Author
Listed:
- Susana Dias
- Sílvia Luís
- Bernardo Cruz
Abstract
Purpose - This study aims to explore prevailing perceptions and practices related to well-being indexes within organizations, using the Better Life Index (BLI) as an example. Design/methodology/approach - This investigation consists of two surveys in Portugal. Study 1 (N = 311) explores public perceptions of well-being in business and its relationship with socio-demographic factors. Results show a highly positive attitude toward organizational well-being, with a preference for companies prioritizing well-being over higher salaries. Study 2 (N = 62) shifts focus to business characteristics linked to the intention of implementing well-being indexes and examines the impact of Study 1 findings on organizational representatives’ responses. Findings - The findings reveal a positive and statistically significant correlation between the intention to adopt well-being indexes and both company size and sector. The dissemination of Study 1’s results acted as a catalyst for organizational representatives, motivating them to adopt well-being indexes. Research limitations/implications - This research marks an initial step in incorporating well-being indexes in organizational settings. Future research should focus on identifying organizational factors that could hinder or encourage the adoption of well-being indexes. Practical implications - The results contribute to understanding which factors might be relevant when deciding whether and how to measure well-being at organizations. Originality/value - This study highlights the potential effectiveness of these indexes in promoting well-being within organizations, while also examining the feasibility of using the BLI to assess the impact of businesses on various well-being dimensions.
Suggested Citation
Susana Dias & Sílvia Luís & Bernardo Cruz, 2024.
"Measuring well-being at organizational context: exploring the Better Life Index as a measurement tool,"
Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(6), pages 1041-1055, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:srjpps:srj-07-2023-0375
DOI: 10.1108/SRJ-07-2023-0375
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:srjpps:srj-07-2023-0375. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.