Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Perspectives in Work Disability Prevention and Return to Work: Toward a Common Vocabulary for Analyzing Stakeholders’ Actions and Interactions

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many studies have emphasized the importance of medical, insurance, and workplace systems treating individuals fairly in work disability prevention (WDP) and return-to-work (RTW). However, ethical theories and perspectives from these different systems are rarely discussed in relation to each other, even though in practice these systems constantly interact. This paper explores ethical theories and perspectives that may apply to the WDP–RTW field, and discusses these in relation to perspectives attributed to dominant stakeholders in this field, and to potential differences in different jurisdictional contexts. Literature was sought primarily in biomedical ethics, business ethics, and public administration ethics. In biomedical ethics, four ethical principles are dominant: autonomy, beneficence, nonmalevolence, and justice. Business ethics involve theories on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), social contracts, and organizational justice. Public administration ethics focus on constitutional theory, citizenship, social equity, virtue, and public interest. Several concepts were identified as relevant for ethical analyses in the WDP–RTW field, including justice; individual autonomy; nonmalevolence; economic and social responsibility; and social contracts. These concepts provide a vocabulary that may be used to analyze stakeholders’ actions and interactions in RTW processes. It was also noted how the power balance between stakeholders will influence which ethical perspectives will influence RTW. Jurisdictional differences that influence RTW processes with regard to stakeholder responsibilities were identified, as well as varying beliefs as to who is the client in different compensation systems. A social contractual approach may inform an analysis of cultural and legal differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CSR:

Corporate social responsibility

ISCT:

Integrative social contract theory

RTW:

Return-to-work

WDP:

Work disability prevention

References

  • Anema, J. R., Schellart, A. J. M., Cassidy, J. D., Loisel, P., Veerman, T. J., & van der Beek, A. J. (2009). Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(4), 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baïada-Hirèche, L., Pasquero, J., & Chanlat, J. F. (2011). Managerial responsibility as negotiated order: A social construction perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(SUPP 1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Simon, J. (2002). Embracing risk: The changing culture of insurance and responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, J. M. T., Fukukawa, K., & Gray, E. R. (2007). The nature and management of ethical corporate identity: A commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, L. A., & Markel, K. S. (2009). Ethical fairness and human rights: The treatment of employees with psychiatric disabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baril, R., Clarke, J., Friesen, M., Stock, S., & Cole, D. (2003). Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Social Science and Medicine, 57(11), 2101–2114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, C. R. (2012). Professional ethical standards: The journey toward effective codes of ethics. In N. P. Reilly, M. J. Sirgy, & C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work and quality of life: Ethical practices in organizations. Radford: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N. (2003). “Publics” administration and the ethics of particularity. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 525–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bültmann, U., Sherson, D., Olsen, J., Hansen, C. L., Lund, T., & Kilsgaard, J. (2009). Coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(1), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons (July/August): 39–48.

  • Christensen, T., & Laegrid, P. (2011). Ethics and administrative reforms. Public Management Review, 13(3), 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, T. (2004). Big questions in administrative ethics: A need for focused, collaborative effort. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, W. E. L., Brenninkmeijer, V., & Zuidam, W. (2004). Long-term disability arrangements: A comparative study of assessments and quality control. Hoofddorp: TNO Work and Employment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, S. (2008). Thinking ethically in business. Penrith: Humanities-Ebooks, LLP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eakin, J. M., MacEachen, E., Mansfield, E., & Clarke, J. (2009). The logic of practice: An ethnographic study of front-line service work with small businesses in Ontario’s Workplace safety and insurance board. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fooks, G., Gilmore, A., Collin, J., Holden, C., & Lee, K. (2013). The limits of corporate social responsibility: Techniques of neutralization, stakeholder management and political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R-L., Baril, R., Shaw, W., Nicholas, M., & Loisel, P. (2005a). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: Optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 525–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R-L., Cullen, K., Clarke, J., Irvin, E., Sinclair, S., Frank, J., et al. (2005b). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: A systematic review of the quantitative literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 607–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R-L., Severin, C. N., Lee, H., Hogg-Johnson, S., Hepburn, C. G., Vidmar, M., et al. (2009). Perceived justice of compensation process for return-to-work: development and validation of a scale. Psychological Injury and Law, 2(3), 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, K. W. (2002). Ethics and evidence-based medicine: Fallibility and responsibility in clinical science. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gravel, S., Vissandjée, B., Lippel, K., Brodeur, J-M., Patry, L., & Champagne, F. (2010). Ethics and the compensation of immigrant workers for work-related injuries and illnesses. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 12(5), 707–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. M. (2011). Ethics in health services and policy: A global approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. M. (2010). Self-regulation, corporate social responsibility, and the business case: Do they work in achieving workplace equality and safety? Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 585–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, C. G., Franche, R-L., & Francis, L. (2010a). Successful return to work: The role of fairness and workplace-based strategies. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 3(1), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, C. G., Kelloway, E. K., & Franche, R-L. (2010b). Early employer response to workplace injury: What injured workers perceive as fair and why these perceptions matter. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 409–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrisone-Kelly, P. (2011). Determining the common morality’s norms in the sixth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(10), 584–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khushf, G. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of bioethics: Taking stock of the field from a philosophical perspective. Hingham: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, D. J. (2007). The four principles of biomedical ethics: A foundation for current bioethical debate. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, 14, 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinonen, T., Pietiläinen, O., Laaksonen, M., Rahkonen, O., Lahelma, E., & Martikainen, P. (2011). Occupational social class and disability retirement among municipal employees—The contribution of health behaviors and working conditions. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Medicine, 37(6), 464–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindqvist, R. (2003). Vocational rehabilitation between work and welfare—The Swedish experience. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 5(1), 68–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippel, K. (1999). Therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences of workers’ compensation. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(5–6), 521–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippel, K. (2003). Compensation for musculoskeletal disorders in Quebec: Systemic discrimination against women workers? International Journal of Health Services, 33(2), 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippel, K. (2007). Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: A Québec study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4–5), 427–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippel, K. (2012). Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: An international perspective. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 55(6), 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loisel, P. (2009). Developing a new paradigm: Work disability prevention. ICOH Special Issue, pp. 1–5.

  • Loisel, P., Buchbinder, R., Hazard, R., Keller, R., Scheel, I., van Tulder, M., et al. (2005). Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: The challenge of implementing evidence. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundquist, L. (2007). Public administration theory and public administration change. In G. Gjelstrup & E. Sørensen (Eds.), Public administration in transition: Theory, practice, methodology. Copenhagen: DJØF.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacEachen, E., Ferrier, S., Kosny, A., & Chamber, L. (2007). A deliberation on ‘hurt versus harm’ logic in early-return-to-work policy. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 2, 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., Ferrier, S., & Chamber, L. (2010). The “toxic dose” of system problems: Why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., Ferrier, S., Lippel, K., Neilson, C., Franche, R-L., et al. (2012). The ‘ability’ paradigm in vocational rehabilitation: Challenges in an Ontario injured worker retraining program. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, J. M. (2009). Public administration ethics for the 21st century. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G. (2010). Framing globalization and work: A research agenda. Journal of Industrial Relations, 52(1), 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müssener, U., Upmark, M., Festin, K., & Alexanderson, K. (2008). Positive experiences of encounters with healthcare and social insurance professionals among people on long-term sick leave. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40, 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radnor, Z. J., Holweg, M., & Waring, J. (2012). Lean in healthcare: The unfilled promise? Social Science and Medicine, 74(3), 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, N. P., Sirgy, M. J., & Gorman, C. A. (Eds.). (2012). Work and quality of life: Ethical practices in organizations. Springer: Radford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff, J. D. (2009). Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K., & Young, W. (1997). Procedural fairness, return to work, and the decision to dispute in workers’ compensation. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10(3), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts-Yates, C. (2003). The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: The need for new operational frameworks. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(16), 898–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seing, I., Ståhl, C., Nordenfelt, L., Bülow, P., & Ekberg, K. (2012). Policy and practice of work ability: A negotiation of responsibility in organizing return to work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(4), 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ståhl, C., Müssener, U., & Svensson, T. (2012). Implementation of standardized time limits in sickness insurance and return-to-work: Experiences of four actors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(16), 1404–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stensöta, H. O. (2010). The conditions of care: Reframing the debate about public sector ethics. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strunin, L., & Boden, L. I. (2000). Paths of reentry: Employment experiences of injured workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 38(4), 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strunin, L., & Boden, L. I. (2004). The workers’ compensation system: Worker friend of foe? American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45(4), 338–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, T., & Björklund, A. (2010). Focus on health, motivation, and pride: A discussion of three theoretical perspectives on the rehabilitation of sick-listed people. Work, 36, 273–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjulin, Å., MacEachen, E., & Ekberg, K. (2010). Exploring workplace actors experiences of the social organization of return-to-work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 311–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, B. T. (1998). Ethical dilemmas encountered by private sector rehabilitation practitioners. Journal of Rehabilitation, 64(4), 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonk, G. J., & Tollenaar, A. (Eds.). (2010). Social security as a public interest: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the foundations of the regulatory welfare state. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics practices in the mid-1990’s: An empirical study of the fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(3), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerholm, P. (2007). Professional ethics in occupational health—Western European perspectives. Industrial Health, 45(1), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerholm, P., Nilstun, T., & Øvretveit, J. (Eds.). (2004). Practical ethics in occupational health. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. E., Wasiak, R., Roessler, R. T., McPherson, K. M., Anema, J. R., & van Poppel, M. N. M. (2005). Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: Stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 543–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Centre for Work and Rehabilitation, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Christian Ståhl

  2. Institute for Work & Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ellen MacEachen

  3. Canada Research Chair on Occupational Health and Safety Law, Law Faculty, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Katherine Lippel

  4. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ellen MacEachen

Authors
  1. Christian Ståhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellen MacEachen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katherine Lippel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Ståhl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ståhl, C., MacEachen, E. & Lippel, K. Ethical Perspectives in Work Disability Prevention and Return to Work: Toward a Common Vocabulary for Analyzing Stakeholders’ Actions and Interactions. J Bus Ethics 120, 237–250 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1661-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1661-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation