The inclusion of enterprise community involvement in workplace wellbeing instruments: a scoping review

1 Introduction

In the past two decades, there has been increasing interest in promoting workplace wellbeing (WWB), a holistic sense of physical and mental wellness, as a means of fostering population health. For instance, the European Union's Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2021–2027 sets binding priorities for member states to address psychosocial risks and emerging work patterns (European Commission (EC), 2021); the UK's Health and Safety Executive Management Standards provide a risk-assessment approach targeting key stressors (Health Safety Executive, 2019); New Zealand's Health and Safety at Work Act explicitly includes mental health in the duty of care (Lovelock, 2019); and Japan's Stress Check System mandates annual psychological assessments for employees in large firms (Kawakami and Tsutsumi, 2016). These examples highlight a growing recognition that worker wellbeing is a public health priority.

WWB is widely acknowledged as a multidimensional construct shaped by a wide range of internal and external factors. The Healthy Workplace Framework from the World Health Organization (WHO) (see Figure 1) outlines four distinct but overlapping avenues of WWB: physical work environment, psychosocial environment, personal health resources, and enterprise community involvement (ECI) (World Health Organization and Burton, 2010). ECI refers to an organization's voluntary actions and policies that support the wellbeing of the communities in which it operates. ECI is a specific, measurable concept that directly targets community wellbeing (World Health Organization and Burton, 2010). Although the focus of this review is ECI, as defined by the WHO framework, the literature on ECI uses various synonyms. The most widely used and influential term related to ECI is corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, other terms including enterprise community engagement, enterprise community participation, and organizational contributions to the community are also used and tend to convey the idea of active community involvement more directly. Additionally, organizational and occupational contexts are critical contributors to ECI. For example, primary care providers, community service sectors, and community-based enterprises are inherently connected to ECI, even when the research on these sectors does not explicitly use such terminology.

A growing body of evidence links ECI to workplace wellbeing. Community-oriented initiatives create value alignment (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Kotler and Lee, 2008), enhance meaning (Berg et al., 2013), foster engagement (Kim and Kim, 2021), and improve job satisfaction and morale (Lee et al., 2023). Such initiatives have been associated with better quality of working life and higher life satisfaction in sectors such as hospitality (Kim et al., 2018) and healthcare (Ahmad et al., 2023). ECI can also promote teamwork (Kluijtmans et al., 2024), strengthen social connections (Grant, 2007), relieve stress (Kim and Stoner, 2008), and reinforce pride and fulfillment (Bhattacharya et al., 2009), all of which have been linked to higher wellbeing and job satisfaction. Additionally, employees in healthcare and community-based organizations may experience higher wellbeing because of ECI activities (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). The effects of ECI may also operate indirectly to improve WWB. Drawing on Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, worker wellbeing can also be indirectly enhanced via family-to-work processes and positive spillovers (Bolt and Homer, 2024). Lastly, enhance organizational commitment (Turker, 2009) and reputation, which may help attract and retain talent who value social responsibility (Brammer et al., 2007). Thus, ECI represents a strategic practice with substantial implications for enhancing WWB.

Although widely used WWB instruments such as the Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1985), the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967), and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2003) commonly include internal factors like compensation, organizational culture, and interpersonal relationships, ECI has not been explicitly acknowledged as a separate component of WWB in these instruments. As the relationship between workplaces and their surrounding communities is increasingly recognized as an important driver of WWB (De Neve et al., 2018; Krekel et al., 2019), it is important to examine ECI in current WWB measurement instruments.

1.1 Conceptual definitions

1.1.1 Workplace wellbeing instruments

In this review, a WWB instrument is defined as any self-reported scale or questionnaire that is designed to capture employees' perceptions of physical, psychosocial or other work-related factors that may theoretically affect their quality of life. Numerous scales have been developed to measure workplace wellbeing, but they differ substantially in their focus. Some scales concentrate on individual aspects of worker wellbeing, such as job satisfaction and emotional states [e.g., Affective Wellbeing at Work scale, (Daniels, 2000)]. Others assess factors that are closely related to wellbeing, including burnout or work stress [e.g., Maslach et al. (2018)]. A further group of scales measures potential sources of wellbeing in the workplace, that is, organizational conditions or practices that are likely to promote employees' wellbeing such as supportive supervision, fair compensation, [e.g., Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1985)]. Finally, a few comprehensive measures go beyond individual wellbeing to assess organizational climate, workplace practices, and even aspects of employees' mental and physical health [e.g., Employee Wellbeing scale (Zheng et al., 2015)]. With the above broad understanding, any such self-reported scale, questionnaire, or survey developed to measure one or more dimensions of workplace wellbeing that was not occupation-specific was considered a WWB instrument in this review.

1.1.2 Enterprise community involvement

Enterprise Community Involvement (ECI) encompasses the voluntary steps and policies an organization takes to foster wellbeing within the communities it serves. The WHO defines ECI as “the activities, expertise, and other resources an enterprise engages in or provides to the social and physical community or communities in which it operates; and which affect the physical and mental health, safety and wellbeing of workers and their families” (World Health Organization and Burton, 2010). Examples of ECI actions provided in the WHO report include providing health care to workers and their families, instituting gender-equality policies, implementing voluntary pollution controls, employing workers with disabilities, and supporting community infrastructure.

ECI theoretically differs from several related constructs including Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) which broadly encompasses ethical internal practices (e.g., fair wages, working conditions) and external actions such as upholding fair trade, sustainability initiatives and philanthropy (European Commission, 2001; Nobbs, 2004). However, ECI is a subset of CSR focused exclusively on external community actions with a direct or indirect health impact on workers and their families. Internal CSR practices (e.g., fair compensation) are not part of ECI unless they target the community (e.g., provision of family health benefits or hiring of disadvantaged populations).

ECI also differs from Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG), an investment and reporting framework that evaluates corporate sustainability performance across environmental, social, and governance dimensions (Seow, 2025). Although ECI aligns closely with the “social” and, in some cases, the “environmental” dimensions of ESG, ECI is narrower because it implies a direct connection to the health and wellbeing of workers and/or their families (Lakin and Scheubel, 2017).

ECI is also distinct from Ethical Climate (EC), which refers to the shared perceptions of ethical behavior within an organization (Victor and Cullen, 1988). Only items that explicitly address community-oriented actions (e.g., human rights, fair treatment, non-discrimination) are considered to be ECI, as these policies extend beyond the workplace into community equity.

Finally ECI differs from Work-Family Facilitation (WFF), which is defined as the bidirectional beneficial effects between work and family domains of a worker's life (Wayne et al., 2007). The WHO explicitly lists “lack of access to primary health care for workers and their families” as a community issue and providing “free or affordable primary health care to workers, including access for family members” as an enterprise action. Therefore, policies such as childcare support, flextime, and family health benefits may be considered components of ECI when they are explicitly designed to support workers' families and community wellbeing. However, the effects of family on work outcomes, or the effects of individual work behaviors on family outcomes, are not included within the scope of ECI.

1.2 Conceptual gap

Despite the WHO's assertion that ECI is a critical area of healthy workplaces, it remains unclear whether existing WWB instruments adequately capture this domain. Reviews of worker wellbeing measures suggest that most validated WWB instruments focus primarily on internal factors (e.g. work stress, compensation, job satisfaction) and often overlook how an organization's community-facing activities affect employee wellbeing (Schulte et al., 2015; Jarden et al., 2023). This oversight may limit the effectiveness of current assessments and inhibit the development of comprehensive WWB strategies. This review therefore addresses three questions below:

1.3 Research questions

• To what extent do existing WWB instruments operationalize ECI? (i.e., the proportion of instruments that contain at least one ECI-related item).
• How is ECI concretely measured (what subthemes and item types appear in instruments)?
• What gaps remain for future ECI scale development?

This scoping review thereby aims to examine systematically the representation of ECI in published WWB instruments. As an exploratory mapping exercise, we do not claim to provide empirical validation or a definitive measurement tool. Rather, we offer a descriptive synthesis that can inform future hypothesis-driven research and scale development.

2 Methods

2.1 Study selection

This scoping review was conducted to map the inclusion of ECI-related items in existing WWB instruments. The methodology followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews; (Munn et al., 2018)]. The review framework was based on Arksey and O'malley (2005) six-stage approach: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting studies, charting the data, collating and summarizing results, and optional consultation. All review decisions were finalized through author consensus. The review protocol was not registered in a public registry, as registration of scoping reviews is not universally required; however, the detailed methods are reported transparently below.

2.2 Literature search

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across six databases: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), EBSCOhost (Business Source Complete), Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar. The full electronic search strategies for each database, including MeSH terms, keywords, Boolean operators, and wildcard characters, are provided as a Supplementary material containing the number of records retrieved from each database before duplicate removal. The complete search strings are reproducible and have been made available in Supplementary material. The search period covered publications from 1960 to 2022; this timeframe was chosen to capture the emergence of modern WWB instruments (starting with the Job Descriptive Index in the 1960s) and to include the rise of corporate social responsibility concepts. Boolean operators and wildcard characters were used to combine MeSH terms and keywords related to WWB and ECI. Gray literature from the WHO and International Labor Organization websites was also screened using “workplace” and “wellbeing” terms. The detailed search strategy and keyword combinations are presented in Appendix A.

2.3 Data analysis

References were managed using EndNote X9 (The EndNote Team, 2013), and duplicates were removed prior to title and abstract screening. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, resolving discrepancies through consensus. Studies were excluded if they were: (a) occupation-specific; (b) not developed by trained researchers; (c) intended for non-industrialized settings (e.g., agrarian occupations); or (d) focused on cultural or religious factors that limited generalizability to broader occupational contexts. Studies examining work-related personality traits were also excluded as tangential. Systematic or scoping reviews were excluded; however, their reference lists were used to identify additional primary studies. After excluding articles without full-text access, full-text screening was conducted on the remaining 1,176 articles. Duplicate instruments were removed, leaving 886 unique WWB instruments for review (see PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 2). Instruments were eligible for inclusion if they measured aspects of WWB in general occupational settings. For each included instrument, we extracted data on instrument name, item content, reported psychometric properties (reliability and validity), and publication year. Data extraction was conducted by one author and verified by a second, with any disagreements resolved by consensus.

2.3.1 Proportion estimation

Data were summarized using descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages). The proportion of instruments containing ECI was calculated as the number of instruments with at least one ECI item divided by the total number of instruments screened (886). This approach avoids double-counting multiple items within the same instrument.

2.3.2 Quality assessment

Consistent with scoping review methodology, a formal quality assessment (e.g., risk of bias) of the included instruments was not performed. The primary aim was to map the extent and nature of ECI coverage, not to critically appraise study quality. However, we noted whether psychometric data (e.g., Cronbach's alpha, factor loadings) were reported, particularly for ECI-relevant items.

2.3.3 ECI operationalization and subtheme mapping

This review included instruments containing any ECI-related content, based upon the WHO's Avenues for Healthy Workplaces definition of ECI (World Health Organization and Burton, 2010). ECI included organizational actions (beyond statutory/regulatory compliance) that have benefits directed toward the community. The community can include the workers' families, the local community or society at large. The WHO framework recognizes that organizations exist within communities and are both affected by and have an effect on those communities. These ECI activities therefore use the organization's expertise and resources to benefit the physical and social environment, which in turn influences the health, safety and wellbeing of the workforce and their families (World Health Organization and Burton, 2010). In this way, ECI actively extends the organization's efforts beyond the workplace to improve the health of workers, their families and other members of the community. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify and organize ECI-related items into subthemes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Two coders independently coded the items, and disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. Items were classified according to their primary beneficiary or focus using predefined keyword-based decision rules (see Appendix B, Table 2 for the full coding framework). The two coders achieved over 95% percentage agreement. Remaining discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus among the research team. Formal chance-corrected inter-rater reliability statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa) were not calculated because the coding exercise was intended to facilitate exploratory framework development rather than to establish a stable coding instrument.

3 Results

3.1 Representation of ECI in WWB instruments and temporal trends (RQ1)

The PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 2) summarizes the study selection process. Of 1,176 full-text reports assessed, 531 were excluded (see Figure 2 for reasons), leaving 645 studies. After removing duplicates across instruments (n = 144), 501 records with 886 unique WWB instruments remained. ECI is overwhelmingly absent from existing WWB instruments: only 13 out of the 886 included instruments (1.5%) contained an ECI-related item. As shown in Figure 3, the trend analysis of included studies showed that the inclusion of ECI-related items was absent before 2000. They emerged after 2000, coinciding with mainstreaming of CSR concepts, and accelerated after 2020, reflecting limited but growing interest.

3.2 Operationalization of ECI: subthemes and item types (RQ2)

Among the 13 instruments containing ECI items, we inductively derived four subthemes (Figure 4; see Table 1 for a complete list of included instruments, example items, and subtheme mapping). Coverage of ECI subthemes was uneven (see Table 2). Employee-Family Wellbeing was the most common subtheme, appearing in 6 instruments (46.2% of the ECI-containing instruments), alongside Eco-Friendly CSR, which also appeared in 6 instruments (46.2%). Societal Philanthropy was present in 5 instruments (38.5%), while Protection of Vulnerable Groups was the least frequently observed, appearing in 3 instruments (23.1%). ECI items were typically embedded within broader CSR, ethical climate, human resource practices, or work-life scales rather than presented as standalone ECI subscales. Because of the small sample size, these subthemes should be interpreted as descriptive categories derived from the available literature, not as a statistically validated factor structure. The two coders agreed on over 95% of items during the subtheme mapping process.

Table 1. Characteristics of included instruments (n = 13).

Table 2. Summary of ECI subtheme coverage across included instruments (n = 13).

Some instruments contributed items to more than one subtheme; therefore, the sum of percentages exceeds 100%.

3.2.1 Employee-family wellbeing

This subtheme was one of the two most frequently represented. It assesses organizational policies and benefits that indirectly enhance the wellbeing of employees and their families. Representative items include access to onsite childcare, flextime, flexible scheduling (Rothbard et al., 2005; Premeaux et al., 2007), supportive human resources practices and work-life support (Rose and Raja, 2016), and work-life balance items from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (Eaton et al., 2018). These items were classified under ECI because they extend benefits beyond the individual worker to the family unit, which the WHO considers part of the community (World Health Organization and Burton, 2010). Items that only affected the worker's own schedule or work-life boundary for purely individual convenience were not counted as ECI.

3.2.2 Eco-friendly CSR

This subtheme was also highly represented. It captures the integration of social and environmental responsibility, sustainable operations, quality, and safety into an organization's core strategy. Illustrative items include organizational commitments to being environmentally responsible (Langford, 2009) and environmental protection initiatives in hospitality and manufacturing CSR scales (Zhu et al., 2014; Zientara et al., 2015; Schwepker et al., 2021).

3.2.3 Societal philanthropy

This subtheme had moderate coverage and embodied organizational activities of philanthropy and non-maleficence directed toward the external community. It reflects direct external giving and visible CSR actions aimed at improving societal wellbeing and preventing harm. Examples include philanthropic responsibility items on donations, sponsorships, support for non-profits, and community aid in the scales by Zhu et al. (2014), and Zientara et al. (2015), the discretionary CSR dimension in Chan and Hasan (2019), and social responsibility perceptions and community volunteering participation in Langford (2009) and Sinha (2017). University or community-driven outreach initiatives reported in Chan and Hasan (2019) also fall within this subtheme.

3.2.4 Protection of vulnerable groups

This subtheme had the lowest level of coverage. It focuses on organizational policies that promote diversity, inclusion, and protection of rights for employees from underrepresented backgrounds. Although less frequent, these items serve as equity safeguards. Examples include human rights items in Chan and Hasan (2019) ethical CSR dimension and fair treatment indicators from Corporate Social Responsibility Scale by Schaufeli et al. (2003).

3.3 ECI scale development gaps (RQ3)

Psychometric data for the ECI-relevant items were rarely reported. Among the 13 instruments that contained ECI-related items, only one (7.7%) reported subscale reliability for its ECI content (Cronbach's α = 0.72–0.89). In contrast, many included studies simply reported reliability (α ≥ 0.70) and validity for the overall scales in which ECI items were embedded. For example, Langford (2009) confirmed the factor structure of the broader climate measure with loadings exceeding 0.5 for work practice items (including “organization is environmentally responsible” and “organization is socially responsible”). Similarly, Schwepker et al. (2021) reported good internal reliability values > 0.70 for their CSR scale but the ECI-related items themselves were never isolated for psychometric testing. No instrument contained a standalone ECI subscale with separate psychometric validation. None of the studies provided construct, criterion, or test-retest validity evidence for ECI items as an independent dimension. These gaps collectively indicate that ECI is not yet operationalized as a distinct, measurable construct within workplace wellbeing instruments.

