Next Article in Journal
Understanding Flood Risk Perception: A Case Study from Canada
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Transfer Learning and Fine-Tuning to Nowcast Energy Generation of Photovoltaic Systems in Different Climates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/su14053091
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Work-Family Interface in the Context of Social Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Ana Lúcia Marôco
1,
Fernanda Nogueira
2,*,
Sónia P. Gonçalves
2 and
Isabel C. P. Marques
1
1
Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas, Universidade de Lisboa, 1300-663 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Centro de Administração e Políticas Públicas, Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas, Universidade de Lisboa, 1300-663 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(5), 3091; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053091
Submission received: 7 January 2022 / Revised: 24 February 2022 / Accepted: 1 March 2022 / Published: 7 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Responsibility and Sustainability: Work-Life Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The literature on internal social responsibility, in which the work-family interface can be included, already has a robust tradition in scientific research. It is, therefore, important to systematize the path that has been taken and what the future may hold. This article aims to systematize the literature that simultaneously focuses on the work-family relationship and on the context of social responsibility and sustainability, with the purpose of mapping the research that has been produced on these intersections. A systematic review of the literature was conducted between the period 1968 and 2021. The search was performed on the SCOPUS database, and the analysis was conducted using the VOSviewer software, with 333 articles having been identified and subjected to a bibliometric and content analysis. As a result, 88 articles were analyzed in depth, focusing on the Work and Life Space dimension and the work-family relationship. The results indicate that corporate social responsibility has a positive effect on the work-family relationship, where an efficient balance between personal and professional life is often measured based on the adequacy of the adjustment of factors such as working hours and social and family commitments.

1. Introduction

There is a long tradition of investigating the work-family interface in different scientific areas. This interest comes from the fact that a significant part of our lives is divided between work and family and by the positive or negative synergies they assume. Special attention has been given to negative and conflictive relationships, since the impact of these on the performance of the individual and the organization itself is recognized. Organizations are increasingly sensitive to the dynamics between the two spheres, with the family extending into life, and, given its importance, they have been taking a more active role in supporting workers within the framework of their social responsibility policies and practices and with a view to sustainability. As a result of this problem, it is important to know: what has been researched and who has done research on the work-family interface and social responsibility with a view to the sustainability of quality of life at work? Thus, considering the role of social responsibility in the work-family relationship, this article aims to systematize the literature that simultaneously focuses on the work-family relationship and on the social responsibility and sustainability context, with the purpose of mapping the research that has been produced on these interceptions.

2. Literature Review

The work-life interface can be defined as the interaction between the work and non-work/personal life (family, leisure, and health) domains. The organizational literature often refers to studies related to the work-life relationship, but little theoretical and empirical attention has been paid to the non-work domain, with the exception of the family [1]. The vast majority of studies conducted in recent decades report on work-family relations [2,3,4,5,6,7,8], and not on work-life relations. Throughout this period, the approach to this type of relationship has changed. Initially, and until the end of the last century, this relationship was studied as a conflict relationship between the work-family domains [2,4,6]. At the beginning of this century, with the advent of Positive Psychology, the approach to this relationship underwent a change and work-family enrichment also began to be studied [5]. More recently, it has become common to talk about work-family balance [3,8].
Work-Family Conflict can be defined as a form of role conflict in which the role performances of the “work” and “family” domains are totally or partially incompatible [4]. This incompatibility is related to the existence of three major types of work-family conflict [4]: the time-related conflict, the tension-related conflict and the behavior-related conflict. This concept has a double meaning, i.e., when work demands interfere with family demands, we are in a scenario of “work-family conflict”; when family demands interfere with work demands, we are in a “family-work conflict” scenario [2,4,9].
Work-Family Enrichment occurs when “the experiences lived in one role (family/work) tend to enhance the quality of life lived in the other role” [5] (p. 72). Some studies have shown that the achievement of multiple roles has positive consequences on the physical and psychological well-being of individuals [10,11]. Similarly, to the work-family conflict, this construct has a dual meaning: work-family enrichment and family-work enrichment [5].
The Work-Family Balance was initially defined by the absence of work-family conflict [12]. Subsequently, several authors have defined it not only by the absence or low levels of conflict, but also by the high levels of family-work enrichment at the same time [13]. More recently, some authors have stated that work-family balance is a unique construct, both theoretically and psychometrically, distinct from both conflict and enrichment [3]. From this perspective, work-family balance is defined as “[…] the realization of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his/her partners related to the roles played in the work and family domains […]” [3] (p. 463).
It should be noted that, despite this evolution, it is still common to find in recent studies an approach to the work-family relationship as a conflict relationship. Therefore, the high number of publications associated with this type of approach when compared to the others is not surprising.
The literature has shown that: (i) work-related stress and social support from colleagues and supervisors, in addition to the possibility of flexible schedules and workload (number of working hours), have a significant impact on work-family relationships [2,6]. Employees with less support from colleagues or supervisors, or with less flexible working hours, had greater work-family conflict [2,6]; (ii) the adoption of working arrangements different from the traditional ones, namely flexible work, shift work, and teleworking, may have an impact on the work-family relationship [14,15]; and (iii) the commitment to the organization and productivity is higher among employees with lower levels of work-family conflict, and turnover intentions are, in turn, lower [16]. From this perspective, it is worth mentioning the central role of organizations in the development and adoption of practices that allow workers to reconcile work and family tasks in a more harmonious way.
The balance between work-family interaction, with its repercussions at a broader level in work-life interaction and, consequently, in the quality of life at work (QWL) relationship, is particularly important not only for the employee but also for their family and the organization. The QWL is a concept that has been around for more than half a century; over this period its conceptualization and measurement have evolved. Recently QWL has been defined as “a personal reaction to the work environment and experience such as perceptions of control, satisfaction, involvement, commitment, work—life balance, and well-being in relation to someone’s job and organization, with no one generally accepted definition of the term” [17] (p. 651). Among the different measurement models of QWL proposed during this period, the most widely used in research because of its comprehensiveness is the model proposed by Walton in 1973. According to Walton [18], the criteria, which, from the organizational point of view, explain QWL were: (1) Adequate and fair compensation; (2) Safe and healthy working conditions; (3) Opportunity to use and develop human capacities; (4) Career opportunities; (5) Social Integration in work organization; (6) Constitutionalism in work organization; (7) Work and Total Life Space; and (8) Social Relevance of work life. Walton has the idea that quality of work-life (QWL) is represented in the humanization of work and social responsibility, involving the meeting of the needs and aspirations of the individual by restructuring the design of jobs and new ways to organize the work, coupled with the formation of work teams, with a power of autonomy and improvement of the organizational environment.
From the above, it is important to mention the role of corporate social responsibility in contributing to QWL and consequently to work-family balance. The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has evolved over time and given rise to different definitions. Dashrud (2008) cited in [19] mentions 37 definitions for this construct, pointing out that the most widely cited definitions in the literature are those proposed by organizations such as the European Commission and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The European Commission [20,21] defines corporate social responsibility as a set of voluntary practices through which organizations integrate social and environmental concerns in their business choices and in their interaction with stakeholders, and which contribute to sustainable development. There is an almost unlimited number of socially responsible practices, activities, or actions that can be undertaken by organizations in their adherence to CSR practices [19]. Thus, in order to clarify the understanding of the concept and its operationalization, CSR is broken down into two fundamental dimensions [20]: (i) the internal dimension is focused on an intra-organizational perspective (relationship with employees) and concerns human resource management practices, occupational health and safety, adaptation to change, environmental impact management, and natural resources. In terms of human resources management, it is worth mentioning, among others, the accountability of the worker, better information within the company, and a better balance between professional, family, and leisure life; and (ii) the external dimension is focused on the company’s external agents, namely: the local community, partners, suppliers and consumers, human rights, and environmental and global concerns.
Due to the central role of social responsibility for the work-family relationship, this article aims to systematize the literature published with this focus between 1968 and 2021.

3. Materials and Methods

In this study, bibliometric and content analysis of the selected articles are used as methods. The SCOPUS database (data collection on 29 June 2021) was used due to its extension, reliability, and comprehensiveness [22]. SCOPUS has a multidisciplinary character and great comprehensiveness, is peer-reviewed, holds daily updates, and has resources that assist the user in searches performed on the site and creation of lists for storage of documents during the search session in the database, with structured searches by author and theme. Main advantages of using this database: inclusion of titles available in Open Access; broad coverage in terms of science and technology journals; author identification tools; automatic generation of the h-index; inclusion of more European content than Web of Science (WoS); and integration of more languages besides English. This review was performed in accordance to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
In accordance with the organizational literature, it was decided to select articles on the basis of the Work-Life interface rather than Work-Family interface, since the domain “Life” is broader than the domain “Family”, even though the latter is the basic element of life. The keywords used in the search were “Social Responsibility; Life-work; Sustainability; Conflict”, used in the frame “All” and added to the search “and”, which resulted in 333 articles. There were no limitations as to the type of publication, study area, type of document, language, or others.
Bibliometric analysis aims to measure scientific progress by performing quantitative evaluation and analysis of comparisons of scientific activity and productivity [22]. The VOSviewer software (version 1.6.10., Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) was used to map and process the articles due to its reliability and suitability for bibliometric analyses. Based on the co-authorship of each study, the relationships between authors, institutions and locations of the coauthors were analyzed and interpreted. The relationships between keywords in all documents were analyzed based on their co-occurrence and pro-vides a graphical view of the interconnectedness of key terms in the documents [23]. The co-authorship analysis reveals the occurrence of scientific collaboration and identifies re-search groups [24].
In the qualitative stage, the Abstract, the Introduction, and the Results of the articles were read with the intent of framing them in one of the dimensions of Walton’s quality of work-life (QWL) [18]. In this context, researchers, academics, managers, and others can benefit from the results arising from the evaluation in this research area. Initially, this study proceeds with the classification of the articles resulting from the search in the SCOPUS database, assessing them based on the bibliometric analysis, with the use of the VOSviewer software. The 333 documents found are then categorized according to Walton’s model [18]. In order to verify the work-family relationship within the social responsibility and sustainability context, this SLR focuses on the Work and Life Space dimension, with the content analysis of 80 articles. The other dimensions, with the numbers of articles and representative authors are available in Appendix A. Figure 1 presents the representation of the selection and inclusion of articles in the SCOPUS database.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Bibliometric Analysis

4.1.1. Publications, Countries, Citations, Journals, and Research Areas

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the trend of publications in the researched theme, during the period from 1968 to 2021 (54 years). Of the 333 articles identified, 52.25% (174 articles) were published in the last 5 years, 2017 to 2021. Evidencing the growing interest and relevance of the work-family relationship topic is the evolution, specifically, of the Work and Life Space dimension, shown in Figure 3.
Among the ten countries that most published on the topic “Social Responsibility and QLW” (Figure 4), the United States leads the ranking with 80 publications (24.02%), followed by the United Kingdom with 44 publications (13.21%), Spain and India both with 25 publications (7.51%), Australia with 20 articles (6.01%), Canada with 13 studies (3.90%), Italy and Malaysia both with 12 publications (3.60%), and South Korea and the Netherlands with 9 studies each (2.70%).
As for the general number of citations, it is worth noting that in 2006, two articles obtained 120 citations, while in 2007 nine publications added up to 394 citations (Figure 5).
The distribution of articles by research area is presented in Figure 6. A concentration of articles in the areas of Social Sciences (27.07%), Business, Management, and Accounting (22.37%), and Medicine (11.84%) is observed.
According to data extracted from the SCOPUS database, the most relevant articles in the area of Social Sciences address issues related to sustainable management of human resources in crisis contexts, employee engagement, time in life-work conflict, work-life balance and corporate social responsibility, occupational welfare regulation, social investment approach as a field of job creation, and others. Regarding the area of Business, Management, and Accounting, among the topics covered are the implementation of gender equality policies in the workplace, management principles and human resources (new business), gender differences in conflicts between functions, talent management and others. Finally, in the area of Medicine, the themes addressed by the most relevant articles include the interaction between corporate social responsibility at the employee level in health organizations, work-life integration in Burnout symptoms, and evaluation of the quality of life of physicians.
Table 1 presents the ten journals that most published on the subject and their impact factor.

4.1.2. Publications by Author, Institution, and Country

Of the 810 related authors, 28 authors presented at least 2 articles, forming 16 clusters. The 10 authors with the highest number of citations in their studies on the theme of social responsibility, sustainability and work-life are Halfer D. (Children’s Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA), Vuontisjärvi T., Flammer C. (Boston University, Boston, MA, USA), McDowell L. (University of Oxford, Oxford, UK), Rehman S. (Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan), Casper W.J. (University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA), Strand R., Cooke F.L. (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia), Parkes L.P. (Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia), and Armstrong D.J. (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA).
Table 2 shows that these main authors have published their articles over more than 35 years, which confirms the relevance of the subject studied. Among these authors, 50% are from the United States, followed by 20% from Australia, and 30% from the remaining countries. Two of these authors (Vuontisjärvi T. and Strand R.) had no affiliation at the time of their publications.
Figure 7 shows the network or map of cooperation between authors based on co-authorship. Each group of authors, in the production of articles, is represented by the color of each cluster. The size of the circle is perceived according to the number of contributions made by the author. Here, the authors are associated in sixteen clusters, and the five clusters with the largest contributions among the authors are highlighted below. Cluster 1 (red) highlights the collaboration between Boria-Reverter S., Romeo M., Torres L. and Yepes-baldó M. Cluster 2 (green) is formed by Hayat N., Permarupan P.Y., Samy N.K. and Saufir R.A. The third cluster (dark blue) is represented by Senasu K., Singhapakdi A. and Sirgy M.J. Cluster 4 (yellow) shows the collaboration between Celma D. and Martinez-Garcia E. Cluster 5 (purple) shows the contribution between Kato T. and Kodama N.
There is a predominance of Spanish authors in the cooperation networks.
Table 3 presents the institutions that have most recently contributed to scientific production on the theme presented. Among these, six are in the area of Medicine, evidencing the researchers’ concern with the framework of employee well-being, work-life quality, professional performance, and corporate social responsibility.
The collaboration network among the main institutions that publish on social responsibility, work-life, sustainability, and conflict, based on co-authorship, is presented in Figure 8. The metrics adopted (average degree of nodes, total nodes in the giant component, network density, network diameter, and average minimum path) are classic metrics, usually adopted by several works that analyze collaboration networks [25,26], so that one can observe how scientific collaboration evolves over the years. Interestingly, the analysis displays only one cluster, uniformly distributed with one article per institution, where all institutions are North American, whose publications date back to 2020. This fact suggests little networked collaboration between countries (evidenced immediately below, in Figure 8) and highlights the predominance of schools in the United States contributing to the evolution and timeliness of the topic of social responsibility, work-life, sustainability, and conflict.
The total sample of articles was written in 65 different countries. The top 10 countries that most published on the topic was analyzed above (see Figure 4), the collaboration network between this countries based on the co-authorship of their authors in the last 54 years is presented in Figure 9.
The clusters are listed in Table 4, in which they were named, respectively, after the country with the largest number of publications.

4.1.3. Keyword Analysis

Figure 10 shows the network of keywords on social responsibility, work-life, sustainability, and conflict, based on co-occurrence. The main keywords used in the articles were “policy”, “burnout”, “corporate social responsibility”, “work-life balance”, “family”, “quality of work-life”, “sustainability”, and “work”. Eight main groups of keywords were detected through the co-occurrence analysis of the articles published on the subject.
Cluster 1 (red) is the most expressive, grouping 18.42% of the keywords analyzed. Among them are: “family life”, “gender diversity”, “human resource management”, “job satisfaction”, “leadership”, “policy”, and “work-family balance”.
Cluster 2 (green) represents 15.79% of the keywords. Those that stand out are: “burnout”, “family policy”, “organizational culture”, “stress”, “well-being”, and “work and family”.
Clusters 3 (dark blue), 4 (yellow), and 5 (purple) each gather 13.16% of the analyzed keywords. Cluster 3 is represented by the words: “corporate social responsibility”, “employee engagement”, “employees”, “millennials”, and “work-family conflict”. In cluster 4, the keywords highlighted are: “COVID-19”, “employment”, “paternity leave”, “women empowerment”, and “work-life balance”. In Cluster 5: “family”, “gender equality”, “responsibility”, “women”, and “work-life balance”. In cluster 6, in light blue, (10.53% of the keywords), the main words are: “organizational commitment”, “quality of work-life”, “social support”, and “work-life conflict”. Cluster 7 (orange) (7.89% of the keywords) is represented by: “management”, “sustainability”, and “sustainable development”. Finally, cluster 8 (brown) accounts for 7.89% of the keywords and is represented by: “social policy”, “work”, and “young workers”.
Table 5 presents the main keywords associated with the clusters, named by the keyword with more co-occurrences.
After reading the articles included in this SLR, they were classified according to the dimensions proposed by Walton (1973). Table 6 presents the number of articles according to their inclusion in the identified dimensions.
Table 7 presents the distribution of articles that address, in their contents, the work-family relationship, arising from the work and living space dimension, structured by Walton (1973). Appendix A presents a synthesis containing all dimensions of Walton (1973), the number of studies contained in the SLR, and the identified authors.

