Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare “how we see ourselves” vs “how others see us” when communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in US pharmaceutical companies. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected as follows: CSR reports from the companies themselves and Business Press reports from the Lexis-Nexis database. NVivo content analysis was used to compare CSR communication by companies and the Business Press. This analysis was comprised of almost 10 million words. Comparisons of Carroll’s framework, including the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic categories between CSR reports and the Business Press, were done. Additional analysis was done to discern individual, organizational, and societal patterns of communications. Return on assets was computed for companies that have formal CSR reports and those that do not. Findings The analysis of documents containing almost 10 million words allowed the following conclusions: companies communicate more about their economic and philanthropic activities, and the Business Press communicates more about their legal and ethical activities. The companies and the Business Press communicated similarly about individual CSR. The organization communicated more about organizational topics, and the Business Press communicated less about societal topics. Originality/value This paper makes both substantive and methodological contributions. Its substantive contribution allows an understanding of what pharmaceutical companies need to do to fully communicate their CSR activities. Its methodological contribution is in suggesting that content analysis be used in understanding communication patterns. A levels of analysis approach allowed the discernment of individual-oriented, organizational, and societal-oriented communication patterns.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to discern how the Best Green companies, as identified by Newsweek, communicate about green jobs within their companies.Design/methodology/approachContent analysis using NVivo software on 23 corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports containing 398,000 words and Glassdoor crowdsourced data were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression enabled the discernment of relationships.FindingsSeveral models were developed to predict how communication patterns (employee-centered, production or company centered and society centered) are associated with several Glassdoor ratings: The models developed by logistic regression accurately predicted the following: Glassdoor ratings: Overall 65.2%, Benefits 71.4%, Attitudes towards Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 65.2% and Recommend To A Friend 78.3%.Originality/valueIt supports communicating about green jobs in CSR reports and suggests other avenues for communicating, including PR, press releases and career pages of company websites. The hypotheses that were empirically verified include the relationship between employees-centered terms (in the CSR reports) and employee attitudes (Glassdoor measures) and return on assets (ROA) (company financials). These practices have manpower impacts, including recruitment and retention. The study's methodology allows for replication since it used publicly available CSR reports, ROA of public companies and crowdsourcing data from Glassdoor ratings. It has implications for public policy in that understanding the nature of green jobs will improve outcomes for public training programs.

This research examines how arbitrators consider accommodations for employees with physical and mental illnesses. Unlike other recent research on the subject, the authors specifically and purposely draw their sample from recent US arbitration cases—2015 to 2018, n = 209. Additionally, using content analysis software, NVivo, the case characteristics were autocoded, and the case outcomes were manually coded. Using logistic regression, the following model was developed to predict the odds of case outcomes: disability, injury, discrimination, retaliation, absence and reinstatement. The Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke analysis indicates that our model accounts for approximately 15.6 to 21.5 per cent of the variance, with 33.3 per cent of the individual and split arbitration cases outcomes and 91.2 per cent for organisation arbitration cases correctly predicted. The model predicts 71.2 per cent of the cases.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to empirically examine supervisor-subordinate relationships and their impact on performance appraisal in Croatia. Specifically, we were interested in examining how supervisor-subordinate relationships impact subordinate perceptions of performance evaluation and the subordinate's reactions to the performance evaluation.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses matched data from a sample of supervisors and subordinates (n = 53) in a leading organization in the hospitality industry in Croatia, as well as objective performance appraisal data to examine the impact of supervisor-subordinate relationships on subordinate reactions to performance appraisal.FindingsThe key findings of this study include (1) supervisor trustworthiness determines the quality of their relationship with subordinates and leads to interpersonal liking, and (2) supervisor-subordinate relationship quality has a significant impact on subordinate reactions to performance appraisal process and outcomes.Research limitations/implicationsThe overall sample size (n = 53) of this study is small, and limits our ability to make generalizations beyond a point. Also, since the sample included only Croatian individuals, the findings maybe an artifact of the fact that they all hold similar values. Future studies should examine these relationships in supervisor-subordinate dyads comprised of individuals of different cultural backgrounds.Practical implicationsSupervisors should attempt to have high quality relationships with most, if not all, subordinates, as this would lead to higher acceptance of the performance appraisal process, which can impact future performance. Also, trustworthiness is closely related to the subordinate's perception of the quality of relationship he/she shares with the supervisor.Originality/valueThis is the first known paper to empirically study performance appraisal processes and relationships in Croatia, which also included both supervisor and subordinate perspectives.

This article aims to focus on how signatories versus nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector compare with respect to the internal and external stakeholders and principles of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). We seek to answer the question: Do signatories to the UNGC walk the talk better than nonsignatories as determined by a variety of published rankings and data? This research presents an innovative approach to the evaluation of UNGC signatories. It uses several objective and independent data sources to assess a matched group of signatories versus nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector. Signatory organizations in the same sector as determined by SIC codes were matched with nonsignatories on variables such as size and number of employees in U.S. pharmaceutical companies. Then both types of organizations were compared on the following data sources: Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies ratings, ratings by external stakeholders, ratings by employees, unionization data, financial measures, and annual reports to shareholders. Using nonparametric testing the research found there are differences between signatories and nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector for some of the external stakeholder measures and no differences were found for the internal stakeholder measures. K E Y W O R D S Big Data, NVivo, pharmaceutical, signatories, stakeholder, UN Global Compact 202 | ZILIC et aL.