4 Discussion

4.1 Principal findings

This scoping review provides the first systematic mapping of Enterprise Community Involvement (ECI) within WWB measurement instruments. Despite the WHO's recognition of ECI as one of the Four Avenues of Healthy Workplaces, the near-absence of ECI from WWB instruments indicates that these measures have largely failed to operationalize this domain. This absence means that current WWB assessments are systematically biased toward internal working conditions (e.g., job demands, social support) and overlook how an organization's community-oriented activities (e.g., social philanthropy) affect employee wellbeing. Our findings suggest that organizations lack the ability to comprehensively evaluate the impact of their community involvement on employee outcomes—for example, whether eco-friendly programs enhance employee pride and engagement. ECI items were typically embedded within broader CSR, ethical, or human resource scales. There was little psychometric validation of ECI-related items, and this may further obscure ECI's distinct impact on worker wellbeing. These findings reveal a substantial measurement gap that limits organizations' ability to assess and leverage community involvement for employee wellbeing. Since organizations lack validated tools to evaluate the impact of their ECI actions on worker outcomes, the evidence base on workplace wellbeing may be incomplete.

Among the four subthemes identified in this study, Employee-Family Wellbeing and Eco-Friendly CSR were the most frequently represented in existing ECI instruments, each appearing in nearly half of the included ECI-containing instruments. This is likely because family-friendly policies (e.g., childcare, flexible work) are directly linked to employee retention and satisfaction, outcomes that organizations have strong incentives to measure. Similarly, the high visibility of environmental movements and growing regulatory and consumer pressure may explain why Eco-Friendly CSR appears more often than the remaining ECI dimensions. In contrast, Societal Philanthropy and Protection of Vulnerable Groups were less common. Societal Philanthropy may be perceived as more relevant to consumer perceptions of the organization and thereby only measured in marketing surveys. Moreover, philanthropy may be perceived by organizations as having only an indirect effect on workers' wellbeing compared with policies that directly benefit employees (e.g., family support). Equity protection, while important for inclusion and psychological safety, may be seen as relevant only to a minority of workers and is often measured through general human resource climate surveys rather than through dedicated ECI items. Consequently, both subthemes remain under-operationalized in existing WWB instruments.

4.2 Framework purposes and theoretical contributions

Our four-subtheme framework derived from this scoping review serves two preliminary purposes. First, it provides a descriptive taxonomy for classifying existing ECI items. Although this taxonomy is not empirically validated, at a descriptive level it synthesizes existing ECI items into a coherent organizational scheme. This synthesis may help researchers conceptualize ECI as multidimensional; the framework's four tentative dimensions (Societal Philanthropy, Eco-Friendly CSR, Employee-Family Wellbeing, and Protection of Vulnerable Groups) can facilitate future confirmatory research of existing scales. Specifically, it can facilitate the development and revision of ECI scales with concept elicitation studies according to the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) guidelines (Mokkink, 2018). Concept elicitation studies aim to ensure item relevance and scale comprehensiveness. Such studies typically identify relevant content from focus groups or semi-structured interviews with individuals from the target population. By offering a preliminary taxonomy of ECI subthemes and illustrative items, our framework can facilitate the preparation of semi-structured interview guides. Of the five phases of semi-structured interview guide development proposed by (Kallio et al. 2016), the second phase (retrieving and using previous knowledge) may be especially difficult for ECI researchers, as previous knowledge is fragmented in the literature and adopts different terminologies. Our framework directly addresses this challenge by synthesizing existing knowledge into a coherent, accessible structure. Second, the four-subtheme framework provides a basis for future ECI scale development and may be used by researchers developing new ECI instruments to test factorial validity.

The four-subtheme framework proposed in this review has several theoretical implications. First, it suggests that ECI is not a unidimensional construct but may comprise distinct but related dimensions that could have differential effects on employee wellbeing. For instance, Employee-Family Wellbeing policies may directly reduce work-family conflict, while Eco-Friendly CSR may enhance employee pride and organizational identification through value congruence. Societal Philanthropy may foster a sense of purpose and meaning, whereas Protection of Vulnerable Groups may promote psychological safety and inclusion. Future research should test whether these dimensions have unique or overlapping relationships with employee wellbeing outcomes.

