DREAM ITN
Final Deliverable
Yuliya Kuznetsova
Norwegian Social Research Institute (NOVA), Oslo and Akershus University College of
Applied Sciences (HIOA), Norway
Supervisors: Bjørn Hvinden, Head of Research/ Professor
Rune Halvorsen, Researcher
DREAM work package: Towards Economic Independence: Corporate Culture and
Inclusion into the workforce
April, 2015
1
1.
Introduction to Topic & Research Qustions.
“What is your PhD project about?” is the regular question I hear when meeting new people
or talking to my friends. I reply: “It is about employers’ inclusive policies towards persons
with disabilities”. In response, I often hear back: “It is interesting, but it is all about
companies’ image, while in reality…” And I answer: “That is what I am researching about,
and my goal is to know more about it. This is my journey…”
Over the last decade, the policies aimed to enhance employment opportunities for persons
with disabilities have received increasing attention. The initiatives undertaken by employers
to demonstrate their inclusion of persons with disabilities have become more visible. To an
increasing extent, employers demonstrate a commitment to accommodate disability in annual
reports and on the corporate websites, make it part of diversity values and social
responsibility initiatives, and claim non-discrimination and equal treatment in all areas of
employment. Internationally, “best practices” have multiplied, presenting the cases of
inclusive practices towards employees with disabilities (Fembek et al., 2013; ILO, 2010).
However, earlier research suggests a weak relationship between the public statements of
companies and the extent to which these commitments are implemented in practice (Ball et
al., 2005; Hernandez et al., 2000). As reported by OECD (2010), the average employment
rate of persons with disabilities in the late 2000s across OECD countries amounted to just 40
per cent compared to75 per cent for people without disability. Such barriers, as negative
attitudes, prejudices, discrimination still exist in mainstream employment (Chan et al., 2010;
Kaye et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2004). To understand the real situation behind the publicly
demonstrated employers’ commitments, I started this journey in the project called “Towards
economic independence of persons with disabilities: corporate culture and inclusion into the
workforce”. The project is implemented under the DREAM ITN-network at NOVANorwegian Social Research Institute.
2. My Research Journey.
Previous research has described the position of people with disabilities in mainstream
employment as dependency, marginalization and exclusion. Much of this research tended to
focus on the illness and/or functional impairment based on the medical model of disability
(Schur et al., 2013; WHO, 2011). The recognition of the social model of disability initiated
in the UK in 1970s has promoted a new understanding of disability as societal barriers that
restrict persons with disabilities from being active citizens (Oliver, 1996). Therefore, social
2
change and removal of different environmental barriers, including obstacles to access
mainstream employment, were necessary to make society more inclusive towards people
with disabilities.
Influenced by the social model of disability, important legislation and policy initiatives have
emerged to promote social and economic independence of persons with disabilities. On the
European level, the Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC (EC, 2000) established a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation on different grounds
including disability (Hvinden, 2003). On the international level, the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD, 2006) strongly reflects
the social model of disability and empowers persons with disabilities through a new
disability rights paradigm (Harpur, 2012; Waddington, 2009). According to the Article 27 of
the UN CRPD persons with disabilities have the right to work “on equal basis with others in
a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible”.
Following such important policy changes, one might suppose that the strengthened nondiscrimination legislation has the potential to influence employers’ decisions related to
employees with disabilities. However, multiple studies have argued that such legislation has
not contributed greatly to making employers more inclusive. Employers appear to be
unaware of their duties under the law and tend to evade them (Clayton et al., 2011; Gilbride
et al., 2003; Wehman, 2011), and the authorities fail to enforce such duties effectively
(OECD, 2010; Waldschmidt, 2009). Another strand of research considers that community
image and corporate social responsibility can significantly influence organizations’ decisions
to employ persons with disabilities unlike strict legislative requirements (Dobbin et al., 2011;
Samant et al., 2009). Employers are portrayed as “good stewards in the communities”
(Wehman, 2011) that are engaged in socially responsible activities. Klarsfeld et al. (2012)
argue that employers’ voluntary engagement in responsible activities can have positive
effects on organizational outcomes and create a certain competitive advantage. However,
while employers espouse values of equality and diversity, their business values tend to be the
main priority.
The observed discrepancy between publicly espoused values and commitments and the
internal priorities of the enterprises give reasons to look behind the demonstrated facade of
employers. Previous research has argued that espoused values and commitments do not often
signify inclusive behaviours in practice. Instead, Schur et al. (2005; 2009) and Samant et al.
3
(2009) have found that only the corporate culture embodied in organizational structures,
values, attitudes and behaviours is capable to contribute to successful employment and
treatment of persons with disabilities. People with disabilities are likely to do better in
flexible organizations that value diversity, cooperation, helpfulness and employee needs,
than in organizations whose values centre on competitive achievement, individualism, selfreliance and traditional human resources practices (Stone & Colella, 1996). Values and
norms underlying many corporate cultures are reflected in the behaviour of supervisors and
co-workers and may influence the inclusion of employees with disabilities into the workforce
(Schur et al., 2013). Therefore, developing the corporate culture in a more inclusive and
accommodating direction is highly necessary to increase the job opportunities for persons
with disabilities in a corporation (Kaye et al., 2011; Samant et al., 2009; Schur et al., 2005).
So, what kind of journey did it involve to clarify the conditions for development in a more
inclusive and accommodating direction?
- The purpose of the “journey.”
The main purpose of my journey was to get behind the selected “best practices” exhibited by
employers towards employment of persons with disabilities and to re-examine the
mechanisms, which contribute to an inclusive corporate culture in such organizations. My
initial focus was on large enterprise (with more than 250 employees). Such enterprises were
likely to have the financial and human resources, HR-management system, diverse
workforce and vast job opportunities potentially beneficial for inclusion of employees with
disabilities (Ball et al., 2005; Clayton et al., 2011; Houtenville & Kalargyrou, 2012; Kaye et
al., 2011; Newton et al., 2007). Moreover, mainly large enterprises often demonstrated an
espoused commitment to inclusion of persons with disabilities.
My main objective was to clarify the main factors behind such commitment and how broader
global and societal processes relating to employment of persons with disabilities had
translated into employers’ considerations and motivations at different levels within the
enterprise. With a few exceptions (Samant et al., 2009; Sandler & Blanck, 2005; Schur et al.,
2005; Schur et al., 2009), there was a lack of systematic research highlighting the conditions
under which the corporate culture (the shared norms, values, beliefs and behaviours found in
multinational enterprises) contributes to the labour market inclusion and accommodation of
persons with disabilities.
As organizations can be affected by and tend to respond to their external environment
4
(Greenwood, 2007), the companies’ practices may vary in different environments. For this, it
seemed important to analyse whether the same companies behave differently in different
environments and what factors (or conditions) can be more beneficial for their inclusive
practices. Among the conditions that might influence an inclusive corporate culture to
employees with disabilities, the project would primarily consider national legislation and
existing disability policies in the countries where the companies operate. Even though
employers have the prerogative to decide themselves who to hire and fire, governments have
to different degree thought to influence the behaviour of employers through combination of
legal rules, financial incentives and persuasion (Hvinden, 2009).
I selected Norway and the United Kingdom (UK) as a starting point of this journey since
they represent two different disability policy models: the Anglo-American model and the
Scandinavian model. The Anglo-American model is characterized by strict medical
requirements, comparatively low public sickness and disability benefit levels, substantial
employer responsibilities, and significant back-to-work incentives. By contrast, the
Scandinavian model provides generous benefit levels, a strong focus on employment
subsidies and other supports for employers, a high degree of state responsibility and
extensive rehabilitation programmes (OECD, 2003). Following the lead of the US, the UK
earlier and more strongly relied on a non-discrimination strategy, while Norway still adopts a
state-dominated intervention strategy, prioritising programmes for labour market training and
the enhancement of employers’ voluntary commitments to include people outside the labour
market (Hansen et al., 2011; Mandal & Ose, 2013). In the UK there is less tradition of
cooperation between the government and the social partners and a greater belief in flexible,
self-regulated labour markets (Hansen et al., 2011).
In order to implement the research objectives, I focused on multinational enterprises
operating both in the UK and Norway as many positive examples of practices towards
persons with disabilities have been publicised in these countries. For instance, in Norway,
previous research has identified Telenor as a “best practice” example that offers two-year
training to individuals with disabilities who participate in computer and self-development
courses followed by a paid internship (Berg et al., 2012; Kalef et al., 2013; Skøien et al.,
2006). In the UK, Business and Disability Forum joins public and private businesses to
promote “disability-smart organizations”, as stated on their website. For instance,
GlaxoSmithKline publicises its aim to create an inclusive environment where “all of
5
employees, including those with a disability, are empowered and enabled to deliver against
their business goals” (Businessdisabilityforum).
The plan was to recruit enterprises for this research according to such criteria as their
presence in both countries and active involvement in inclusion of persons with disabilities
into the workforce. Recruiting a limited number of cases was intended to allow the
establishment of a trustful relationship with selected enterprises and their personnel. I chose
a comparative case study method to obtain in-depth understanding of the complex social
phenomena (Yin, [1984] 1989). With regard to contextual factors, the plan was to examine
public policy documents. At the organizational (or enterprise) level, the aim was to carry out
most of the data collection undertaken in one or two multinational enterprises. To understand
the real business culture and the processes within and to study the interactions between
disability and corporate culture, qualitative interviews were necessary to get reliable and
valid data (Gummessson, 2000; Schur et al., 2005).
- Change of track: choosing an alternative path.
In order to select and access the companies, we contacted and met with employers’
organizations, NGOs representatives and trade unions in both Norway and the UK. It was
assumed that these organizations might have updated knowledge about their members’
activities and could help establish initial contacts with enterprises. Due to the initial selection
criterion that an enterprise should be represented both in the UK and Norway, we selected
six multinational enterprises for further contact among the ten suggested. We contacted Top
Country Managers and HR & Diversity Leaders in all selected companies in Norway and the
UK with the request to participate in the research. We personally visited those enterprises
that expressed an interest in the proposed research to discuss possible participation. After
several personal meetings in Norway and phone conversations with companies’
representatives in the UK, two large companies agreed to continue collaboration: a
multinational consulting company represented in Norway and a Norwegian multinational
engineering company.
The companies that declined participation explained that they had already given priority to
other similar research, or that they in fact did not prioritise hiring persons with disabilities
but were involved in other activities, for instance providing work training to graduates with
disabilities. The remaining company representatives most often mentioned reasons such as
the nature of work tasks in their company, leadership policies and the low level activity on
6
the part of persons with disabilities themselves (e.g. in terms of applying for jobs and
informing about their disability).
The HR managers at two selected enterprises served as key contacts throughout the research
implementation, who helped to get access beyond the ‘visible level’ and to obtain additional
information, clarifications and further contacts. While we had hoped that the HR managers in
Norway would assist in contacting the representatives of the same enterprises in the UK, in
practice the enterprises in the UK declined to participate in this research. The reasons given
by the first enterprise were connected with an increased number of incoming requests from
interested organizations and students. They claimed that the project would take off too much
time and energy from their daily business operations and that the potential gains of the
project for the company were too uncertain. The company excused itself by referring to other
and earlier projects they had participated in, e.g. regarding gender in the work environment.
Allegedly, the project had not brought them significant internal benefits. In case of the
second company, we managed to get in touch with HR managers in the UK and to conduct
phone interview with one of them. However, they did not consider further participation in the
research project possible, as they could not remember any cases of recruitment of employees
with disabilities, in spite of the company’s non-discrimination and diversity policies. The
additional attempts to find other companies in the UK were also unsuccessful, as the
companies’ representatives were mainly concerned about time burden of the project, sharing
of confidential information, and absence of employees with disabilities in the recruitment
process. In other words, several of the companies considered the research topic irrelevant for
them, to have low priority, or be too sensitive to share with “outsiders”.
For these reasons, the project concentrated mainly on researching the two companies in
Norway. The data about the ‘visible’ levels of the two selected companies was collected
from their corporate websites, annual and CSR reports, introductory interviews with Human
Resources (HR) managers, and personal observations during the first company visits.
Additionally, we analysed the information obtained from personal interviews with employers
organizations, service providers and government representatives in Norway and the UK
undertaken during enterprise selection and as recommended by selected enterprises. To
understand the local context and companies’ practices better, four interviews with
Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) representatives were conducted in
Norway, and five interviews in the UK: one with Business Disability Forum and four with
disability organizations.
7
Despite the espoused commitments and policies on the global level of the selected
enterprises, the information about policies and initiatives towards persons with disabilities in
Norway was retrieved only during personal interviews. To collect the data about the
‘invisible level’ (beyond the public self-presentation) it was necessary to involve the
‘insiders’ who could provide information about the priorities and practices in the
organizations. Altogether, eight interviews were conducted in each company during August
– December 2012 with different company representatives: Top country managers, HR and
diversity managers, Supervisors, Department managers, and regular employees including
employees with disabilities. The semi-structural qualitative interviews focused on discussing
the initiatives undertaken by the companies towards inclusion of persons with disabilities,
the provision of work training, and the experiences of the interviewees with these initiatives.
The interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis or ‘encoding
qualitative information’ (Boyatzis, 1998).
3.
My Formation as a Policy Entrepreneur.
Traditional academic research conducted in academia is usually connected with theories,
models, and techniques that are argued to be far from real institutional knowledge
(Gummesson, 2000, p. 27). Recently, it has become more important for research to produce
practical and applied results that contribute not only to the academic knowledge, but also
bring benefits to all interested parties, such as research participants, industry and
policymakers. The term ‘policy entrepreneurs’ has been used to identify those who promote
significant policy change, including not only people in politics, but also in interest groups or
research organizations (Mintrom & Norman, 2009). In disability research, the influence of
the social model of disability has resulted in increase of research on important social issues
and barriers experienced by persons with disabilities. In contrast to traditional investigatory
approaches, it has become important to produce knowledge with meaningful practical
outcome to disabled people and the policies that effect their lives (Barnes, 2003).
The DREAM Project has provided us as Early Stage Researchers with an opportunity to go
beyond traditional academic setting and to be involved in a more practical research
contributing to the implementation of the UN CRPD and the realization of the disability
rights in different spheres of life. In addition to the academic knowledge, we had a chance to
participate in practical trainings organized by the DREAM network, where we could share
knowledge and get advice from the leading experts, researchers and scholars in disability
8
field. These network events provided us with professional skills necessary for preparing and
conducting our research, as well as writing and presenting research results. Furthermore, we
could discuss and share ideas and experiences related to our own research implementation
amongst themselves, which was highly valuable as each of us was researching about certain
elements of the UN CRPD. In addition to the network events, we could participate in the
secondments or practical internships provided by Associated Partners to the DREAM
Network. While doing practical internship, we could immerse ourselves more deeply into the
practical everyday activities of these organizations and were able to gain important
knowledge and skills necessary both for our research and for future professional
development.
In contrast to the traditional business research based on conducting surveys and collecting
quantitative information, the aim of this “journey” was to find “good examples” that could
demonstrate the undertaken changes and to analyze their corporate cultures. However, such
research is time consuming as it might take several months to create a reasonably open
working relationship with the staff and to gain sufficient insight into the company’s situation
(Gummessson, 2000). As mentioned already, conducting this research made it necessary to
establish good and trustful relationship with the companies and to assure that this research
would benefit them. Moreover, it was important to interview the employees at different
levels in the enterprise including employees with disabilities, if any. Such data would
provide a broader picture of the corporate culture and would allow discussing different
points of view and attitudes.
Despite all the relevant knowledge acquired during DREAM events and assistance of the
research supervisors, it was quite challenging to get into the real business world. The
companies seemed to be overprotective of their internal information and refused to engage in
an unknown research. The employers tried to maintain their public self-image during the
interviews and preferred to share information about successful cases than about the processes
and the factors behind to disclose their real corporate culture.
4.
Tentative Outcomes & Recommendations.
The analysis of the semi-structured personal interviews with selected companies’
representatives in Norway including employees with disabilities has confirmed that in spite
of publicly demonstrated commitments, large employers do not often incorporate these
commitments into practice. From the conducted interviews, we have identified several
9
factors that may possibly contribute to a corporate culture that is more inclusive to
employees with disabilities:
- External factors:
•
Local policies: Increasing employers’ corporate responsibility through
voluntary engagement - the Inclusive Working Life (IA)-agreement in Norway
•
Providing support: governmental support such as advice, training and
financial assistance, as well as recruiting/hiring and training support provided by nongovernmental organizations or other service providers
- Internal factors:
•
Increasing positive experience of the enterprises and co-workers with
inclusion of employees with disabilities
•
Changing attitudes and engaging HR managers, supervisors and co-workers
•
Promoting internal policies to support both recruitment and retention of
employees with disabilities
Among the external factors that affect large employers to be more inclusive, the influence of
the national policies in Norway appear to be stronger, than international and/or European
disability or non-discrimination policies. Even though one of the selected companies adopted
the global disability inclusion strategy, the responsible employees in Norway demonstrated
low awareness about it and considered it not suitable for local application. Both selected
companies associated inclusion of persons with disabilities mainly with the Norwegian IAagreement and interpreted this agreement as a strategy to demonstrate social responsibility.
However, the interviewees expressed low awareness of national non-discrimination
legislation and the UN CRPD.
Both selected companies mentioned support of the Norwegian Labour and Welfare
Administration (NAV) provided under the IA-agreement quite helpful to become inclusive
enterprises. NAV motivates and engages companies in different activities and provides
necessary technical, advisory and financial support. Each employer that signs the IAagreement appoints a special staff member responsible for inclusive activities and
communication with NAV, and whose main responsibilities are often human resources
management. While the selected companies confirmed the importance of NAV’s support,
they did not get people with disabilities for work training, mainly people of older age or
people who have been out of work diagnosed with burnout. The assistance of disability
10
organizations or other service providers was not mentioned as significant in Norway contrary
to our interviews with disability and employers’ organizations from the UK. The selected
companies received requests from disability organization to employ or take for work training
people with disabilities, however it did not result in any subsequent actions, despite the
qualifications of the potential applicants. The focus of disability organizations in Norway,
e.g. The Norwegian Federation of Organizations of Disabled People (FFO), is to a large
extent on negotiating the position of disabled people with the welfare state (Grue, 2009).
Nevertheless, some organizations, like Unge Funksjonshemmede (Young Disabled), provide
a more targeted support to young people with disabilities having launched the special job
search website (Jobbressurs). While the UK has focused on reimbursing the service
providers for the actual employment outcomes (OECD, 2010). As such, local inclusive
policies and different kind of support can potentially positively influence large corporation to
be more inclusive to employees with disabilities. However, the awareness of both employers
and persons with disabilities about the available support and services needs to be increased.
Among internal factors, work training opportunities provided by two selected companies to
people outside the working life were seen as contributing to necessary positive experience
leading to a corporate culture more inclusive to employees with disabilities. However, in the
selected companies, this activity was so far limited and performed only by several
responsible employees, mainly the HR managers. The interviewees tried to sustain
companies’ positive image while enthusiastically presenting success stories rather than
talking about less successful and presentable cases. The absence of the trainees with
disabilities demonstrated still existing prejudices about their capabilities and concerns about
job functions and additional responsibilities. Work training provided by the selected
companies contributed to their image and values, though despite demonstrated potential and
benefits, it did not facilitate an inclusive corporate culture. The focus on selecting only ‘the
right candidates’ and low engagement of supervisors and department managers prevented
companies from accepting trainees with disabilities.
The interviewees from both selected companies recognized the importance of support and
positive attitudes of supervisors and co-workers to establish a more inclusive corporate
culture towards employees with disabilities. However, all the activities were mainly
concentrated in the HR departments performed by the responsible HR managers, as it was
considered more difficult to engage project supervisors and department managers. Moreover,
if the company had employees with disabilities it was claimed to be difficult to involve them
to work directly with customers, and especially if they were to work at the customers’
11
workplace. In this case, team support and provision of necessary accommodation by the
customer appeared to be very important, as discussed by the interviewees.
Even though the selected companies engaged in the IA-agreement, there was an evident
distinction observed between their attitudes and policies towards own employees who
acquired disability or illness, and persons with disabilities as potential employees. The major
focus was on retaining and retraining own employees who acquired disabilities, reducing the
sick leave and preventing burn-out, stress and mental illness of current employees. However,
the recruitment of employees with disabilities was not the main priority in two companies.
There were no specific recruitment guidelines, though the interviewees claimed that if such
candidates applied and demonstrated necessary skills and qualifications, they would
definitely hire them in spite of the disability. This result is in line with the recent Fafo report
(2013) which found that Norwegian employers largely supported a meritocratic system and
focused on formal equality of opportunities in the labour market. While employers did not
necessarily support stereotypes about persons with disabilities as having a reduced working
capacity, they did not give priority to adopt more inclusive recruitment processes and
accommodation procedures.
The main purpose of the present “journey” was to get behind the visibly demonstrated
commitments by employers to be more inclusive and accommodative towards persons with
disabilities. It was quite challenging to get access to the companies, and the support of
employers’ organizations both in Norway and the UK was very helpful. The selected
companies in Norway were interested to participate in this study, provided necessary data
and organized interviews with their employees. Nevertheless, the attempts to approach the
same companies in the UK were not successful, despite the support of the HR managers in
Norway. Employers appear to be concerned about their public image and demonstrate the
most successful practices on their ‘frontstage’, while the ‘backstage’ activities are not always
accessible to the outside researchers. To understand whether certain factors influence
employers to become more inclusive to employees with disabilities, more long-term research
is needed to compare results and to understand the process of change within the companies.
The experiences of the selected companies in Norway can be useful and interesting to
enterprises in Norway or other countries considering to make improvements towards a more
inclusive corporate culture. The obtained results can also bring additional information to
policymakers in Norway and internationally about the implementation of the local
12
employers’ practices and national policies in accordance with the requirement of the UN
CRPD. The results confirm that improving corporate culture is necessary for employers to
become more inclusive to employees with disabilities. However, to create an inclusive
corporate culture, the companies have to pay attention not only to demonstrating their
positive image, but also to establishing clear internal strategies, developing positive attitudes
and increasing awareness of their employees. Stronger cooperation with NAV and disability
organizations can increase the number of persons with disabilities trained or employed, and
the recruitment procedures have to be modified to be more inclusive and open to qualified
employees with disabilities. Moreover, cooperation with other companies that successfully
train and employ persons with disabilities might be quite helpful to develop awareness of
own employees and more positive attitudes to inclusive practices. Further research engaging
more large enterprises and comparing the strategies of different business sectors will bring
more knowledge on this issue.
13
References
Ball, P., Monaco, G., Schmeling, J., Helen, S., & Blanck, P. (2005). Disability as
Diversity in Fortune 100 Companies. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(23), 97121. doi: 10.1002/bsl.629
Barnes, C. (2003). What a Difference a Decade Makes: Reflections on doing
‘emancipatory’ disability research. Disability & Society, 18(1), 3-17.
Berg, B., Thorshaug, K., Garvik, M., Svendson, S., & Øiaas, S. H. (2012). Hvorfor
mangfold? En studie av ulike forståelser og praktisering av mangfold. [Why
diversity? A study of different understandings and practices of diversity]. Trondheim,
Norway: NTNU Samfunnsforskning AS.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information. Thematic Analysis and
Code Development. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Businessdisabilityforum. Retrieved 15 May 2014, from
http://businessdisabilityforum.org.uk/
Chan, F., Strauser, D., Maher, P., Lee, E.-J., Jones, R., & Johnson, E. T. (2010).
Deman-Side Factors Related to Employment of People with Disabilities: A Survey of
Employers in the Midwest Region of the United States. Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation, 20, 412-419.
Clayton, S., Barr, B., Nylen, L., Burström, B., Thielen, K., Diderichsen, F., . . .
Whitehead, M. (2011). Effectiveness of return-to-work interventions for disabled
people: a systematic review of government initiatives focused on changing the
behaviour of employers The European Journal of Public Health, 1-7.
Dobbin, F., Kim, S., & Kalev, A. (2011). You Can't Always Get What You Need:
Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs. American Sociological Review,
76(3), 386-411. doi: 10.1177/0003122411409704
Fembek, M., Butcher, T. H., Heindorf, I., & Wallner-Mikl, C. (2013). Zero Project
Report 2013. Austria: The Essl Foundation.
Gilbride, D., Stensrud, R., Vandergoot, D., & Golden, K. (2003). Identification of the
Characteristics of Work Environment and Employers Open to Hiring and
Accommodating People with Disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(3),
130-137.
Greenwood, R. (2007). Organization Theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Sociology (1 ed., Vol. VII: N-P, pp. 3281-3285). Malden, USA:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
14
Grue, J. (2009). Critical discourse analysis, topoi and mystification: disability policy
documents from a Norwegian NGO. Discourse Studies, 11(3), 305–328.
Gummessson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research (Second
Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Hansen, I. L. S., Andreassen, T. A., & Meager, N. (2011). Employment of disabled
people in Norway and the United Kingdom. Comparing two welfare regimes and
why this is difficult. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 13(2), 119-133.
doi: 10.1080/15017419.2010.481569
Harpur, P. (2012). Embracing the new disability rights paradigm: theimportance of
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disability & Society,
27(1), 1-14.
Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer Attitudes Towards
Workers with Disabilities and their ADA Employment Rights: A Literature Review.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 4-16.
Houtenville, A., & Kalargyrou, V. (2012). People with Disabilities: Employers'
Perspectives on Recruitment Practices, Strategies, and Challenges in Leisure and
Hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 40-52.
Hvinden, B. (2003). The Uncertain Convergence of Disability Policies in Western
Europe. Social Policy & Administration, 37(6), 609-624.
Hvinden, B. (2009). Redistributive and Regulatory Disability Provision:
Incompatibility or Synergy? In G. Quinn & L. Waddington (Eds.), European
Yearbook of Disability Law (pp. 5-27). Antwerp - Oxford - Portland: Intersentia.
ILO. (2010). Disability in the Workplace: Company Practices. Geneva: International
Labour Organization Retrieved from
http://www.businessanddisability.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article
&id=92&Itemid=68&lang=en.
Jobbressurs. Retrieved 15 June 2014, from http://www.jobbressurs.no
Kalef, L., Barrera, M., & Heymann, J. (2013). Developing inclusive employment:
Lessons from Telenor open mind. Work: a Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and
Rehabilitation.
Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011). Why Don’t Employers Hire and
Retain Workers with Disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 526–
536. doi: 10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8
15
Klarsfeld, A., Ng, E., & Tatli, A. (2012). Social regulation and diversity
management: A comparative study of France, Canada and the UK. European Journal
of Industrial Relations, 0(0), 1-19.
Mandal, R., & Ose, S. O. (2013). Social responsibility at company level and inclusion
of disabled persons: the case of Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Disability
Research, 1-21. doi: 10.1080/15017419.2013.814586
Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change. The
Policy Studies Journal, 37(4).
Newton, R., Ormerod, M., & Thomas, P. (2007). Disabled people's experiences in the
workplace environment in England. Equal Opportunities International, 26(6), 610623.
OECD. (2003). Transforming Disability into Ability. Policies to Promote Work and
Income for Disabled People. Paris, France: OECD.
OECD. (2010). Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers. USA Statistical
data. Key Findings and Policy Challenges. : OECD.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding Disability. From theory to practice. USA:
Palgrave.
Samant, D., Soffer, M., Hernandez, B., Adya, M., Akinpelu, O., Levy, J. M., . . .
Blanck, P. (2009). Corporate Culture and Employment of People With Disabilities:
Role of Social Workers and Service Provider Organizations. Journal of Social Work
in Disability & Rehabilitation, 8(3-4), 171-188. doi: 10.1080/15367100903202706
Sandler, L. A., & Blanck, P. (2005). The Quest to Make Accessibility a Corporate
Article of Faith at Microsoft: Case Study of Corporate Culture and Human Resource
Dimensions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 39–64. doi: 10.1002/bsl.625
Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of
persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(1), 3-20. doi:
10.1002/bsl.624
Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2013). People with Disabilities. Sidelined or
Mainstreamed? Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao
Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City: Cambridge University Press.
Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is Disability Disabling in All
Workplaces? Workplace Disparities and Corporate Culture. Industrial Relations,
48(3), 381-410.
Skøien, R., Hem, K.-G., & Tyrmi, G. (2006). Evaluation of the Handicap-programme
at Telenor. In T. Dahl (Ed.). Oslo, Norway: SINTEF.
16
Smith, K., Webber, L., Graffam, J., & Wilson, C. (2004). Employer satisfaction, job
match and future hiring intentions for employees with a disability. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 21, 165-173.
Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of
Disabled Individuals in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 352401.
Svalund, J., & Hansen, I. L. S. (2013). Inkludering av personer med nedsatt
funksjonsevne i arbeidslivet [Including persons with disabilities in employment
(workplace)]. Oslo, Norway: Fafo.
UNCRPD. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Optional Protocol. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=8&pid=150.
Waddington, L. (2009). Breaking New Grounds: The Implication of the Ratification
of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the European
Community. In O. M. Arnardóttir & G. Quinn (Eds.), The UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities. European and Scandinavian Perspectives. (pp.
111-139). Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Waldschmidt, A. (2009). Disability policy of the European Union: The supranational
level. European Journal of Disability Research, 3, 8-23.
Wehman, P. (2011). Employment of persons with disabilities: Where are we now and
where do we need to go? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 145-151.
WHO. (2011). World Report on Disability. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Library
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Yin, R. K. ([1984] 1989). Case Study research. Design and Methods (Vol. 5).
Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
17