4.2. Work and Living Space Dimension and the Work-Family Relationship

QWL is related to the healthy coexistence between people in the company and refers to respect for individuality. The positive evaluation of the social integration item in the company, constant in research on quality of life at work that meets a current perspective, which values the performance in teams, and in pleasant working environments, where open communications predominate [27]. On the other hand, issues related to the intersection between work and family have become the center of attention of researchers, policy makers, and citizens, since at the heart of this critical junction is the allocation of time for each institution, and the strategies that families employ to fulfil their obligations at work and at home [28]. In the last three decades, there has been a growth in the amount of research, whose goal lies in understanding the relationships between work life and personal life [29,30,31]. This research helps to understand the essence of the relationship between the roles experienced at work and in the family.
Individual experience at work can have positive or negative effects on personal life and family relationships. The passion and commitment of employees to their work can make it more difficult to find a balance between work life and the demands of private life [32], given that issues important for family balance are also seen as influencing factors on organizational sustainability in terms of employee retention and commitment to the organization [33]. The study by Sorribes, Celma, and Martínez-Garcia [34] analyzes the effects of the interaction between different labor practices of socially responsible human resource management on three variables of employee well-being: job satisfaction, job stress and trust in management. Results point to the effectiveness of the combination of applied practices related to aspects of personal quality of life, such as work-life balance, non-discrimination, or the environmental conditions of the workplace, as a determining factor for the general increase in employees’ well-being in times of crisis. Więcek-Janka and Jaźwińska [35] present, on the basis of the analysis of sustainable development indicators, aspects of quality of life to be complemented with new indicators concerning the well-being of the human somatic sphere.
For Sellmaier and Buckingham [36], parents of a child with special health care needs attempt to reconcile work demands and the child’s education by employing strategic decision-making when selecting jobs that provide flexibility and access to resources such as health insurance. In addition, formal and informal community support turns out to be essential but not always adequate or easily accessible. However, such inadequate resources are eventually compensated for by the family system [37]. Improving the understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine was the subject of the study by Jones et al. [38], where participants describe aspects of a culture that harbors stigma against caregivers and prevents satisfactory integration into work life. For the authors Jones et al. [38], there is an urgent need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can promote awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges, in addition to providing funding and other tangible resources to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-family relationship challenges. The study by Höltge et al. [39] addresses the economic and social well-being experiences of communities that depend on the boom-and-bust cycles of a single industry, such as oil and gas. The results point out that many families experienced a never-ending cycle of work-life balance and income instability throughout the economic cycle. Family life often lacked social cohesion as a result of demanding work schedules and economic pressures. Additional challenges were the perceived negative effects of rigid gender roles, substance abuse, family conflicts and domestic violence. Crucial empowering processes for family resilience were financial and living standard adaptations, such as economic volatility [39]. When work problems emerge, negative consequences are observed in the work-family relationship; Tonelli and Alcadipani [40] found, for example, that the amount of work directly affects family life.
The academy, accelerated and competitive, is configured as an absorbing and demanding work space, while at the same time it seduces with promises of success and recognition. Research by Cisternas and Navia [41] seeks to understand how academics construct time and their relationship with work-family in a context of managerialization of Chilean universities. They observed that the construction of time and the subjective position in the work-family conflict are crossed by gender dimensions. This personal cost is related to the so-called work-life conflict and its dimensions such as: the double working day and the choice between a scientific career or starting a family, as well as social pressure and individual responsibility for reconciling the demands of academic and family life. Depending on the broader socio-economic context, local policies, and services can provide important resources for managing work-family relationships and work-life situations in general [42]. These relationships and policies are embedded in specific geographic localities, shaping and being shaped by social action [43]. Human resource development plays a significant role in supporting organizational agendas and sustainability. Relevant aspects are considered, such as diversity; equity and inclusion; community involvement; work-family balance; long-term employee growth and development; performance management; and business ethics and ethical culture [44,45].
Aiming to verify the relationship between employee perception of CSR and its effects on the internal results of companies with quality of work life standards and employee motivation, Asante et al. [46] found that employees’ perception of CSR is positively related with their performance and corporate identification. Ghashghaeizadeh [47] reports that quality of work life includes opportunities to solve problems that are mutually beneficial to the employee and the organization and are based on management collaboration, which can be enhanced to gradually change the pattern of interaction between people in the organization. In examining the relative power of situational versus personal factors in predicting work-family relationship, and how they influence work-family conflict and family-work conflict, Baral [48] finds that personality factors accounted for more variance in family-work relationship than in work-family conflict, and situational factors accounted for more variance in work-family conflict than in family-work relationship. Thus, organizations should not view the resolution of work-family conflict as the sole responsibility of an individual due to the demonstrated influence of dispositional and contextual factors on the presence or absence of such conflict [48,49].
The article by Gálvez, Tirado, and Martínez [50] analyzes the use of telework as a political tool within organizations that boosts or hinders the development of social sustainability. The authors conclude that there are two social perceptions in question where work-family balance is directly linked to social sustainability [50]. Employees’ perceptions of their companies’ CSR practices are seen in the intermediary context between QLW, job satisfaction, and at job levels. For Kim et al. [51], CSR has a positive effect on employees’ basic and growth needs of QLW and are more evident among managerial level employees compared to lower levels. Programs encompassing work-family relationship are positively associated with perceived organizational performance, financial and corporate performance, sustainability and social responsibility [52,53]. The length, organization, and predictability of working time raise questions about workers’ health, well-being, and wider social life, and about firms’ productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness [54,55]. The risk of unemployment affects the productivity of organizations [56]. Firms’ policies and initiatives can mitigate the moral hazard problem created by increases in unemployment insurance benefits. Such benefits can decrease employees’ incentives to work hard and assiduously. For Darrough, Kim, and Zur [57], policies that fall under the scope of corporate social responsibility in conjunction with employee welfare policies are more effective in managing moral hazard problems than other policies.
Tomaselli [58] conducted research in small and medium-sized Italian companies where the implementation of programs, such as corporate family responsibility, has been successful. This project aims at the balance between work and personal and family life and encompasses employee welfare policies. For respondents, this type of tool increases levels of personal, family, and professional serenity and reduces stress factors, being considered positive factors in performance [58]. Aiming to explore the improvement in knowledge acquisition across domains, Short et al. [59] observed the dimensions that influence the well-being of medical students in Australia, such as psychological first aid knowledge, student support services, connection with other students and staff, and the management of health and workload. The results indicate improvement in promoting student well-being with targeted guidance and involvement to improve the university-student connection [59,60]. Kobayashi, Eweje, and Tappin [61] point to the nature of conflicts that arise in promoting employee well-being in Japanese companies as being: resources, family, stakeholders, and partners; meritocracy as opposed to gender equality; indirect discrimination due to unequal care responsibilities; and external pressures on working hours. Pressures from work and family responsibilities generate the conditions for perceived work-family conflict. In this context, organizational and family support have different effects, which should be carefully considered when defining organizational policies and interventions [62]. Efficient work-life balance is often measured based on the adequacy of the fit between working hours and social and family commitments [63,64].
García and Cosimi [65] discuss part-time employment as a way of improving the work-family balance. Although this type of employment has appeared with a certain character of exceptionality, it has been progressively strengthened by the last labor reforms as a way to promote flexible employment, especially in groups with high unemployment levels (women and young people) [66,67]. In order to investigate the impact of formal and informal organizational support on work life repercussions, Sar et al. [68] conclude that there are different perceptions of conflict in work life among different work life orientations, helping them to balance the work-family relationship, improve their well-being, higher productivity, lower absenteeism, low turnover rates and greater loyalty [69]. Fernandes et al. [70] test the quality of work life assessment model proposed by Walton [18], whose results showed that adequate and fair compensation, working conditions, constitutionalism and space occupied by work in life dimensions are suitable for the presented analysis [71]. Regarding CSR and sustainability, Medrado and Jackson’s study [72], by disclosing non-financial information of hotel and tourism companies, refers that CSR/sustainability reports are still precocious, and that, in general, the most frequently disclosed information is related to performance in indicators associated with water use, energy conservation and waste generation. The least-reported dimensions were information pertaining to remuneration and work-family balance [73,74,75].
The concept of “quality of life at work” is related to an important aspect of the social responsibility of staff [76]. This means that what happens in the work environment can be extended to non-work environments—most importantly, the home environment and influence the work-family relationship [77]. The equity between the working day and living with the family, as well as availability of time for leisure, is the criterion of QWL that shows that work may be somehow influencing some quality of life domains [78], reflecting positively or negatively in other spheres of life, such as family and social [79]. For some workers, self-employment may be a way to combine work and responsibilities in other domains of life [80,81,82]. The balance between work life and and personal/family life and resilience are shaped by dynamic and reflective processes [83]. The characteristics that consist of resilience include “positive thinking”, “flexibility”, “taking responsibility”, and “separating work from life”. This perception of resilience has the potential to facilitate a shift in focus from negative to positive experiences, from rigidity to flexibility, from task-centered to person-centered thinking, and from organization to life [84,85]. In addition, participatory management reduces the interference of work with family life through its impact on other attributes of work: increasing the flexibility of working hours, increasing meaningful work, reducing workload, and reducing job uncertainty [86,87].
New social risks offer policymakers the opportunity to turn vice into virtue by replacing costly passive benefits with policies that mobilize the workforce, possibly increasing economic competitiveness and reducing poverty among vulnerable groups. However, the policy constituents to support these policies are weak, as risks affect people more at particular stages of life and among specific groups [88]. For Dean [89], policy makers must shift the balance of the work-family equation away from the current concern with commercial interests in favour of broader concerns of social responsibility [90].
Studies such as Campos-Strobino and Teixeira [91] as well as Silva and Rossetto [92] suggest that the changes in the labor market at macro level, the redefinitions of roles in the family field, and the difficulty in conciliating time between the two environments are the main causes of work-family conflicts, which must be the focus of attention of the scholars of the theme in the search for alternative and innovative ways to implement people management policies and practices that aim to promote workers’ health, while making the organization more flexible by bringing together the personal and professional interests of the individual.
In this context, Table 8 presents a synthesis of the studies, with the grouping of the themes discussed, focusing on the relationship between CSR and work-life.