Second, the framework aligns with and extends Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989). ECI activities may function as organizational resources that employees can draw upon to enhance their own wellbeing, both directly (through pride and meaning) and indirectly (through family spillover effects). The Employee-Family Wellbeing subtheme, for example, reflects organizational investment in family resources, which may reduce resource depletion and enhance work-family enrichment (Bolt and Homer, 2024). This suggests that ECI may operate through resource-gain pathways that are not yet fully understood.

Third, the framework highlights the importance of distinguishing ECI from broader CSR. While CSR encompasses a wide range of internal and external ethical practices, ECI is narrower and focused on community-oriented actions that directly or indirectly affect worker wellbeing. This distinction is not merely semantic: it has practical implications for instrument development and for organizations seeking to measure and improve ECI specifically. Without this distinction, organizations may mistakenly assume that measuring general CSR perceptions adequately captures ECI, potentially missing important mechanisms that affect employee wellbeing.

4.3 Psychometric considerations

Most instruments captured in this study reported psychometric data for overall CSR, ethical climate, or human resource constructs, but did not provide separate reliability or validity data for ECI-related item subsets. For instance, scales measuring family-friendly policies and human resource practices often reported satisfactory overall internal consistency but did not isolate ECI-type items for subscale analysis. Taken together, this limits the understanding of how specific ECI mechanisms, rather than general CSR or human resource climate, relate to outcomes such as engagement, burnout, or retention. Also, the lack of psychometric testing of ECI-related items raises the possibility that these items may not adequately capture the full domain of ECI. For example, single items such as “this organization is socially responsible” and “this organization is environmentally responsible” load strongly on an ethics factor in Langford's survey (Langford, 2009) but require refinement for multi-item approaches. Single-item indicators are generally considered less reliable and less sensitive than multi-item subscales (Langford, 2009; Jarden et al., 2023). Recent psychometric work comparing short and long wellbeing measures demonstrated that ultra-brief or single-item scales tend to demonstrate weaker convergent validity and reduced explanatory power than multi-item scales (Jarden et al., 2023). Developing ECI-specific subscales with demonstrated reliability, factorial validity, and criterion validity is therefore essential for testing the distinct pathways suggested by the four-subtheme framework.

An examination of psychometric properties of ECI items reveals substantial validity concerns. First, no study provided evidence of construct validity (convergent or discriminant) for the ECI-relevant items as a separate subscale. It is therefore unknown whether the items actually measure ECI rather than general CSR perceptions or ethical climate. Second, single-item indicators suffer from content validity limitations because a single item cannot capture the multifaceted nature of ECI. Third, there is a complete absence of criterion-related validity evidence; no study examined whether ECI scores predicted theoretically relevant outcomes (e.g., employee retention, organizational pride, turnover intentions). Fourth, the risk of construct underrepresentation is high. Although the four subthemes have face validity, they may not exhaust the domain of ECI. Consequently, these subthemes should undergo rigorous psychometric validation before being used for organizational decision-making (e.g., benchmarking, funding allocations). These validity gaps reinforce the need for dedicated ECI scale development efforts that follow established guidelines for instrument development [e.g., COSMIN; (Mokkink, 2018)].

4.4 Study limitations

While an extensive and systematic approach was used in this review, several limitations must be acknowledged. Our search was limited to published English-language studies and gray literature, which excluded instruments from non-Western and non-English-speaking contexts. Furthermore, this study only included WWB instruments that were not occupation-specific, potentially limiting generalizability.

The small number of ECI-containing instruments (n = 13) limits the robustness of the subtheme framework. The subthemes derived here are descriptive and should not be interpreted as a validated factor structure. Although the two independent coders achieved high percentage agreement (95%) and resolved discrepancies through discussion, formal chance-corrected inter-rater reliability statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa) were not calculated. Percentage agreement does not account for chance agreement; however, this was a deliberate choice given the exploratory nature of the coding exercise.

Our finding that only 1.5% of instruments contain ECI items may be underestimated due to publication bias, as journals may be more likely to publish instruments with good psychometric properties, while instruments with limited validation may remain unpublished. Additionally, we did not assess the risk of bias or methodological quality of the included studies, consistent with scoping review methodology. This means we cannot determine whether the absence of ECI items reflects true conceptual gaps or limitations in study design and reporting.

