables of organizational legitimacy (0.826), public trust (0.595), perceived quality (0.531) and environmental performance (0.531), respectively, have a large effect size.IntroductionSocieties, in which businesses do not act responsibly, are sentenced to pay a high price. Consequences such as environmental damage, poverty, disease, discrimination and underdevelopment will be inevitable. To fully and comprehensively explain the behavior of companies in the field of CSR, one dimension and theory cannot be addressed, but all theories of CSR should be taken into consideration.A review of the researches shows that many studies have been conducted in the field of CSR in Iran. Impact of CSR on micro and macro levels such as employees, organizational variables and external stakeholders including customers have been examined. Also, there are different theoretical frameworks regarding CSR studies. Therefore, the concern of this study is the analysis of the outcomes of CSR in Iranian organizations. In This research, we tend to find the variables examined in the studies focusing on CSR outcomes in Iranian organizations which are at different levels of employees, organizational and external stakeholders.Theoretical frameworkThe conceptual development of CSR has led to various definitions such as Corporate Social Performance, Business Ethics, Triple Bottom Line and Stakeholder Approach. Therefore, this concept includes different approaches and theories, but the focus is on the relationship between business and society. The basis is the integration of social and environmental issues into the economic aspects of the corporations. Stakeholders are any group or individual that has influence on or is influenced by the success of the organization's goals. Therefore, the most important stakeholders are: managers, employees, customers, investors, shareholders, suppliers, government, society in general and the local community. Every business needs the tacit or explicit permission of government, society and other stakeholders to survive.Many studies have examined the relationship between CSR and corporate performance (especially financial performance). Also, applying CSR programs for some corporations is a tool to achieve a competitive advantage and involvement in CSR may result in activities aiming to improve the image of the organization and increase profits in the short term. CSR programs may affect issues related to human resources management (such as justice, diversity, empowerment, health and safety). Therefore, the motivation of businesses to implement CSR can be explained through different levels.Materials and MethodIn this research, meta-analysis method has been used. The most common use of meta-analysis is to estimate the effect size in a number of studies. This approach includes literature review, study of abstracts, reviewing the whole article and coding the selected studies. In meta-analysis, the effect size is used as the output of each study. In this research, the statistical population is articles published in the field of CSR in Iran from 2011 to 2021. Therefore, all articles published in internal databases such as Irandoc, Magiran and Noormags were identified based on defined keywords. In initial search, 181 articles were found. After reading the abstract and in some cases the whole article based on the developed protocol, 56 articles were eligible for analysis. In the next step, the required variables and statistics were extracted from the articles and coded in Excel software. Then, the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (CMA2) was used to perform statistical calculations and analysis.Discussion and resultsAt the level of internal stakeholders, the variables of customer-oriented behavior, altruism and individual-organization fit have the greatest effect. At the organizational level, brand image, brand value, competitive advantage, culture, organizational trust, financial performance, organizational eloquence and organizational identity have a high effect size. At the level of external stakeholders, public trust, perceived quality, environmental performance, and organizational legitimacy have the greatest effect size.The results showed that green human capital, turnover intentions and individual innovation, have the lowest effect size and organizational identity, individual-organization fit and organizational legitimacy have the highest effect size in the research hypotheses. Therefore, it can be concluded that CSR as a tool for better marketing and financial performance is an appealing concept for researchers in Iran. However, the results of this meta-analysis showed that the impact of CSR is more noticeable in the non-financial dimensions.ConclusionScrutiny of the CSR requires a comprehensive approach using other methods such as reviewing qualitative researches because those findings can increase knowledge in this field. Also, comparative studies of CSR in Iran with other countries can provide a pool of scientific and practical knowledge for researchers. The dark side of CSR (negative effects or non-constructive aspects) is also an important issue that has been neglected in researches in Iran and we recommend to be addressed in future studies.The findings of this study help to develop the existing literature about consequences of social responsibility and show CSR promote the sense of belonging. Organizations can also use social responsibility measures to achieve organizational identity and legitimacy.