5. Conclusions

There is a strong connection between corporate social responsibility practices and organizational performance [34]. This connection should be developed within a broad framework that promotes cooperation among various stakeholders. Studies point out that CSR has a positive effect on the work-family relationship where an efficient work-life balance is often measured based on the appropriateness of adjusting factors such as working hours and social and family commitments. Compliance with moral business standards and practices helps in the development of employees’ overall well-being.
The most analysed perspective in the literature on the work-family relationship has been the negative one, whose core concept is work-family conflict. In their study, Greenhaus and Beutell [4] highlight three types of conflict or relationship; transposing it to this research, they identified the following: (i) the first, temporal-based, arises from the time required to perform one role interfering with the time available to perform another, reducing said role [46,93,94]; (ii) the second refers to pressure conflicts and is based on the conception that the pressure caused in one domain will affect the other domain [35,41,44] and, (iii) the third refers to the type of behavioral conflict that concerns the incompatibility of behaviors expected in each of the roles [33,39,43].
The positive paradigm lies in the existence of synergies between the work-family relationship. Family and work should be seen as “supporters” as opposed to “adversaries” [95].
From the optimistic perspective of the work-family relationship, several concepts emerge, ranging from positive contagion [96], enhancement [97], and facilitation [98] to work-family enrichment. However, despite the high degree of emergence of concepts, their existence does not mean consistency, and may cause conceptual, theoretical, and operational difficulties [5,99].
This SRL focuses on what has been studied in the literature, in concrete terms, about the work-family relationship, starting with CSR and focusing on organizational and social sustainability. As suggestions for future research, it is necessary to take the broadest possible perspective when it comes to the work-family relationship of employees. Corporate social responsibility continues to receive increasing attention in today’s business world and there is a need for studies that (i) address not only the weaknesses of the work-family relationship, but also focus on a positive perspective of establishing this relationship, such as resilience and strengths; (ii) that consider human resource practices regarding organizational engagement as a relevant analytical variable that can mitigate negative relationships in this area; (iii) studies that can determine the existence, or not, of different ways in which for-profit and non-profit firms address issues that are important for individual sustainability and that influence organizational sustainability in terms of retention and organizational commitment; (iv) research that explores how organizational culture influences internal corporate social responsibility actions and the effect of these actions on employees’ level of happiness; (v) studies that examine the effects of the interaction between different human resource management work practices on employee well-being variables; (vi) identification of factors that may influence different occupations depending on their lifestyles and work practices; (vii) studies that examine the relative power of situational versus personal factors in predicting work-family conflict; and (viii) studies of a longitudinal nature that follow the employee’s life cycle in the organization, as well as the needs inherent in each phase, and that monitor the actual effectiveness of CSR practices on employee quality of life.
Organizational sustainability and the components for a good social balance also involve the issue of some different factors between genders. Competitive management practices, such as individual incentive payment according to performance or other practices (those that foster a more cooperative working environment) may be the target of studies. In this context, it is important to develop studies that verify in which of these practices there is greater identification by women in order to support organizations in HRM models that provide greater gender egalitarianism, thus promoting a better balance in the work-family relationship. This SLR is composed of studies that show the relevance of the work-family relationship as an indicator of both organizational and individual well-being, highlighting the relevance of this topic.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.N. and S.P.G.; methodology, I.C.P.M.; software, I.C.P.M.; validation, A.L.M., F.N., S.P.G. and I.C.P.M.; formal analysis, A.L.M., S.P.G. and I.C.P.M.; investigation, A.L.M. and I.C.P.M.; resources, F.N. and S.P.G.; data curation, I.C.P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L.M. and I.C.P.M.; writing—review and editing, F.N. and S.P.G.; visualization, A.L.M. and I.C.P.M.; supervision, S.P.G.; project administration, A.L.M., I.C.P.M. and S.P.G.; funding acquisition, F.N. and S.P.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Portuguese national funds through FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under project UIDP/00713/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Table containing all of Walton’s (1973) dimensions, the number of studies contained in the SLR, and the authors identified.
Table A1. Table containing all of Walton’s (1973) dimensions, the number of studies contained in the SLR, and the authors identified.
DimensionQuant. of ArticlesAuthor (Year)
Social Integration51Mitcheltree, 2021; Espasandín-Bustelo, Ganaza-Vargas & Diaz-Carrion, 2021; Carpenter et al., 2021; Bruffaerts et al., 2021; [No author name available 1], 2021; [No author name available 4], 2021; Gupta, Bhasin & Mushtaq, 2021; Reverberi et l., 2021; Parlak, Celebi Cakiroglu & Oksuz Gul, 2021; Lee, 2021; Smith & Solano, 2020; Álvarez-Pérez et al., 2020; Hirsh, Treleaven & Fuller, 2020; Nazir & Islam, 2020; Ruparelia et al., 2020; Schiavo, Leonardi & Zancanaro, 2020; Satyen, van Dort & Yin, 2020; Kromydas, 2020; Salminen, Wang & Aaltio, 2019; Miller, 2019; Lulle, 2018; Kato & Kodama, 2018; Novich & Garcia-Hallett, 2018; Bahiru & Mengistu, 2018; Lefrançois, Saint-Charles & Riel, 2017; Baylina et al., 2017; McDonald, Kehler & Tough, 2016; Machado & Paulo Davim, 2016; Singhapakdi et al., 2015; Agarwala et al., 2014; Cheng & McCarthy, 2013; Mazerolle & Goodman, 2012; Longenecker, Beard & Scazzero, 2012; Voxted & Lind, 2012; Reilly, Sirgy & Gorman, 2012; Schnurr & Zayts, 2012; Brown, 2011; Valk & Srinivasan, 2011; Yerkes et al., 2010; Moore & Wen, 2009; Johnson, Andrey & Shaw, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2007; Marcinkus & Hamilton, 2006; Kilian, Hukai & McCarty, 2005; Taylor-Gooby & Larsen, 2005; MacInnes, 2005; Gentili, Stainer & Stainer, 2003; Collier, 2001; Bird & Waters, 1987; Strand, 1983.