This review was an exploratory mapping exercise and therefore does not provide empirical validation of the proposed subthemes, nor does it test causal relationships. The framework's utility is preliminary and should be treated as hypothesis-generating for future research. However, these limitations do not undermine the core conclusion that ECI is an under-measured dimension of workplace wellbeing.

4.5 Practical implications

With caution, organizations may use the ECI framework as a heuristic to review whether their current workplace wellbeing metrics touch on any of the uncovered ECI subthemes. Such an exercise can help organizations position themselves as active partners in community wellbeing, support social sustainability initiatives, and better align with the WHO's Four Avenues of Healthy Workplaces. Using the four-subtheme framework reported in this study as an initial conceptual guide, we recommend an exploratory approach for organizations seeking to implement ECI measurement. From a review of existing surveys uncovered in this study, organizations may adopt items from various instruments, contextualized to their setting. For example, organizations might pilot items drawing directly on the WHO's Healthy Workplace Framework (e.g., “My company takes voluntary action to reduce its environmental pollution” for Eco-Friendly CSR). If subthemes uncovered in this study do not adequately measure areas of ECI considered important for the organization, organizations should add ECI items after identifying these gaps. Formal psychometric testing should be considered in their own context before implementing workplace policies.

4.6 Future research directions

By highlighting the near-absence of ECI from validated WWB instruments, our review calls for more attention to this “neglected” avenue of employee wellbeing and advocates for reaching consensus on ECI-related terminologies. Consistent use of terms such as Societal Philanthropy, Eco-Friendly CSR, Employee-Family Wellbeing, and Protection of Vulnerable Groups would facilitate future research synthesis and scale development. The framework derived in this study provides a foundation for future research and scale development. Researchers should test the stability of this framework through independent coding exercises on different datasets with greater quantification. To expand on this study's findings, future reviews should include non-English databases and explore unpublished sources to assess the robustness of the findings with cross-cultural validation of subtheme salience in non-Western contexts. Further studies should validate ECI subscales for each subtheme across sectors, testing reliability, factorial validity, and criterion validity against outcomes such as turnover intention, engagement, and job satisfaction, preferably with longitudinal study designs. Due to the evolving nature of workplace practices, an update of this scoping review may be needed in the future.

To address the validity gaps identified in this review, future research should follow a phased approach to ECI scale development. Phase 1 should involve concept elicitation studies using qualitative methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews, focus groups) with employees across diverse sectors to identify what constitutes meaningful community involvement from the worker perspective. Phase 2 should involve item generation and content validity assessment using expert panels and cognitive interviewing. Phase 3 should involve psychometric testing, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to test the factor structure of the four subthemes, reliability testing (internal consistency, test-retest), and criterion-related validity testing against outcomes such as engagement, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction. Cross-cultural validation studies are also essential to assess whether the four-subtheme framework holds across different cultural and occupational contexts. Finally, future research should examine whether ECI has incremental validity beyond general CSR or ethical climate perceptions, that is, whether ECI explains unique variance in employee wellbeing outcomes not accounted for by existing constructs.

Consistent with Arksey and O'malley (2005) optional consultation stage, stakeholder input was not formally sought. However, the research team included both academic and practitioner perspectives, which informed the interpretation of findings and the development of the subtheme framework. Future research could benefit from engaging employees, HR practitioners, and community organization representatives to refine and validate the proposed subthemes.

4.7 Conclusion

This scoping review demonstrates that Enterprise Community Involvement is a theoretically recognized yet empirically neglected dimension of workplace wellbeing assessments. Few existing WWB instruments contain any ECI-related items, and coverage is heavily skewed toward employee-family wellbeing and Eco-Friendly CSR. To address this gap, we propose a four-subtheme measurement framework that provides a conceptual and practical foundation for integrating community involvement into comprehensive WWB assessment. Future research should treat the subthemes as testable hypotheses and subject them to rigorous empirical validation (e.g., confirmatory factor analysis, reliability testing and cross-cultural validation) before any practical application.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/forgp.2026.1883866/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Francesco Pace, University of Palermo, Italy

Reviewed by: Zuahib Nishtar, China Three Gorges University, China

Uttam Golder, Jashore University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh