Corporate demographic policy as a tool for implementing the strategic interests of the state, business and employees

Corporate demographic policy as a tool for implementing the strategic interests of the state, business and employees

Автор: Bagirova A.P., Vavilova A.S., Blednova N.D.

Журнал: Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast @volnc-esc-en

Рубрика: Social and economic development

Статья в выпуске: 3 т.17, 2024 года.

Бесплатный доступ

The demographic agenda and transformations of the modern labor market require the concept of corporate social responsibility to be revised, including in the direction of supporting employees who have families. The aim of the study is to develop and test a comprehensive methodology for evaluating existing measures of corporate demographic policy in Russian organizations. Neo-institutional theoretical approach and the theory of employee loyalty served as a methodological basis for the inclusion of the institution of business in the implementation of demographic policy. The empirical study is based on our own methodology for comprehensive assessment ofcorporate demographic policy measures based on three indicators: employee awareness of the existence of measures, usefulness of measures for recipients, and demographic effectiveness. The information base includes materials from a survey of 1,000 respondents living in the Siberian and Ural federal districts. The research produced the following results: 1) the system of measures aimed at supporting Russian workers and their families is not yet extensive, comprehensive and sustainable; 2) we identified measures leading in information promotion, assessment of usefulness and potential impact on reproductive behavior; we also identified measures that are not common in Russian organizations, but have the potential to influence reproductive decision-making; 3) we determined the foundations of a corporate social policy strategy aimed at supporting the state demographic agenda and working out relevant corporate governance practices, focused on taking into account employees’ needs. The findings of the study form an idea of the in-demand vector of strategic planning related to the concept of corporate social responsibility, which, given the transformation of the modern labor market, is aimed simultaneously at supporting the state demographic agenda and strengthening corporate governance.

Еще

Corporate demographic policy, corporate social responsibility, human capital, assessment of measures, state demographic policy

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/147245848

IDR: 147245848   |   DOI: 10.15838/esc.2024.3.93.8

Список литературы Corporate demographic policy as a tool for implementing the strategic interests of the state, business and employees

  • Averett K.H. (2020). A feminist public sociology of the pandemic interviewing about a crisis, during a crisis. Gender, Work and Organization, 28(S2), 321−329. DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12616
  • Bagirova A.P., Vavilova A.S. (2022). Corporate demographic policy: The reality and development opportunities in Russian organizations. Upravlenets=The Manager, 13(5), 34−48. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2022-13-5-3 (in Russian).
  • Bobbio A., Canova L., Manganelli A.M. (2022). Organizational work-home culture and its relations with the work–family interface and employees’ subjective well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(5), 2933−2966. DOI: 10.1007/s11482-022-10048-w
  • Bourhis А., Mekkaoui R. (2010). Beyond work-family balance: Are family-friendly organizations more attractive? Industrial Relations, 65(1), 98–117. DOI: 10.2307/23078261
  • Brooks R. (2000). Why loyal employees and customers improve the bottom line. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 23(2), 40−44. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265077839_Internal_Marketing_A_Study_of_Employee_Loyalty_Its_Determinants_and_Consequences/fulltext/543e28bf0cf2d6934ebd0e33/Internal-Marketing-A-Study-of-Employee-Loyalty-Its-Determinants-and-Consequences.pdf (accessed: February 10, 2024).
  • DiMaggio P., Powell W. (2014). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: Klassika novoi ekonomicheskoi sotsiologii [Classics of the New Economic Sociology]. Moscow: HSE Publishing House (in Russian).
  • Fan W., Moen P. (2023). Ongoing remote work, returning to working at work, or in between during COVID-19: What promotes subjective well-being? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 64(1), 152–171. DOI: 10.1177/00221465221150283
  • Feeney M.K., Stritch J. (2017). Family-friendly policies and work life balance in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration. DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17733789
  • Fore H. (2019). Family-friendly policies benefit all of us. Here are 4 ways to boost them? In: Materials of World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/4-ways-to-build-family-friendly-policies-parental-leave/ (accessed: March 20, 2024).
  • Gromova N.V. (2020). Personnel loyalty as a factor in ensuring the competitiveness of Russian companies. Sovremennaya konkurentsiya=Journal of Modern Competition, 14(2), 60–78. DOI: 10. 37791/1993-7598-2020-14-2-60-72 (in Russian).
  • Halinski M., Duxbury L. (2019). Workplace flexibility and its relationship with work-interferes-with-family. Personnel Review, 49(1), 149–166. DOI: 10.1108/PR-01-2019-0048
  • Hodges L. (2020). Do female occupations pay less but offer more benefits? Sex and Society, 34(3), 381–412. DOI: 10.1177/0891243220913527
  • Kamarova T.A., Markova T.L., Tonkikh N.V. (2023). Impact of the digitalization of employment on the work–family balance: Russians’ subjective assessments. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz=Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 16(6), 252–269. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2023.6.90.15 (in Russian).
  • Kim H., Rhou Y., Topcuoglu E., Kim E. (2020). Why hotel employees care about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Using need satisfaction theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87(1). DOI: 0.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102505
  • Kim J., Wiggins M.E. (2011). Family-friendly human resource policy: Is it still working in the public sector? Public Administration Review, 71(5), 728–739. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02412.x
  • Lee L., Miller K., Chuersanga et al. (2022). Childbearing and family leave policies for physicians at US children’s hospitals. The Journal of Pediatrics. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.12.008
  • Lee S.-Y., Hong J.H. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 870–879. DOI: 10.2307/41317386
  • Magnusson С. (2019). Flexible time – but is the time owned? Family friendly and family unfriendly work arrangements, occupational sex composition and wages: A test of the mother-friendly job hypothesis in Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 24(3), 291–314. DOI: 10.1080/13668803.2019.1697644
  • Martensen A., Grønholdt L. (2006). Internal marketing: A study of employee loyalty, its determinants and consequences. Innovative Marketing, 2(4). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265077839_Internal_Marketing_A_Study_of_Employee_Loyalty_Its_Determinants_and_Consequences (accessed: February 20, 2024).
  • Masterson C., Sugiyama K., Ladge J. (2020). The value of 21st century work–family supports: Review and cross‐level path forward. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 118–138. DOI: 10.1002/job.2442
  • Meyer J. W., Rowan B. (2014). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. In: Klassika novoi ekonomicheskoi sotsiologii [Classics of the New Economic Sociology]. Moscow: HSE Publishing House (in Russian).
  • Mullins L., Chabonneay E., Riccucci N. (2020). The effects of family responsibilities discrimination on public employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions: Can flexible work arrangements help? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(2), 384–410. DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19894035
  • Nabergoj A.S., Pahor M. (2016). Family-friendly workplace: An analysis of organizational effects in the transition economy. Journal of East European Management Studies, 21(3), 352–373. DOI: 10.5771/0949-6181-2016-3-352
  • Nekhoda E.V., Arabov N.U., Bogdanov A.L., German M.V., Kuklina T.V. (2022). Decent work in non-financial reporting of Russian companies: Assessing the disclosure quality. Upravlenets=The Manager, 13(2), 34–56. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2022-13-2-3 (in Russian).
  • Panikarova S. (2019). Analysis of the effectiveness of the regional innovation system. A case study on polyethnic regions of the Russian Federation. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 15, 41–58. DOI: 10.24193/tras.SI2019.3
  • Pevnaya M., Kostina S., Cernicova-Bucă M., Kazmierczyk J., Asoyan L. (2022). Potential of youth participation in local territory branding management. Lex Localis, 20(1), 193–214. DOI: 10.4335/20.1.193-214(2022)
  • Reichheld F. (2021). The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Rostovskaya T.K., Shabunova A.A., Bagirova A.P. (2021). The concept for corporate demographic policy of Russian enterprises in the framework of corporate social responsibility. Ekonomicheskie i sotsialnye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz=Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 14(5), 151–164. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.9 (in Russian).
  • Samman E., Lombardi J. (2019). Childcare and working families: New opportunity or missing link? An evidence brief. In: UNICEF – Childcare-Family-Friendly Policies - 2019. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/UNICEF-Childcare%20-Family-Friendly-Policies-2019.pdf (accessed: February 1, 2024).
  • Saurabh M., Modi S. (2013). Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 448. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1526-9
  • Shubat O.M. (2014). Russian business as a potential subject of effective demographic policy. Natsional’nye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost’=National Interests: Priorities and Security, 26, 45–53 (in Russian).
  • Shubat O.M., Bagirova A.P., Yan D. (2022). Corporate family-friendly policies: the possibility of implementation in Russian regions. Ekonomika regiona=Economy of Regions, 18(4), 1121−1134. DOI: 10.17059/ekon.reg (in Russian).
  • Stier H., Lewin-Epstein N., Braun M. (2012). Work-family conflict in comparative perspective: The role of social policies. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(3), 265–279. Available at: https://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/noah/files/2018/01/Work-family-conflict-RSSM-2012.pdf (accessed: March 2, 2024).
  • Wang J., Zhao Y., Sun S., Zhu J. (2023). Female-friendly boards in family firms. Journal of Business Research, 157. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113552
  • Wong K., Chan A. H. S., Teh P.-L. (2020). How is work–life balance arrangement associated with organizational performance? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 1–19. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17124446
  • Wuestenenk N., Begall K. (2022). The motherhood wage gap and trade-offs between family and work: A test of compensating wage differentials. Social Science Research, 106. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102726
  • Yucel D., Fan W. (2023). Workplace flexibility, work–family interface, and psychological distress: Differences by family caregiving obligations and gender. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 18(4), 1825–1847. DOI: 10.1007/s11482-023-10164-1
Еще
Статья научная
QR-код для установки приложения SciUp Наведите камеру и скачайте бесплатное приложение SciUp