Opportunity to use and develop human capacity29Plummer et al., 2021; Gutiérrez-Vargas et al., 2020; Banta & Pratt, 2020; Chaudhry et al., 2019; Dima et al., 2019; Ishak et al., 2018; Llinares-Insa et al., 2018; Unsworth, 2018; Cooke, 2018; Rajasekar & Deepa, 2017; Nottingham, Mazerolle & Barrett, 2017; Drinkwater, 2017; Treister-Goltzman & Peleg, 2016; Boström et al., 2016; Kasch et al., 2016; Solbrekke et al., 2016; McKenna, Verreynne & Waddell, 2016; Thang & Fassin, 2016; Darrah, Conand & Dornadic, 2015; Campbell-Barr & Coakley, 2014; Pollitt, 2013; Maier et al., 2013; Wintrup et al., 2012; Barron & D’Annunzio-Green, 2009; Bolat & Yılmaz, 2009; Zhang, Straub & Kusyk, 2007; Knox & Irving, 1997; MacFarlane, 1990; Johnstone, 1968.
Safety and health in working conditions42Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2021; Uhlig-Reche et al., 2021; Cathelain et al., 2020; Scheepstra et al., 2020; Permarupan et al., 2020; Dudutienė, Juodaitė-Račkauskienė & Stukas, 2020; French & Shockley, 2020; Ventriglio, Watson & Bhugra, 2020; Campbell & Gunning, 2020; Permarupan et al., 2020; Salehi, Seyyed & Farhangdoust, 2020; Marek et al., 2019; Bostock, 2019; Celma, Martinez-Garcia & Raya, 2018; Zarea et al., 2018; Kim & Cho, 2017; Been, den Dulk & van der Lippe, 2017; Dirkse van Schalkwyk & Steenkamp, 2017; Zhang, Punnett & Nannini, 2017; Dan & Kohiyama, 2017; Živčicova, Bulková & Masárová, 2017; Wilkin, Fairlie & Ezzedeen, 2016; Cooper, 2016; Ahmad et al., 2016; Inoue, Nishikitani & Tsurugano, 2016; Ethel, Ziska & Olusegun, 2016; Eikeland, 2015; Paterson et al., 2015; Tung et al., 2015; Zientara, 2014; Petree, Broome & Bennett, 2012; Gidman et al., 2011; Sekine et al., 2010; Griffith & Tengnah, 2010; Mah, 2009; Draper, 2008; Still, 2008; Poelmans & Beham, 2008; Katz & Lazcano-Ponce, 2008; Bernard & Phillips, 2007; Fitch & Allard, 2007; Ducki, 2002.
Constitutionalism32Golob & Podnar, 2021; Molnár et al., 2021; Bhattacharya & Gandhi, 2020; Coron, 2020; Chamberlain et al., 2020; Dvorakova & Kulachinskaya, 2020; Prieto & Domínguez, 2020; Kim, Milliman & Lucas, 2020; Lord, 2020; Anand & Vohra, 2020; Činčalová, 2020; Jahangiri et al., 2020; Smalley, 2018; Albinsson & Arnesson, 2018; Darko-Asumadu, Sika-Bright & Osei-Tutu, 2018; Noronha & Magala, 2017; Yepes-Baldó et al., 2017; Banik, 2016; Jervis-Tracey et al., 2016; Tanwar & Prasad, 2016; Sommerlad, 2016; Gervais, 2016; Ibrahim et al., 2016; Silva et al., 2015; Boria-Reverter et al., 2015; Celma, Martínez-Garcia & Coenders, 2014; Ruivo & Neto, 2010; Closon, 2009; Linne, 2004; Bennett, 1976.
Work and living space80Riforgiate & Kramer, 2021; Beech, Sutton & Cheatham, 2021; Sorribes, Celma & Martínez-Garcia, 2021; Donoso, Valderrama & LaBrenz, 2021; Więcek-Janka & Jaźwińska, 2021; Sperling, 2021; Lafferty et al., 2021; Sellmaier & Buckingham, 2021; Höltge et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2020; Cisternas & Navia, 2020; Yerkes, Hoogenboom & Javornik, 2020; Jang & Ardichvili, 2020; Asante et al., 2020; Ghashghaeizadeh, 2020; Baral, 2020; Duffy, 2020; G-lvez, Tirado & Mart-nez, 2020; Mehta et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Peikert et al., 2020; Akter, Ali & Chang, 2020; Chikapa, 2020; Guillén, 2020; Kumari, 2019; Darrough, Kim & Zur, 2019; Dutta, 2019; John Britto & Magesh, 2019; Kim & Nam, 2019; Tomaselli, 2019; Sudarshan, Chockalingam & Velmurugan, 2019; Nevins & Hamouda, 2019; Short et al., 2019; Wardani & Anwar, 2019; Rezaee et al., 2019; Kobayashi, Eweje & Tappin, 2018; Ferri, Pedrini & Riva, 2018; Sherwood, Kelly & Bugallo, 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Amutha, 2018; Bernstein & Valentini, 2017; Mehta & Leng, 2017; Subramaniam, Ibrahim & Maniam, 2017; Menna & Lago, 2017; [No author name available 3], 2017; García & Cosimi, 2017; Sar et al., 2017; Sasmoko, et al., 2017; Fernandes et al., 2017; Ciarini, 2016; Medrado & Jackson, 2016; Saltmarsh, 2016; Annink, Den Dulk & Amorós, 2016; Ellmer, dos Santos & Batiz, 2016; Kim & Windsor, 2015; Senasu & Virakul, 2015; Makhbul & Sheikh Khairuddin, 2014; Poerio, 2013; Bonab, Ebrahimpour & Ghorbani, 2013; Tarver, 2013; Stewart, 2013; AlSharif, Kruger & Tennant, 2012; Lai-Ching & Kam-Wah, 2012; Arney & Weitz, 2012; McCrea, Boreham & Ferguson, 2011; [No author name available 6], 2011; Solomon, 2011; Jang, Park & Zippay, 2011; Al-Bdour, Nasruddin & Lin, 2010; Buys & Terblenche, 2009; Roth & Moore, 2009; Bull, 2009; Schwanen & de Jong, 2008; Root & Wooten, 2008; Parkes & Langford, 2008; Dean, 2007; Pryjmachuk & Richards, 2007; Vuontisjärvi, 2006; Baldock & Hadlow, 2004; Taylor-Gooby, 2004.
Fair and adequate compensation19Cooke, Schuler & Varma, 2020; Hoang, Vu & Ngo, 2020; Midttun & Witoszek, 2020; Patti, Lobo & Fisichella, 2020; Rebelo, Simões & Salavisa, 2020; Pérez & Cifre, 2020; Sheehan et al., 2019; Mota-Santos et al., 2019; Verma, Mohammed & Bhargava, 2018; Flammer & Luo, 2017; Minz & Munda, 2016; Bhatnagar, 2014; Clouston, 2014; Herbert et al., 2014; Burnett., Swan & Cooper, 2013; Teti & Andriotto, 2013; Pocock, Charlesworth & Chapman, 2013; Rizza & Sansavini, 2013; Pichler, 2009.
Career opportunity40[No author name available 5], 2020; Nath & Dwivedi, 2020; Adriano & Callaghan, 2020; Tarigan et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2020; Enestvedt et al., 2020; Self, Gordon & Jolly, 2019; Hallward & Bekdash-Muellers, 2019; Anto Juliet Mary et al., 2019; Abidin et al., 2019; Welford & O’Brien, 2019; Wang & Chen, 2019; Kumari & Saini, 2018; Rijal & Wasti, 2018; Lindemann, 2018; Vampo, 2018; Lämsä et al., 2017; Smidt, Pétursdóttir & Einarsdóttir, 2017; Swanberg et al., 2017; Kato & Kodama, 2017; [No author name available 2], 2017; Tanwar & Prasad, 2017; Mutovkina, Finckh e Gall, 2016; Van Loggerenberg & Nienaber, 2015; Tanaka, 2015; Finkelstein, 2014; Tremblay, 2013; Ng & Gossett, 2013; Schueller-Weidekamm & Kautzky-Willer, 2012; Af Hällström, 2012; Rehman & Roomi, 2012; Håpnes & Rasmussen, 2011; Hennessy, 2009; Buddhapriya, 2009; Waumsley & Houston, 2009; Barclay, 2008; Casper, Weltman & Kwesiga, 2007; Halfer & Graf, 2006; McDowell et al., 2005; Zimmerman et al., 2003.
Social relevance of work40Pothuraju & Alekhya, 2020; Šperková & Skýpalová, 2020; Ribers, 2020; Eisapareh et al., 2020; Zhang & Liu, 2019; Horiuchi, 2019; Shahid & Hamid, 2019; Amor-Esteban et al., 2019; Bennett & Waterhouse, 2018; Papasolomou et al., 2018; Kagnicioglu, 2017; Bloom, 2017; Thang & Fassin, 2017; Meil Landwerlin, 2017; Megías, 2017; Umans et al., 2016; Rodell et al., 2016; Dauphin, 2015; Menlo, 2015; Arndt, Singhapakdi & Tam, 2015; Tongo, 2015; Timossi et al., 2015; Mills et al., 2014; Karataş-Özkan et al., 2014; Domínguez, 2014; Asomba et al., 2013; Smith & Dougherty, 2012; Onat & Beji, 2012; Noali, 2012; Brick, 2011; Khan & Afzal, 2011; Westring & Ryan, 2010; Malik et al., 2010; Jang, 2009; Royuela, López-Tamayo & Suriñach, 2009; Marcinkus, Gordon & Whelan-Berry, 2007; Mohan & Kumar, 2006; Williams & Cooper, 2004; Rachor, 1998; Crouter & Garbarino, 1982.

References

  1. Keeney, J.; Boyd, E.M.; Sinha, R.; Westring, A.F.; Ryan, A.M. From “work-family” to “work-life”: Broadening our conceptualization and measurement. J. Vocat. Behav. 2013, 82, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Byron, K. A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. J. Vocat. Behav. 2005, 67, 169–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carlson, D.S.; Grzywacz, J.G.; Zivnuska, S. Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Hum. Relat. 2009, 62, 1459–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Greenhaus, J.H.; Beutell, N.J. Sources of Conflict Between Work and Family Roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Greenhaus, J.H.; Powell, G.N. When Work and family are Allies: A Theory of Work-Family Enrichement. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 3, 72–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Michel, J.S.; Kotrba, L.M.; Mitchelson, J.K.; Clark, M.A.; Baltes, B.B. Antecedents of work-family conflict: A meta-analytic review. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 689–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Silva, I.S.; Gonçalves, E.; Costa, D. Conflito Trabalho-Família: Contributos para a sua caracterização e gestão. Rev. E-Psi 2020, 9, 56–78. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhang, S.; Moeckel, R.; Moreno, A.T.; Shuai, B.; Gao, J. A work-life conflict perspective on telework. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 141, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brotheridge, C.M.; Lee, R.T. Impact of work-family interference on general well-being: A replication and extension. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2005, 12, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Voydanoff, P.; Donnelly, B.W. Incorporating community into work and family research: A review of basic relationships. Hum. Relat. 2001, 54, 1609–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barnett, R.C.; Hyde, J.S. Women, man, work and family. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 781–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Buffardi, L.C.; Smith, J.I.; O’brien, A.S.; Erdwins, C.J. The impact of dependent care responsability and gender on work attitudes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1999, 4, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Frone, M.R. Work-family balance. In Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology; Quick, J., Tetrick, L., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 143–162. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gajendran, R.S.; Harrison, D.A. The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown About Telecommuting: Meta-Analysis of Psychological Mediators and Individual Consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1524–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jostell, D.; Hemlin, S. After hours teleworking and boundary management: Effects on work-family conflict. Work 2018, 60, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Amstad, F.T.; Meier, L.L.; Fasel, U.; Elfering, A.; Semmer, N.K. A Meta-Analysis of Work-Family Conflict and Various Outcomes with a Special Emphasis on Cross-Domain Versus Matching-Domain Relations. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2011, 16, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hammer, L.B.; Sanchez, D.L. Quality of work-life. In Encyclopedia of Industrial/Organizational Psychology; Rogelberg, S.G., Ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 651–652. [Google Scholar]
  18. Walton, R.E. Quality of Work Life: What is it? Camb. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1973, 15, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  19. Duarte, A.P. Corporate Social Responsibility from an Employees’ Perspective: Contributes for Understanding Job Attitudes. Ph.D. Thesis, ISCTE-IUL, Lisboa, Portugal, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  20. Comissão das Comunidades Europeias. Livro Verde: Promover um Quadro Europeu Para a Responsabilidade Social das Empresas; CCE: Bruxelas, Belgium, 2001; Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/committees/empl/20020416/doc05a_pt.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2021).
  21. Comissão das Comunidades Europeias. Responsabilidade Social das Empresas: Um Contributo Para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável; CCE: Bruxelas, Belgium, 2002; Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/committees/empl/20021111/com(2002)347_PT.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2021).
  22. Garfield, E. Use of Journal Citation Reports and Journal Performance Indicators in measuring short and long-term journal impact. Croat. Med. J. 2000, 41, 368–374. [Google Scholar]
  23. Reyes, G.L.; Gonzalez, C.N.B.; Veloso, F. Using co-authorship and citation analysis to identify research groups: A new way to assess performance. Scientometrics 2016, 108, 1171–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lind, G. The meaning and measure of revisited moral competence: A model of the double aspect of moral competence. Crit. Reflex. Psychol. 2000, 13, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Scott, J. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, 2nd ed.; SAGE: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, 19th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kato, T.; Kodama, N. The effect of corporate social responsibility on gender diversity in the workplace: Econometric evidence from Japan. Br. J. Ind. Rel. 2018, 56, 99–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Parcel, T.L. Work and family in the 21st century. Work Occup. 1999, 26, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carponi, P.J. Work/life balance: You can’t get there from here. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1997, 33, 46–56. [Google Scholar]
  30. Haddock, S.A.; Zimmerman, T.S.; Ziembra, S.J. Ten adaptive strategies for family and work balance: Advice from successful families. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 2001, 27, 445–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kiecolt, K.J. Satisfation with work and family life: No evidence of a cultural reversal. J. Marriage Fam. 2003, 65, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sheehan, C.; Tham, T.L.; Holland, P.; Cooper, B. Psychological contract fulfilment, engagement and nurse professional turnover intention. Int. J. Manpow. 2019, 40, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Riforgiate, S.E.; Kramer, M.W. The nonprofit assimilation process and work-life balance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sorribes, J.; Celma, D.; Martínez-Garcia, E. Sustainable human resources management in crisis contexts: Interaction of socially responsible labour practices for the wellbeing of employees. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 936–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Więcek-Janka, E.; Jaźwińska, D. Quality of life, sustainable development and social responsibility of business in the qualitological aspect. In Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance; Mulej, M., O’Sullivan, G., Štrukelj, T., Eds.; Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 2, pp. 143–167, CORRETO. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sellmaier, C.; Buckingham, S.R. ‘I think sometimes that dads are kind of forgotten (…) so it’s nice that we also get a voice’: Work-life experiences of employed U.S. fathers caring for a child with special health care needs. Community Work Fam. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peikert, M.L.; Inhestern, L.; Krauth, K.A.; Escherich, G.; Rutkowski, S.; Kandels, D.; Bergelt, C. Returning to daily life: A qualitative interview study on parents of childhood cancer survivors in Germany. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e033730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jones, R.D.; Miller, J.; Vitous, C.A.; Krenz, C.; Brady, K.T.; Brown, A.J.; Jagsi, R. From stigma to validation: A qualitative assessment of a novel national program to improve retention of physician-scientists with caregiving responsibilities. J. Women’s Health 2020, 29, 1547–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Höltge, J.; Theron, L.; Jefferies, P.; Ungar, M. Family resilience in a resource-cursed community dependent on the oil and gas industry. Fam. Process 2021, 60, 1453–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tonelli, M.J.; Alcadipani, R. The work of managers. The change that did not occur. J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 10, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  41. Cisternas, C.F.; Navia, A.C. Time in work-life conflict: The case of academic women in managerial universities. Psicoperspectivas 2020, 19, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  42. Darko-Asumadu, D.A.; Sika-Bright, S.; Osei-Tutu, B. The influence of work-life balance on employees’ commitment among bankers in Accra, Ghana. Afr. J. Soc. Work. 2018, 8, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yerkes, M.A.; Hoogenboom, M.; Javornik, J. Where’s the community in community, work and family? A community-based capabilities approach. Community Work Fam. 2020, 23, 516–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jang, S.; Ardichvili, A. The role of HRD in CSR and sustainability: A content analysis of corporate responsibility reports. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2020, 44, 549–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mehta, C.M.; Arnett, J.J.; Palmer, C.G.; Nelson, L.J. Established adulthood: A new conception of ages 30 to 45. Am. Psychol. 2020, 75, 431–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Asante Boadi, E.; He, Z.; Bosompem, J.; Opata, C.N.; Boadi, E.K. Employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its effects on internal outcomes. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 611–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ghashghaeizadeh, N. Designing and development model for improving the quality of work life of faculty members. Iran Occup. Health 2020, 17, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  48. Baral, R. Comparing the situation and person-based predictors of work–family conflict among married working professionals in India. Equal. Divers. Incl. 2020, 39, 479–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Duffy, A. Identities, academic cultures, and relationship intersections: Postsecondary dance educators’ lived experiences pursuing tenure. Res. Dance Educ. 2020, 21, 188–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gálvez, A.; Tirado, F.; Martínez, M.J. Work-life balance, organizations and social sustainability: Analyzing female telework in Spain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kim, H.; Rhou, Y.; Topcuoglu, E.; Gug Kim, Y. Why hotel employees care about corporate social responsibility (CSR): Using need satisfaction theory. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Akter, K.; Ali, M.; Chang, A. Work–life programmes and organisational outcomes: The role of the human resource system. Pers. Rev. 2020, 49, 516–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chaudhry, H.J.; Kirch, D.G.; Nasca, T.J.; Katsufrakis, P.J.; McMahon, G.T.; Shannon, S.C.; Ciccone, A.L. Navigating tumultuous change in the medical profession: The coalition for physician accountability. Acad. Med. 2019, 94, 1103–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kumari, G.S. Managing work-family boundary-the link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2019, 28, 1610–1619. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rezaee, R.; Shoaahaghighi, P.; Bordbar, N.; Tavani, K.; Ravangard, R. Factors affecting the family physicians’ intention to leave the job: A case of Iran. Open Public Health J. 2019, 12, 482–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Albinsson, G.; Arnesson, K. The managerial position in a Swedish municipal organization: Possibilities and limitations. Econ. Ind. Democr. 2018, 39, 500–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Darrough, M.; Kim, H.; Zur, E. The impact of corporate welfare policy on firm-level productivity: Evidence from unemployment insurance. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 159, 795–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tomaselli, G. Corporate family responsibility as a driver for entrepreneurial success. In Responsible People; Farache, F., Grigore, G., Stancu, A., McQueen, D., Eds.; Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 39–63. [Google Scholar]
  59. Short, B.; Lambeth, L.; David, M.; Ryall, M.; Hood, C.; Pahalawatta, U.; Dawson, A. An immersive orientation programme to improve medical student integration and well-being. Clin. Teach. 2019, 16, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ibrahim, D.; Sabariah, K.Y.; Yussof, K.M.; Sarjono, F.; Tibok, R.P. An exploratory analysis of the life-cycle influence on lecturers’ management of work and life. Int. Bus. Manag. 2016, 10, 3290–3294. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kobayashi, K.; Eweje, G.; Tappin, D. Employee wellbeing and human sustainability: Perspectives of managers in large Japanese corporations. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ferri, L.M.; Pedrini, M.; Riva, E. The impact of different supports on work-family conflict. Empl. Relat. 2018, 40, 903–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yang, J.W.; Suh, C.; Lee, C.K.; Son, B.C. The work-life balance and psychosocial well-being of south Korean workers. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 30, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Amutha, R. Work life balance among IT industry-an empirical study. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2018, 9, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. García, P.O.; Cosimi, L. Part-time work of women in Spain and Italy: The weakening of the rule of stable employment. Rev. Del Minist. Empl. Segur. Soc. MEYSS 2017, 131, 35–54. [Google Scholar]
  66. Arney, J.; Weitz, R. Gendering affective disorders in direct-to-consumer advertisements. Res. Sociol. Health Care 2012, 30, 161–180. [Google Scholar]
  67. Marcinkus, W.C.; Gordon, J.R.; Whelan-Berry, K.S. The relationship of social support to the work-family balance and work outcomes of midlife women. Women Manag. Rev. 2007, 22, 86–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sar, S.; Mohanty, A.K.; Kar, S.K.; Dash, M. The impact of formal and informal organizational support on work life spillover: A study of IT sector. Int. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. Res. 2017, 15, 375–387. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tanwar, K.; Prasad, A. Employer brand scale development and validation: A second-order factor approach. Pers. Rev. 2017, 46, 389–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fernandes, R.B.; Martins, B.S.; Caixeta, R.P.; Da Costa Filho, C.G.; Braga, G.A.; Antonialli, L.M. Quality of work life: An evaluation of Walton model with analysis of structural equations. Espacios 2017, 38, 5. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang, Y.; Straub, C.; Kusyk, S. Making a life or making a living? Cross-cultural comparisons of business students’ work and life values in Canada and France. Cross Cult. Manag. 2007, 14, 174–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Medrado, L.; Jackson, L.A. Corporate nonfinancial disclosures: An illuminating look at the corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting practices of hospitality and tourism firms. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2016, 16, 116–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Singhapakdi, A.; Lee, D.; Sirgy, M.J.; Senasu, K. The impact of incongruity between an organization’s CSR orientation and its employees’ CSR orientation on employees’ quality of work life. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Senasu, K.; Virakul, B. The effects of perceived CSR and implemented CSR on job-related outcomes: An HR perspective. J. East-West Bus. 2015, 21, 41–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Arndt, A.D.; Singhapakdi, A.; Tam, V. Consumers as employees: The impact of social responsibility on quality of work life among Australian engineers. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Smith, F.L.M.; Dougherty, D.S. Revealing a master narrative: Discourses of retirement throughout the working life cycle. Manag. Commun. Q. 2012, 26, 453–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bonab, M.B.; Ebrahimpour, D.; Ghorbani, A. Quality of work life and family functioning in faculty members of Islamic Azad university. Life Sci. J. 2013, 10 (Suppl. S2), 105–113. [Google Scholar]
  78. Eikeland, T.B. Emergent trust and work life relationships: How to approach the relational moment of trust. Nord. J. Work. Life Stud. 2015, 5, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ellmer, A.; dos Santos, A.J.; Batiz, E.C. Analysis of the quality of life and quality of life at work between teachers, aiming at personal and professional satisfaction. Espacios 2016, 37, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  80. Annink, A.; Den Dulk, L.; Amorós, J. Different strokes for different folks? the impact of heterogeneity in work characteristics and country contexts on work-life balance among the self-employed. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2016, 22, 880–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Stewart, L.M. Family care responsibilities and employment: Exploring the impact of type of family care on work-family and family-work conflict. J. Fam. Issues 2013, 34, 113–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Still, M.C. Family responsibilities discrimination and the new institutionalism: The interactive process through which legal and social factors produce institutional change. Hastings Law J. 2008, 59, 1491–1515. [Google Scholar]
  83. Dauphin, S. The familialism of the French family policy: Social order and gendered order. An. Univ. Bucur. Stiinte Politice 2015, 17, 35–53. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kim, M.; Windsor, C. Resilience and work-life balance in first-line nurse manager. Asian Nurs. Res. 2015, 9, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Timossi, L.S.; Moreira, M.B.; Krinski, K.; dos Santos Junior, G.; de Francisco, A.C. Effect and relationship between quality of life and quality of life in the work through the use of the multivaried analysis. Espacios 2015, 36, 7. [Google Scholar]
  86. McCrea, R.; Boreham, P.; Ferguson, M. Reducing work-to-life interference in the public service: The importance of participative management as mediated by other work attributes. J. Sociol. 2011, 47, 313–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jang, S.J.; Park, R.; Zippay, A. The interaction effects of scheduling control and work-life balance programs on job satisfaction and mental health. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 2011, 20, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Taylor-Gooby, P. New social risks in postindustrial society: Some evidence on responses to active labour market policies from Eurobarometer. Int. Soc. Secur. Rev. 2004, 57, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dean, H. Tipping the balance: The problematic nature of work-life balance in a low-income neighborhood. J. Soc. Policy 2007, 36, 519–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Morgan, G.; Smircich, L. The case for qualitative research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1980, 5, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Campos-Strobino, M.R.; Teixeira, R.M. Empreendedorismo feminino e o conflito trabalho- família: Estudo de multicasos no setor de comércio de material de construção da cidade de Curitiba. Rev. Adm. 2014, 49, 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  92. Silva, A.B.; Rossetto, C.R. Os conflitos entre a prática gerencial e as relações em família: Uma abordagem complexa e multidimensional. Rev. Adm. Contemp. 2010, 14, 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Beech, H.H.; Sutton, A.; Cheatham, L. Parenting, privilege, and pandemic: From surviving to thriving as a mother in the academy. Qual. Soc. Work 2021, 20, 625–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Lafferty, A.; Phillips, D.; Dowling-Hetherington, L.; Fahy, M.; Moloney, B.; Duffy, C.; Kroll, T. Colliding worlds: Family carers’ experiences of balancing work and care in Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Soc. Care Community 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Friedman, S.D.; Greenhaus, J.H. Work and Family—Allies or Enemies? What Happens When Business Professionals Confront Life Choices; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  96. Grzywacz, J.G. Work-family spillover and health during midlife: Is managing conflict everything? Am. J. Health Promot. 2000, 14, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ruderman, M.N.; Ohlott, J.P.; Panzer, K.; King, S.N. Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 369–386. [Google Scholar]
  98. Wayne, J.; Musisca, N.; Fleeson, W. Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the Big Five to work-family conflict and facilitation. J. Vocat. Behav. 2004, 64, 108–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shein, J.; Chen, C.P. Work-Family Enrichment: A Research of Positive Transfer; Sense Publishers: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 03091 g001 550
Figure 1. Method for selecting the articles for analysis. Source: own elaboration.
Figure 1. Method for selecting the articles for analysis. Source: own elaboration.
Sustainability 14 03091 g001
Sustainability 14 03091 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of articles included in the study, over 54 years.
Figure 2. Number of articles included in the study, over 54 years.
Sustainability 14 03091 g002
Sustainability 14 03091 g003 550
Figure 3. Number of articles coming from the Work-Life dimension, focusing on the work-family relationship.
Figure 3. Number of articles coming from the Work-Life dimension, focusing on the work-family relationship.
Sustainability 14 03091 g003
Sustainability 14 03091 g004 550
Figure 4. Top 10 of 333 articles, countries with the highest number of publications.
Figure 4. Top 10 of 333 articles, countries with the highest number of publications.
Sustainability 14 03091 g004
Sustainability 14 03091 g005 550
Figure 5. Evolution of the number of citations of articles per year (all 333 articles included).
Figure 5. Evolution of the number of citations of articles per year (all 333 articles included).
Sustainability 14 03091 g005
Sustainability 14 03091 g006 550
Figure 6. Main research areas (all 333 articles included).
Figure 6. Main research areas (all 333 articles included).
Sustainability 14 03091 g006
Sustainability 14 03091 g007 550
Figure 7. Cooperation network based on co-authorship between authors.
Figure 7. Cooperation network based on co-authorship between authors.
Sustainability 14 03091 g007
Sustainability 14 03091 g008 550
Figure 8. Network of cooperation between institutions based on co-authorship (all 333 articles included).
Figure 8. Network of cooperation between institutions based on co-authorship (all 333 articles included).
Sustainability 14 03091 g008
Sustainability 14 03091 g009 550
Figure 9. Network of cooperation between countries based on co-authorship.
Figure 9. Network of cooperation between countries based on co-authorship.
Sustainability 14 03091 g009
Sustainability 14 03091 g010 550
Figure 10. Network of keywords based on co-occurrence (all 333 articles included).
Figure 10. Network of keywords based on co-occurrence (all 333 articles included).
Sustainability 14 03091 g010
Table
Table 1. Ten journals that published the most on the topic and their impact factor (all 333 articles included).
Table 1. Ten journals that published the most on the topic and their impact factor (all 333 articles included).
Source TitlePublicationsImpact Factor
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 35.66
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 44.54
Journal Of Business Ethics 44.14
International Journal of Human Resource Management 53.04
Sustainability Switzerland 42.57
BMJ Open 32.49
Employee Relations 32.31
Community Work and Family 51.47
Gender Place and Culture 41.18
Gender In Management 41.05
Human Resource Management International Digest 40.31
Source: own elaboration.
Table
Table 2. Main authors and keywords.
Table 2. Main authors and keywords.
AuthorAffiliationLocationLast Article *No. of Citations *Main Keywords
Halfer D.Children’s Memorial HospitalUSA2006159Responsibility, work-life
Vuontisjärvi T.(n.a.)Finland2006125European union; Finland; HR reporting; Human resource management; Social reporting
Flammer C.Boston UniversityUSA2017110Adverse behavior; corporate social responsibility; employee engagement; employee governance; unemployment insurance
McDowell L.University of OxfordEngland200597Childcare; Gendered moral rationalities; Narratives of care; Work-life balance
Rehman S.Superior University Pakistan201293Cultural norms; Gender; Islamic society; Pakistan; Social values; Women entrepreneurs; Work-life balance
Casper W.J.University of Texas at ArlingtonUSA200789Equity theory; Fairness; Family-friendly; Singles; Work-family; Work-life
Strand R.(n.a.)USA198384(n.a.)
Cooke F.L.Monash UniversityAustralia201880Asia; context; corporate social responsibility; international HRM; multinational company; work-life balance
Parkes L.P.Macquarie UniversityAustralia200876Employee engagement; Organizational climate; Retention; Social responsibility; Work-life balance
Armstrong D.J.University of ArkansasUSA200776Causal mapping; Cognition; Gender and information technology; Glass ceiling; Turnover; Work-family conflict
Source: own elaboration. Legend: * = in this research topic.
Table
Table 3. Main institutions and keywords.
Table 3. Main institutions and keywords.
InstitutionLocationMain Keywords
University of MichiganUSACorporate social responsibility; Ethical leadership; Pro-environmental behavior; Quality of work-life; Values
University of ColoradoUSACOVID-19 pandemic; domestic and academic responsibilities; female academics; gender roles
Washington University School of MedicineUSACorporate social responsibility; employee corporate identification; employee performance; employee quality of work life; employee work motivation
University of North Carolina School of MedicineUSACorporate Social Responsibility; IT sector; Organization Performance; Quality of work-life
Medical University of South CarolinUSAOrganizational role; Work-family conflict
University of CaliforniaUSACareers; Family life; Gender; Leadership; Oman; Success
University of MichiganUSAFamily work conflict; Migrant academics; Migration; Work life conflict; Work life integration
Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineUSACorporate social responsibility; Employees; Work-family conflict
Yale School of MedicineUSACapabilities; corporate social responsibility; Expatriation; family; international assignment; stakeholder; well-being; work-life relationship
Medical College of WisconsinUSACrisis; Employment; Gender; Part time
Source: own elaboration.
Table
Table 4. Clusters of countries.
Table 4. Clusters of countries.
Cluster NumberColourCluster Name *Locations
1RedIndiaAustria, India, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
2GreenUnited StatesAustralia, Germany, South Korea, Switzerland, United States
3Dark blueUnited KingdomChina, Ghana, Pakistan, United Kingdom
4YellowJapanFinland, France, Japan
5PurpleMalaysiaBelgium, Malaysia, Vietnam
6Light blueSpainIreland, Portugal, Spain
7OrangeItalyBrazil, Italy, Turkey
8BrownCanadaCanada, South Africa
Source: own elaboration. Legend: * = concerning this research topic.
Table
Table 5. Clusters of keywords.
Table 5. Clusters of keywords.
Cluster Number *ColourCluster Name **Main Keywords
1RedPolicyFamily life, gender diversity, human resource management, job satisfaction, leadership, policy, work-family balance
2GreenBurnoutBurnout, family policy, organizational culture, stress, well-being, work and family
3Dark blueCorporate social responsibilityCorporate social responsibility, employee engagement, employees, millennials, work-family conflict
4YellowWork-life balanceCOVID-19, employment, paternity leave, women empowerment, work-life balance
5PurpleFamilyFamily, gender equality, responsibility, women, work-life balance
6Light blueQuality of work-lifeOrganizational commitment, quality of work-life, social support, work-life conflict
7OrangeSustainabilityManagement, sustainability, sustainable development
8BrownWorkSocial policy, work, young workers
Legend: (*) concerning this research topic.; (**): main keyword. Source: own elaboration.
Table
Table 6. Quantitative analysis of the dimensions and sub-dimensions, according to Walton (1973), found in the studies.
Table 6. Quantitative analysis of the dimensions and sub-dimensions, according to Walton (1973), found in the studies.
DimensionsQWL Sub DimensionsNo. of ArticlesFrequency (%)
Social integration in work organizationSocial support5115.2
Absence of prejudice
Conditions for interpersonal openness
Social mobility facilities
Egalitarianism
Opportunity to use and develop human capacitiesAutonomy298.71
Executing Complete Tasks
Work planning
Quality and quantity of information
Multiple use of skill
Safe and healthy working conditionsPhysical conditions4212.61
Schedule
Age limits for employment
Constitutionalism in workEqual treatment329.61
Free expression
Possibility of appeal
Privacy
Work and total life space 8024.02
Time with family
Overtime hours
Adequate and fair compensationAdequate195.71
Fair
Career opportunittiesStability in employment or income4012.01
Incentives/investments in courses
Opportunity to continue studies
Opportunity to expand work
Social relevance of work-lifeSocial relevance of work4012.01
Source: own elaboration.
Table
Table 7. Authors belonging to the Work and living space dimension (Walton, 1973), focusing on the work-family relationship.
Table 7. Authors belonging to the Work and living space dimension (Walton, 1973), focusing on the work-family relationship.
DimensionQuant. of ArticlesAuthor (Year)
Work and living space80Riforgiate & Kramer, 2021; Beech, Sutton & Cheatham, 2021; Sorribes, Celma & Martínez-Garcia, 2021; Donoso, Valderrama & LaBrenz, 2021; Więcek-Janka & Jaźwińska, 2021; Sperling, 2021; Lafferty et al., 2021; Sellmaier & Buckingham, 2021; Höltge et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2020; Cisternas & Navia, 2020; Yerkes, Hoogenboom & Javornik, 2020; Jang & Ardichvili, 2020; Asante et al., 2020; Ghashghaeizadeh, 2020; Baral, 2020; Duffy, 2020; G-lvez, Tirado & Mart-nez, 2020; Mehta et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Peikert et al., 2020; Akter, Ali & Chang, 2020; Chikapa, 2020; Guillén, 2020; Kumari, 2019; Darrough, Kim & Zur, 2019; Dutta, 2019; John Britto & Magesh, 2019; Kim & Nam, 2019; Tomaselli, 2019; Sudarshan, Chockalingam & Velmurugan, 2019; Nevins & Hamouda, 2019; Short et al., 2019; Wardani & Anwar, 2019; Rezaee et al., 2019; Kobayashi, Eweje & Tappin, 2018; Ferri, Pedrini & Riva, 2018; Sherwood, Kelly & Bugallo, 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Amutha, 2018; Bernstein & Valentini, 2017; Mehta & Leng, 2017; Subramaniam, Ibrahim & Maniam, 2017; Menna & Lago, 2017; [No author name available 3], 2017; García & Cosimi, 2017; Sar et al., 2017; Sasmoko, et al., 2017; Fernandes et al., 2017; Ciarini, 2016; Medrado & Jackson, 2016; Saltmarsh, 2016; Annink, Den Dulk & Amorós, 2016; Ellmer, dos Santos & Batiz, 2016; Kim & Windsor, 2015; Senasu & Virakul, 2015; Makhbul & Sheikh Khairuddin, 2014; Poerio, 2013; Bonab, Ebrahimpour & Ghorbani, 2013; Tarver, 2013; Stewart, 2013; AlSharif, Kruger & Tennant, 2012; Lai-Ching & Kam-Wah, 2012; Arney & Weitz, 2012; McCrea, Boreham & Ferguson, 2011; [No author name available 6], 2011; Solomon, 2011; Jang, Park & Zippay, 2011; Al-Bdour, Nasruddin & Lin, 2010; Buys & Terblenche, 2009; Roth & Moore, 2009; Bull, 2009; Schwanen & de Jong, 2008; Root & Wooten, 2008; Parkes & Langford, 2008; Dean, 2007; Pryjmachuk & Richards, 2007; Vuontisjärvi, 2006; Baldock & Hadlow, 2004; Taylor-Gooby, 2004.
Source: Own elaboration.
Table
Table 8. Relationship between CSR and work-life.
Table 8. Relationship between CSR and work-life.
Authors (Year)Work-Life Relations and the Context of Social Responsibility and Sustainability
Kato & Kodama, 1999; Dauphin, 2015; Kim, M.; Windsor, 2015; Timossi et al., 2015It values team performance, pleasant work environments with a predominance of open communications to match the work-family needs of employees, combined with personal resilience.
Carponi, 1997; Parcel, 1999; Haddock, Zimmerman & Ziembra, 2001; Smith & Dougherty, 2012; Bonab et al., 2013; Eikeland, 2015; Ellmer et al., 2016; Kiecolt, 2019; Sheehan et al., 2019Studies the relationship between personal life and work life. Time allocation for each institution and the strategies families employ to fulfill their obligations at work and at home.
Singhapakdi et al., 2015; Arndt et al., 2015; Senasu & Virakul, 2015; Riforgiate & Kramer, 2021Checks employee retention, compensation and commitment to the organization and the balance with personal life.
Morgan & Smircich, 1980; Taylor-Gooby, 2004; Dean, 2007; Sar et al., 2017; Tanwar & Prasad, 2017; Darko-Asumadu et al., 2018; Yerkes et al., 2020; Jang & Ardichvili, 2020; Mehta et al., 2020; Sorribes, Celma & Martínez-Garcia, 2021Analyzes the effects of the interaction between different work practices of socially responsible human resource management on employee well-being variables (job satisfaction, work stress, and trust in management) as a way to reduce absenteeism, low turnover rates, and increase productivity.
Medrado & Jackson, 2016; Więcek-Janka & Jaźwińska, 2021It presents, based on the analysis of sustainable development indicators, aspects of the quality of life to be complemented with new indicators related to the well-being of the human somatic sphere.
Marcinkus et al., 2007; Arney & Weitz, 2012; García & Cosimi, 2017; Peikert et al., 2020; Sellmaier & Buckingham, 2021Strategic decision-making in job selection by workers; flex-time employment.
Ibrahim et al., 2016; Albinsson & Arnesson, 2018; Chaudhry et al., 2019; Darrough, Kim, & Zur, 2019; Rezaei et al., 2019; Short et al., 2019; Kumari 2019; Tomaselli, 2019; Jones et al., 2020; Addresses the need for institutional leaders to implement programs and policies that can promote awareness and normalization of the challenges in the work-family relationship in the context of worker health.
Tonelli & Alcadipani, 2004; Zhanget al., 2007; Fernandes et al., 2017; Cisternas & Navia, 2020; Höltge et al., 2021Points out a never-ending cycle of work-life balance, hours worked and income instability, fair compensation throughout the economic cycle.
Asante et al., 2020; Ghashghaeizadeh, 2020; Kim et al., 2020; Akter, Ali & Chang, 2020Checks the relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and its effects on internal corporate outcomes.
Silva & Rossetto, 2010; Campos-Strobino & Teixeira, 2014; Amutha, 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Baral, 2020; Duffy, 2020Examines the relative power of situational factors in organizations versus personal in predicting the work-family relationship.
Gálvez, Tirado & Martínez, 2020Analyzes telecommuting as a policy tool within organizations that drives or hinders the development of social sustainability.
Kobayashi et al., 2018; Ferri, Pedrini & Riva, 2018Analyzes meritocracy versus gender equality as a CSR strategy.
Still, 2008; Stewart, 2013; Annink et al., 2016Self-employment as a way to combine work and responsibilities in other areas of personal life.
McCrea et al., 2011; Jang et al., 2011Checks the reflexes of participative management between employees and organizations.
Source: own elaboration.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marôco, A.L.; Nogueira, F.; Gonçalves, S.P.; Marques, I.C.P. Work-Family Interface in the Context of Social Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053091

AMA Style

Marôco AL, Nogueira F, Gonçalves SP, Marques ICP. Work-Family Interface in the Context of Social Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(5):3091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053091

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marôco, Ana Lúcia, Fernanda Nogueira, Sónia P. Gonçalves, and Isabel C. P. Marques. 2022. "Work-Family Interface in the Context of Social Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 14, no. 5: 3091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053091

APA Style

Marôco, A. L., Nogueira, F., Gonçalves, S. P., & Marques, I. C. P. (2022). Work-Family Interface in the Context of Social Responsibility: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 14(5), 3091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053091

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop