Inclusive corporate culture and employment of persons with disabilities: analysis of CSR strategies of multinational enterprises in Norway and the UK Yuliya Kuznetsova PhD student in Social Work, University of Trondheim, Norway Marie Curie Fellow, Disability Rights Expanding Accessible Markets (DREAM) Project NOVA – The Norwegian Social Research Institute, Oslo, Norway [email protected] Hiring persons with disabilities is recognized as a part of the philosophy of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and an essential dimension of the workforce diversity. Increasing labour participation of persons with disabilities and raising CSR among business is important to achieve the ‘inclusive’ growth target of the EU 2020 strategy. Yet, the official employment rates for persons with disabilities still remain low. The paper argues that instead of treating employers as a part of the problem, they should be regarded as a part of the solution to improve the situation and share positive examples. Inclusive practices tend to be observed more in multinational enterprises (MNEs), since those are subjected to CSR policies and possess better resources. The paper examines how MNEs integrate ‘inclusive corporate culture’ in order to employ persons with disabilities as a part of their CSR strategies. The article analyses inclusive corporate cultures and CSR policies of twelve selected MNEs operating in Norway and the UK. The paper is based on the comparative qualitative content analysis of the websites of MNEs and their CSR reports. The selection of the MNEs is based on the results of the discussion meetings with employers’ organizations in Norway and the UK. Key words: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Multinational enterprises (MNEs), disability policies, employment, Norway, UK

1

Introduction This paper considers a relatively new aspect of CSR – employment of persons with disabilities. The main objective of this paper is to conduct an overview of how MNEs incorporate their CSR strategies into ‘inclusive corporate culture’ to address persons with disabilities among their workforce and in communities, where they operate. For a long time persons with disabilities have been regarded as “objects of charity, medical treatment and social protection”, whose rights are discounted by the mainstream society (UN, 2006, Quinn, 2009). The prevailing ‘medical model’ treated disability as an “observable deviation from norms, a medical condition and an individual problem” that isolated persons with disabilities from active participation in the mainstream society (Bickenbach et al., 1999, Harpur, 2012). The paradigm shift has occurred with the anticipation of the ‘social model’ of disability claiming the society as disabling and causing a disability due to a relationship between a person with impairment and this society (Shakespeare, 2004). The social model of disability appeals for society to view ‘disablement’ as a matter of basic civil rights and treat persons with disabilities as a “social minority” (Bickenbach et al., 1999, Olkin, 2002, Harpur, 2012). The adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in 2006 has further strengthened the social model of disability and granted persons with disabilities with a wide spectrum of human rights including the right to employment based on the principles of equal treatment, accessibility and non-discrimination (Waddington, 2009, Harpur, 2012, UN, 2006). Employment is considered one of the important aspects of social inclusion, that is especially important for the employment of persons with disabilities in the mainstream labour market. However, the official unemployment rates for persons with disabilities of working age in most of the developed countries are still reported at least twice low than for those with no disability. According to OECD (2010), in the late 2000s across OECD countries the average employment rates for persons with disabilities comprise just over 40% compared with 75% for people without disability. Europe has recently started to promote active integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market and recognised the active involvement of the business sector (OECD, 2010). For a long time business and industry have been providing sheltered workshops or other segregated forms of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities (Rabby, 1983). Though, involving persons with disabilities in the open labour market has been associated with numerous problems. Previous research has identified prejudiced and negative attitudes of the employers and co-workers, discrimination at the workplace and concerns of employers about high costs, safety, productivity and public image as negatively influencing employment of persons with disabilities (Rabby, 1983, Hernandez et al., 2000). In recent years, business has started incorporating ethical behaviour towards the environment, stakeholders, society, employees and promoting inclusion of the ‘disadvantaged population’. Some scholars, e.g. Trevino and Nelson (2011) explain this behavior as the need of companies to change their overwhelming focus on accumulating profits that negatively affects corporate reputation. Others, like Ramasamy et al. (2010), consider the expansion of companies and increased expectations of varied stakeholders as influencing companies’ responsiveness. In addition, Matten and Moon (2008) see changes in 2

political, cultural and national labour systems as influencing companies decisions to undertake social responsibilities. The new stakeholders’ expectations as well as social performance goals of global and national environments, expand business CSR policies towards embracing diversity, non-discrimination, human rights and employee rights (Holme and Watts, 2000, Idowu and Towler, 2004, Markel and Barclay, 2009). Since persons with disabilities are pronounced equal members of society by international institutions and are recognized as an important group of human diversity who have rights including the right to employment, their integration into employment also becomes a part of the CSR agenda on the international and European levels. Adopting CSR and corporate policies specifically towards inclusion of persons with disabilities has to a greater extent been observed in large corporations and MNEs due to better conditions and resources available to employ diverse workforce and care about the communities, in which they operate (Rabby, 1983, McMahon, 2008). Though some scholars e.g. Hernandez (2000) consider such ‘socially appropriate behaviour’ rather superficial. Previous research has studied CSR policies and corporate culture, as well as challenges experienced either by employers or persons with disabilities, and inclusive diverse environment. However, there is a limited number of practical research studying how companies address inclusion of persons with disabilities into the workforce in their CSR strategies. Accordingly, this paper will particularly address in more details the issue of how large corporations adhere to new social responsibility norms of employment of persons with disabilities and how they adapt their CSR strategies and corporate cultures towards these new requirements. Whether employment of persons with disabilities becomes a part of CSR, and if so, how is it highlighted in companies’ policies and culture? And what are the factors influencing companies undertake these initiatives? The remainder of the paper is structured as following. The first section considers the theoretical background: the meanings of CSR and corporate culture. It also presents brief overview of the global and national CSR guidelines and policies and discusses the inclusion of persons with disabilities as a part of CSR strategies and corporate culture. The second section presents country and company selection overview. The third section describes data analysis of selected MNEs. The forth section discusses findings and limitations and the fifth section presents the conclusion. 1.

Theoretical framework: Employment of persons with disabilities as a part of CSR and ‘inclusive corporate culture’

Corporate culture is argued to positively influence employment of persons with disabilities and expand companies’ corporate social responsibility (Samant et al., 2009, Schur et al., 2005). This section will first look at CSR and corporate culture as separate concepts and their interrelation. Then, it will discuss how CSR can promote an ‘inclusive corporate culture’ and the elements pertinent to this type of culture in relation to inclusion of persons with disabilities into the workforce. 1.1. CSR Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the umbrella term explaining how business relates to the cultural, economic and political environment in which it operates. Previously, the proponents of ‘shareholder capitalism’, i.e. Milton Friedman (1970), associated CSR mainly with economic responsibility integral to increase company 3

profits, create jobs and wealth (Trevino and Nelson, 2011). Though overtime, the scope of business CSR strategies and initiatives has expanded dramatically. American sociologist Archie B. Carroll (1991) has conceptualized CSR as a pyramid constituting of four kinds of responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. First, the economic responsibility occupies the basic responsibility, which is about producing goods and services for society and getting profit. Second, the legal responsibility is important to comply with the minimum norms and standards of business conduct in society. Third, business has an ethical responsibility to do “the right things”. Forth, the philanthropic responsibility occupies the top of the pyramid, though the smallest part, and includes activities aimed to promote human welfare and goodwill through voluntary donations of time and money or products or services (Trevino and Nelson, 2011). The ‘social aspect’ of corporate responsibility has lately gained greater attention and significance. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s (WSCSD) has recognized the important role societal responsibility has alongside with economic responsibility to improve the quality of life of the local communities and society at large (Holme and Watts, 2000). Social responsibility and stakeholder responsibility are the most often addressed CSR dimensions above economic and environmental responsibility in the recent analysis of various definitions of CSR undertaken by Dahlsrud (2008). Thus, in contrast to ‘shareholder capitalism’ the opposite view has emerged emphasizing the goal of CSR as a ‘human capitalism’ serving all stakeholders’ interests - employees, suppliers, customers, the government, the community and society at large (Mackey et al., 2007, Peng, 2006). Regarding this, Trevino and Nelson (2011) point out high interconnectedness and interdependence of business and society. Companies contribute economically to their local communities, by providing jobs, wages and benefits, and tax revenues. Though, on the other hand, companies depend on the health, stability, and the prosperity of the communities, in which they operate, thus need to care about these aspects of the communities. Moreover, engaging in social responsibility companies do not only increase their image and reputation among customers and suppliers, but influence employees’ motivation, quality and productivity and help attract new talented employees (Mackey et al., 2007, Husten and Allen, 2007, Idowu and Towler, 2004, Nijhof and Jeurissen, 2010, Weber, 2008). Yet, incorporating socially responsible behavior is not entirely voluntary and arises due to expectations of multiple stakeholders and national legislations that add new requirements and alter how the social, environmental and economic impacts are addressed by business (Dahlsrud, 2008, Trevino and Nelson, 2011, Porter and Kramer, 2006). In this respect, when underemployment of persons with disabilities becomes a matter of societal concerns both on the international and national levels, it can be argued that integrating these people into the mainstream labour market is a part of the companies’ social responsibility. Especially, when disability is recognized as a form of human diversity important to be included in companies diversity management policies and CSR programmes, though requiring significant changes in the work environment (Samant et al., 2009, Ball et al., 2005, Markel and Barclay, 2009, Hart, 2010).

4

1.2. ‘Think globally, act locally’: international and national CSR guidelines and policies addressing disability To be able to communicate and establish trust-based relations to their customers, the national authorities and their employees, inclusion and diversity are increasingly important for MNEs that operate in global and multicultural environments. Usually, these enterprises observe internationally recognized CSR guidelines that promote the principles of non-discrimination, human rights and equality. The United Nation’s Global Compact (UN, 1999) launched in 1999, involves corporations from all over the world to voluntary advance ten principles that address human rights, labor, the environment, and anti-corruption policies (Bies et al., 2007). The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises oblige multinational enterprises to respect the internationally recognized human rights and encourage local capacity building through close co-operation with the local communities. The latest 2011 amendments to these OECD Guidelines (2011) - the fifth since 1976 – require that enterprises comply with the principles of non-discrimination and respect the human rights of specific population, including persons with disabilities. The Guidelines address enterprises to recruit persons with disabilities from local communities and invest in their training and lifelong learning. The debate that business has to play a more prominent societal role is also important to the European level (Habisch et al., 2005). The Green Paper of the European Commission (2001) articulates the importance of going beyond compliance to legislation and investing into human capital, environment and stakeholders such as business partners and suppliers, customers, public authorities and local communities organizations. In the follow up document, the European Commission (2002) pronounces such aspects of CSR as provision of quality employment, lifelong learning and equal opportunities and considers integration of persons with disabilities an important aspect to be addressed by CSR strategies. In this respect, enterprises are encouraged to exchange CSR experiences and to act in a socially responsible manner towards people with disabilities in relation to promoting equal employment opportunities, developing designed-for-all products and improving accessibility to assistive technologies (EC, 2002). The recently renewed EU strategy 2011-2014 for CSR (2011) articulates hiring persons with disabilities an important social responsibility issue recognized as a part of the business CSR philosophy. 1.3. Social responsibility towards persons with disabilities as a part of the corporate culture Empirically, CSR consists of clearly articulated and communicated policies and practices that reflect business responsibilities (Matten and Moon, 2008). Though, some companies use CSR policies as just a supplement to their activities. While others, that are fully involved, incorporate CSR into organizational norms, values, policies and business processes. This approach makes CSR initiatives implemented into companies strategic goals and has the potential to change their corporate culture, as argued by Aguilera et al. (2007). The term ‘corporate culture’ according to Schein (2009) is represented by the three levels within organizations: 1) ‘artefacts’ or visible organizational structure and processes such as architecture, people’s behaviour, climate; 2) ‘espoused values’ including strategies, goals and philosophies and guide explicitly organizational 5

policies; and 3) ‘underlying or shared tacit assumptions’ such as unspoken values, norms, beliefs, perceptions, often taken for granted, unconscious and implicit. There is a growing consensus among scholars who state that the corporate culture that values diversity requires a welcoming and supportive environment for persons with disabilities and special norms and policies concerning their recruitment, accommodation, promotion and retention (Samant et al., 2009, Dobbin et al., 2011, Schur et al., 2005). Accordingly, if employment of persons with disabilities becomes a part of the company CSR, to be fully incorporated, a ‘culture of inclusion’ or a ‘disability supportive culture’ needs to be established, as stated by Pless and Maak (2004) and Markel and Barclay (2009). ‘A culture of inclusion’, according to Pless and Maak (2004) is a culture “that enhances workforce integration and brings to life diversity potentials; built on clarified normative grounds and honors the differences. Recently, BBI (2011) outlines ‘inclusive culture’ as “a culture that extends beyond the formal presence of persons with disabilities inside organizations towards formal and informal policies and practices encompassing three important elements: universal design, HR policies and workplace accommodation”. Incorporating CSR strategies related to persons with disabilities into corporate culture may require subsequent changes in organization norms, work environment, culture and attitudes. Previous research has discussed the following important aspects. Firstly, organizational norms and values influencing the way disabled individuals are perceived and treated in organizations need to be addressed since they might affect the treatment of people with disabilities (Stone and Colella, 1996). According to Chan et al. (2010), if normative beliefs are supported by senior and middle level management, supervisors, and co-workers, they significantly increase the willingness to hire people with disabilities by organizations. Secondly, proactive recruitment and retention policies and integration of these policies into the firm’s actual practices strongly characterize the organizational culture that supports inclusion of persons with disabilities (Markel and Barclay, 2009). To incorporate the inclusion of persons with disabilities into the workforce, HR policies have paid much attention to the recruitment and selection processes, workplace accommodation, interpersonal relationships and provision of supportive culture, training and performance management systems (Klimoski and Donahue, 1997). Thirdly, Gilbride et al. (2003) emphasize work cultural issues, job match and experience as important characteristics. Precisely, the work culture that involves senior management, provides equal treatment, flexibility and support, is attentive to the needs of employees with disabilities, focuses on workers’ performance and abilities, values cooperation, helpfulness, social justice and egalitarianism and provides workplace accommodation and necessary benefits for employees with disabilities (Gilbride et al., 2003, Schur et al., 2005). In this case, the workplace accommodation refers to making appropriate modifications necessary to employment, such as providing assistive computer technology or a different break schedule (Markel and Barclay, 2009). Universal design also makes work environment as inclusive as possible for employees with disabilities (BBI, 2011). And awareness trainings provided for all employees are important to enhance knowledge about legal requirements and improve working relationships with disabled colleagues (Markel and Barclay, 2009). 6

For the purposes of the present paper the following aspects of ‘inclusive corporate culture’ regarding employment of persons with disabilities will be taken into further consideration: 1) organization norms, values, beliefs; 2) HR policies, such as hiring, selection, accommodation and retention; and 3) work environment in relation to providing support, accessibility, flexible work arrangements, and positive attitude. 2.

Country and company selection

2.1. Country selection According to the recent OECD report (2010) both Norway and the UK have relatively low unemployment rates of persons with disabilities compared to other OECD countries. Although, the difference is observed in the focus of the labour market policies and the legislation supporting employment of persons with disabilities (Hansen et al., 2011). CSR and diversity management policies are also different and more strongly represented in the UK than in Norway (Holvino and Kamp, 2009, Matten and Moon, 2008). In the UK, CSR strategies are based on community involvement and socially responsible behavior that result from increased stakeholder demands and governmental regulations (Habisch et al., 2005). Companies operating in the UK are required to disclose ethical, social and environmental risks in their annual reports (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Concerning inclusion of persons with disabilities, the main legislative documents are the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 and the newly introduced Equality Act 2010 that replaces the DDA, provide these people with legal rights against employers’ discrimination and impose obligations on employers to make reasonable workplace adjustments (Bell and Heitmueller, 2009, Sainsbury, 2011). In Norway, CSR is understood as a part of the political and social tradition, and depends on the dialogue between employers, workers and the government (Habisch et al., 2005). Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is raising awareness about social responsibility in both the private and the public sectors and strengthens the CSR commitments of Norwegian companies (Regjeringen, 2009). Many companies operating in Norway have started integrating CSR into their operations and decisionmaking process quite recently and are urged to make their ethical guidelines publicly known, e.g. by publishing them on their websites. Inclusion of persons with disabilities into the workforce is regulated by the following legislative documents and policies. Norwegian companies (both public and private) voluntarily sign the Inclusive Working Life Agreement (Inkluderende Arbeidsliv, IA, (2007) that regulates their actions to increase recruitment of persons with disabilities, reduce sick leaves, provide inclusive workplace environment and adapt workplaces (Hansen et al., 2011). In addition, the Anti-Discrimination and Accessibility Act 2008 aims at promoting equality and ensures equal opportunities and rights to social participation for all persons regardless of disabilities (Lid, 2010). And Work Environment Act (first adopted in 1977 and then revised in 2005) is a legal act that provides general employment protection, social and environmental standard, and has for a long time provided employment protection for employees with reduced working capacity (Hansen et al., 2011). 7

Accordingly, Norwegian companies are both supposed to undertake voluntary initiatives and comply with legal standards, while in the UK there is a strong influence of anti-discrimination legislation. Analysing CSR activities of MNEs operating in these two countries will help understand how these companies extend their CSR strategies towards including persons with disabilities and adopt ‘inclusive corporate culture’. 2.2. Company selection Due to high level of employers’ organization (union membership) observed in Europe (Matten and Moon, 2008, Habisch et al., 2005) that among other duties help companies address disability issues, the main idea was to connect with such organizations in Norway and the UK. The meetings with such organizations were held to obtain information about the MNEs that operate both in Norway and the UK and are known as actively implementing social responsibility and inclusive corporate policies towards persons with disabilities. The employers’ organization in Norway and the UK has each recommended six enterprises, which were assumed to be particularly active in promoting the inclusion of persons with disabilities in their workforce. In total, the CSR policies and the corporate culture of the 12 enterprises have been analyzed based on the data obtained from their corporate websites and the CSR reports publicly available. The summary of the selected MNEs activities is presented in the table 1 below. Table 1. Selected MNEs activities and countries of operation Sector IT Telecommunication Business services (consulting) R&D Financial services Pharmaceutical

Number of companies 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1

Head office USA Norway USA Norway USA Norway UK USA

Countries of operation NO/UK NO/UK NO/UK NO/UK NO/UK NO UK NO/UK

CSR initiatives are usually made known to the public through voluntary communications, websites, media releases or corporate sustainability reports. Many companies now disclose information in their annual or CSR reports. To analyze the data, the author of the paper has undertaken a qualitative content analysis of the websites and annual CSR reports of selected MNEs. Primarily, the information presented on the companies’ corporate websites has been analysed. The following data has been taken into account: information about companies’ activities, companies’ image, CSR policies, diversity and inclusion, non-discrimination and equality, HR policies and work environment. Main focus has been made on the following aspects of the corporate culture such as organizational norms and values, HR policies and work environment as important elements of ‘inclusive corporate culture’ discussed above in section 1.3. The brief descriptive analysis of the results is presented below. 3.

Companies Data Analysis

Organizational norms and values 8

Among the organizational norms and values of all selected MNEs, we find a certain degree of commitment to inclusion of persons with disabilities and creating an accessible environment for them. This commitment is mainly communicated through such statements as being “equal opportunity employer” and favouring “nondiscrimination policies”. These norms are clearly identifiable on all the companies’ websites. Non-discrimination and human rights commitment is often connected with compliance to UN Global compact and/or other internationally recognized declarations on human rights and labour standards. In many companies these practices become a norm engrained in mandatory codes or programmes, i.e. “Code of Business Conduct”, “Charter in Favour of Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development”, “Citizenship Work programme”, “Diversity strategy” and/or exercised through specially created bodies within organizations, i.e. “Global Inclusion & Diversity Council”, “Diversity Council” and “Diversity Forum”. Some companies even create Equality and Diversity Teams that includes executive leadership. Three companies mention among their values the aim to achieve ‘disability confidence’ both internally and externally and remove barriers for employees, customers, partners, and suppliers. All the selected companies are strongly committed to diversity and inclusion norms, and some explicitly state they aim at cultivating and sustaining a diverse work environment. Many companies have a separate section on their websites or in their CSR report which they call “Diversity and inclusion”. However, it is unclear, whether companies include disability as one of the aspects of diversity, when they mention that diversity is a part of the company culture or that diversity is fundamental to their core values. One company explicitly mentions recruiting persons with disabilities among its ongoing diversity effort, while others state multicultural employees (employees from different countries) and/or welcoming all “forms of difference”. HR policies: recruitment, selection, accommodation and retention To implement inclusive HR policies, special committees at some MNEs are created, e.g. Human Resources Coordination Committee that ensures HR strategies are aligned with business objectives. However, only five among the 12 selected MNEs, explicitly state on their websites or in Annual/CSR reports that they are open to recruiting persons with disabilities and ready to provide special accommodation for them while job interviewing. These companies provide phone number and e-mail where such applicants can ask for additional support, if needed. One company mentions ‘two tick’ symbol from Jobcenter Plus, UK, on the application form, which directly demonstrates commitment to employing persons with disabilities. However, only a limited number of companies state their job application is available in accessible format. While selecting their employees, companies especially IT, R&D, financial and pharmaceutical sectors, mention they focus on the “employees’ abilities and competencies, rather than on limitations due to disabilities”. Only one company announces other disability related jobs, such as Manager, Compensation and Benefits Job, Claims Team Manager, and Physician assistant/nurse practitioner not necessarily for persons with disabilities but requiring knowledge in disability related issues. It means that this company is thinking of disability policies as an overall company strategy. Workplace accommodation is supported by the majority of the selected MNEs supposedly due to the influence of legislation in both countries. Among the possible 9

accommodations the following are provided: design of office spaces, corridors, washing rooms, labs, systems to accommodate employees with disabilities, ergonomic physical design, unified products, etc. Though, retention policies are mentioned so far only by one company, which is caring about employees who become disabled at work. Work environment The work environment within the organization is extremely influential for the activity of the whole organization (Trevino and Nelson, 2011). For an inclusive work environment such aspects are important as health and safety, trust, respect, flexibility, and support (Klimoski and Donahue, 1997). Besides accessibility is an important issue. One company specifically provides modifications or adjustments to a job or to the work environment to assure the qualified individual with a disability has right in employment equal to other employees. One Norwegian company states it is a member of Inclusive Working Life Agreement and is thus committed to adapt workplace for staff with disability. To make the workplace more accessible, companies modify products, services, websites and documentation into more accessible formats. One company has videos about accommodating persons with disabilities and providing accessible workplace for them. The selected MNEs in the financial industry sector are highly committed to providing accessibility both for employees and customers. Besides technologies, some companies state they provide access to trained mentors and specialized support. The strongest emphasis on an ‘inclusive work environment’ has been observed in the four companies that are very sensitive to the needs of such employees and strongly focused on integration, support, involvement and development provided for disabled employees. A majority of selected MNEs, mainly all the IT, one business consulting, one financial services and one pharmaceutical, offer part-time and remote work and possibility to share responsibilities with other employees. Employees’ networks are established and employees’ awareness trainings are organized to provide support for disabled employees and raise disability awareness among the whole organization. The “explicit CSR” Disability is highly addressed as a part of MNEs ‘explicit CSR strategies’ such as responsibility before different stakeholders’ expectations, including community responsibility and involvement in community projects (Matten and Moon, 2008). Almost all the selected MNEs are actively engaged in sponsoring disability campaigns and organizations. For instance, MNEs in the UK are involved in sponsorship of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Several MNEs have established own charities and/or boards implementing projects that aim at providing support to indigenous population. Many of the selected MNEs involve their employees in volunteering and performance activities to address the community needs including persons with disabilities. The employees are involved in providing non-financial benefits such as lecturing, research, teaching, performing and skills development activities. Some MNEs projects specifically address creating jobs and providing economic opportunities for persons with disabilities. Thus, one company offers internships and further employment opportunities for university graduates with disabilities, and another company provides support to students from below average income families 10

for academic and vocational development. A limited number of companies offer small credits (grants) for their disabled employees and community members to start business projects. 4. Discussion, limitations and implications The results of this paper support and extend prior research in CSR policies and employment of persons with disabilities. The analysis of the twelve MNEs selected for this paper has demonstrated a general trend to incorporating disability as a part of CSR strategies, though more actively introduced in some companies than others. The difference between the CSR strategies can be explained by the focus of the CSR policies, industry environment, resources and values pertinent to local communities, where companies operate (Husten and Allen, 2007). The following common trends have been detected. Firstly, disability issue is still highly addressed in ‘explicit’ CSR strategies such as voluntary activities, sponsorship and community initiatives, though the changes in addressing disability issues through more inclusive CSR policies have been observed. Addressing disability in organizational norms and values rather relates to non-discrimination, equality and human rights issues than diversity. Though creating diverse work environment is important for all the companies supposedly due to global nature of their operation. This observation supports previous research of the Fortune 100 companies showing that companies in spite of their increased recognition of the benefits of diversity, many do not include the contribution of the people with disabilities and do not specify this commitment openly (Ball et al., 2005). Secondly, the CSR initiatives undertaken by the selected MNEs were easier to identify on the international than on the national websites, and more visible in the British than in Norwegian companies. One reason might be that diversity initiative were first taken in the UK and then spread over to the Scandinavian countries that signified a historic moment of becoming multicultural societies for these countries (Holvino and Kamp, 2009). Moreover, the role of the national legislation and cultural traditions in eliminating non-discrimination and providing inclusive work environment are highly presented in the USA (international level) and the UK, than in Norway, where legislative documents regulate voluntary company initiatives and high role of social benefits is still observed. Thirdly, focusing CSR policies on including persons with disabilities can be said to depend a lot on the business sector of the companies. For instance, IT and Telecommunication sectors are more market and customer oriented, and invest more in designing accessible products and services. They expect high performance from their employees as well. Accordingly, they might experience the need to include persons with disabilities as employees and at the same time it can be easier for such companies to provide inclusive and accessible work environment. Consulting and R&D sector companies are highly engaged in protection of human rights and nondiscrimination of their employees, and they also provide more flexible work arrangement. Both IT and R&D sector companies focus on skills and competencies while recruiting new employees. Financial sector companies are highly customeroriented thus focus on providing accessible services, facilities and websites. Aiming to include customers with disabilities, they at the same time extend their own CSR strategies and adopt their corporate culture towards employees with disabilities as well. Besides, providing accessible services they might also increase the number of 11

applicants (and employees) with disabilities. Brief summary of the companies’ analysis is presented in the table 2 below. Table 2. Coverage of CSR dimensions regarding inclusion of persons with disabilities in selected MNEs CSR dimension/ coverage

High coverage (all or almost all aspects are important) Organizational norms and values 9 HR policies 5 Work environment 4 N=12 (total number of the selected MNEs)

Low coverage (only several aspects are important)

Very low coverage (only one aspect is important)

3 5 4

0 2 4

The analysis demonstrates that mainly all the selected MNEs address disability in organizational norms and values as presented in their CSR strategies. Though incorporating disability in the recruitment process seems to be a challenge. One reason might be that activities such as hiring, promoting, rewarding and dismissing are often determined by the practices of the host country and are often based on a value system peculiar to that country’s culture (McDonald and Burton, 2002). Besides, on the local level companies might be engaged with specialized recruitment agencies or NGOs that recruit employees with disabilities for them. The retention policies of employees with disabilities are not addressed widely enough, but it may be a part of internal policies that does not constitute a part of CSR strategies. The most elaborated inclusive environment observed in the four selected MNEs concerns about high level of integration, support, involvement and development for employees with disabilities and is very sensitive to the needs of such employees. These companies are also highly involved in providing awareness training about disability issues for other employees. Among the twelve selected MNEs, the five companies can be distinctively mentioned as including disability into their CSR strategies and correspondingly incorporating this issue in their corporate culture. Two of these companies are in the IT sector, and three others represent business services, financial services and pharmaceutical sectors. The common features for these MNEs are: 1) embracing disability as a part of their overall organizations norms and involving senior leadership and management; 2) articulating clearly disability issue in recruitment, workplace accommodation as well as caring about advancement opportunities of such employees and retention of those who becomes disabled at the workplace; 3) providing inclusive, accessible and supportive work environment for persons with disabilities through equal treatment, flexibility, personalized management style, sensitivity to the employees’ needs, focus on workers’ performance and abilities, employees awareness trainings as well as addressing disabled customers. Accordingly, companies that address disabilities not only as HR policies, but also as customers and society orientation, are more capable of creating an inclusive work environment and corporate culture for employees with disabilities. While the sample size of the MNEs for this analysis is small and has limited representativeness, the main idea was to observe common trends among the 12

selected MNEs that address persons with disabilities in their CSR policies and provide inclusive corporate culture. This analysis does not demonstrate the whole picture of CSR within MNEs, but provides an overview for further exploration. Especially difficult was to find out the real facts of practical implementation of the inclusive policies for persons with disabilities, such as number of such employees, particular measure undertaken etc., because such facts may represent sensitive information for the companies and not disclosed openly. Thus, in the future more detailed research is needed about the companies’ inclusive corporate culture and the internal operations that will involve close cooperation with the companies themselves. 5. Conclusion CSR at present goes beyond core company activities and donations to charity, and is understood as an integrated part of doing business, based on corporate values included in strategy and daily operations (NHO, 2009). Especially, the current financial crisis shows that business activities solely motivated by the desire for shortterm profit can have serious global consequences (Regjeringen, 2009). Svensson et al. (2010) also admit that to achieve sustainable practices, business need to be ethical and invest in local communities and economies. The importance to address disability as a part of CSR strategies is certainly becoming more visible in the practices of the MNEs and important part of successful CSR strategies and inclusive corporate culture. There is a certain need for “disability champions” who would advocate strongly for hiring persons with disabilities as demonstrated in the previous research, e.g. Hernandez et al. (2008). Also, the importance of the issue is proved by the evolvement of special organizations and networks that aim to improve the underemployment of persons with disabilities and cooperate with enterprises (both public and private) in extending their CSR strategies such as Employers’ Forum on Disability (UK), the Global business and disability network (ILO, Switzerland), a CSR&D network, and CSR Europe - The European business network for CSR. Though ‘disability’ still remains a rather sensitive element of CSR for the companies and is addressed differently due to low level of understanding the importance and the benefits of such actions. The present analysis demonstrates that despite addressing disabilities by all the selected MNEs in their organizational norms and values, not all of them incorporate this issue further into corporate culture, HR policies and work environment. To evaluate this reason more research into actual companies practices is needed. It is definitely a challenge for an enterprise not only to demonstrate attitude towards inclusion of persons with disabilities in CSR strategies, but to promote the implementation of these policies further into ‘inclusive corporate culture and work environment’. Thus, to make the choice work, creative and diverse options are needed as not one solution that fits all (Lysaght, 2010, Gilbride et al., 2003). Besides, dissemination of the positive examples for the larger number of companies to understand the benefits of engaging in such activities, is highly important (Hernandez et al., 2008, Markel and Barclay, 2009, Wehman, 2011).

13

Acknowledgements This paper is a work in progress and comprises a part of the Disability Rights Expanding Accessible Markets (DREAM) project called “Toward Economic Independence of Persons with Disabilities and Inclusion into the Workforce. A comparative study of multinational enterprises in Norway and the UK”. The analysis focuses primarily on the MNEs operating in Norway and the UK. Special acknowledgement to my supervisors at NOVA, Rune Halvorsen and Bjørn Hvinden for their support, comments and reviews.

14

References AGUILERA, R. A., RUPP, D. E., WILLIAMS, C. A. & GANAPATHI, J. 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836-863. BALL, P., MONACO, G., SCHMELING, J., SCHARTZ, H. A. & BLANCK, P. 2005. Disability as Diversity in Fortune 100 Companies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 97-121. BBI. 2011. What is an Inclusive Culture? . A publication of the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI) at Syracuse University [Online], March 2011. Available: http://bbi.syr.edu/projects/corpculture/documents/a_inclusive_culture.htm. BELL, D. & HEITMUELLER, A. 2009. The Disability Discrimination Act in the UK: Helping or hindering employment among the disabled? Journal of Health Economics, 28, 465-480. BICKENBACH, E. J., CHATTERJI, S., BADLEY, E. M. & UTSTUN, T. B. 1999. Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Sciences & Medicine, 48, 1173-1187. BIES, R., BARTUNEK, J., T., F. & ZALD, M. 2007. Corporations as Social Change Agents: Individual, Interpersonal, Institutional and Environmental dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 32, 788–793. CARROLL, A. B. 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, JulyAugust 1991. CHAN, F., STRAUSER, D., MAHER, P., LEE, E.-J., JONES, R. & JOHNSON, E. T. 2010. Demand-side Factors Related to Employment of Persons with Disabilities: A Survey in the Midwest region of the United States. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 412-419. DAHLSRUD, A. 2008. How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13. DOBBIN, F., KIM, S. & KALEV, A. 2011. You Can't Always Get What You Need: Organizational Determinants of Diversity Programs. American Sociological Review, 76, 386–41. EC 2001. GREEN PAPER: Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels, 18.7.2001. EC 2002. Communication from the Commission concerning Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to Sustainable Development. COM(2002) 347 final. Brussels, 2.7.2002 EC 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM(2011) 681 final. Brussels, 25.10.2011. FRIEDMAN, M. 1970. The social responsibility of the business is to increase its profits. New York Times magazine, 13 September 1970. GILBRIDE, D., STENSRUD, R., VANDERGOOT, D. & GOLDEN, K. 2003. Identification of the Characteristics of Work Environments and Employers Open to Hiring and Accommodating People with Disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46, 130-137.

15

HABISCH, A., JONKER, J., WEGNER, M. & SCHMIDPETER, R. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe, Berlin Heidelberg New York, Springer. 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, 119-133. HARPUR, P. 2012. Embracing the new disability rights paradigm: the importance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disability & Society, 27, 1-14. 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, 585-600 HERNANDEZ, B. 2000. Employer Attitudes Toward Workers with Disabilities and their ADA Employment Rights: A Literature Review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 4-16. HERNANDEZ, B., KEYS, C. & BALCAZAR, F. 2000. Employer Attitudes Toward Workers with Disabilities and their ADA Employment Rights: A Literature Review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 4-16. HERNANDEZ, B., MCDONALD, K., DIVILBISS, M., HORIN, E., VELCOFF, J. & DONOSO, O. 2008. Reflections from Employers on the Disabled Workforce: Focus Groups with Healthcare, Hospitality and Retail Administrators. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20, 157-164. HOLME, R. & WATTS, P. 2000. Corporate social responsibility: making good business sense. In: (WBCSD), W. B. C. F. S. D. (ed.). Switzerland. HOLVINO, E. & KAMP, A. 2009. Diversity management: Are we moving in the right direction? Reflections from both sides of the North Atlantic. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 395-403. HUSTEN, B., W. & ALLEN, D. B. 2007. Corporate Social Strategy in Multinational Enterprises: Antecedents and Value Creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 345-361. IA. 2007. Inclusive Working Life. Agreement on a more Inclususive working life (IA agreement). [Online]. Norway: The Ministry of Labour. Available: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ad/topics/welfare-policy/inclusive-workinglife.html?id=947 [Accessed]. IDOWU, S. O. & TOWLER, B. A. 2004. A comparative study of the contents of corporate social responsibility reports of UK companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 15, 420-437. KLIMOSKI, R. & DONAHUE, L. 1997. HR Strategies for Integrating Individuals with Disabilities into the Workplace. Human Resources Management Review, 7, 109-138. LID, I. M. 2010. Accessibility as a Statutory Right. Nordic Journal of Human Rights. LYSAGHT, P. 2010. Editorial: Employment as a Path to Inclusion. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 7, 233-234. MACKEY, A., MACKEY, T. B. & BARNEY, J. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: Investor Preferences and Corporate Strategies Academy of Management Review, 32, 817–835. MARKEL, K. S. & BARCLAY, L. A. 2009. Addressing the Underemployment of Persons with Disabilities: Recommendations for Expanding Organizational Social Responsibility. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21, 305318. 16

MATTEN, D. & MOON 2008. “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404-424. MCDONALD, F. & BURTON, F. 2002. International Business, Australia-CanadaMexico-Singapore-Spain-United Kingdom-United States, Thomson. MCMAHON, B. 2008. Hiring Discrimination Against People with Disabilities Under the ADA: Characteristics of Employers. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18, 112-21. NHO 2009. A matter of trust - A guide to corporate responsibility. The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises (NHO). NIJHOF, A. H. J. & JEURISSEN, R. J. M. 2010. The glass ceiling of corporate social responsibility. Consequences of a business case approach towards CSR. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30, 618-631. OECD 2010. Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publication. OECD. 2011. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises [Online]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,3746,en_2649_34889_2397532_1_1_1_1 ,00.html [Accessed 10 March 2012]. OLKIN, R. 2002. Could You Hold the Door for Me? Including Disability in Diversity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8. PENG, M. W. 2006. Global Strategy, Australia-Canada-Mexico-Singapore-SpainUnited Kingdom-United States, Thomson South-Western. PLESS, N. M. & MAAK, T. 2004. Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 129-147. PORTER, M. E. & KRAMER, M. R. 2006. Strategy&Society. The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review Spotlight, December 2006, 78-94. QUINN, G. 2009. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Toward a new international politics of disability. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 15, 33–53. RABBY, R. 1983. Employment of the disabled in large corporations. International Labour Review, 122, 23-36. RAMASAMY, B., YEUNG, M. C. H. & AU, A. K. M. 2010. Consumer Support for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of Religion and Values. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 61-72. REGJERINGEN, N. M. O. F. A. 2009. Corporate social responsibility in a global economy. Report No. 10 (2008–2009) of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Norwegian Parliament. Oslo, Norway. SAINSBURY, R. 2011. Policies for promoting labour market participation of persons with disabilities in Europe and USA. UK National Report. University of York: Social Policy Research Institute. SAMANT, D., SOFFER, M., HERNANDEZ, B., ADYA, M., AKINPELU, O., LEVY, J., REPOLI, E., KRAMER, M. & BLANK, P. 2009. Corporate Culture and Employment of People with Disabilities: Role of Social Workers and Service Provider Organizations. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 8, 171-188. SCHEIN, E. 2009. The corporate culture survival guide. New and Revised Edition, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. SCHUR, L., KRUSE, D. & BLANCK, P. 2005. Corporate culture and the employment of persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 3-20. 17

SHAKESPEARE, T. 2004. Social models of disability and other life strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6, 8-21. STONE, D. & COLELLA, A. 1996. A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352-401. SVENSSON, G., WOOD, G. & CALLAGHAN, M. 2010. A corporate model of sustainable business practices: An ethical perspective. Journal of World Business, 45, 336–345. TREVINO, L. K. & NELSON, K. A. 2011. Managing Business Ethics. Straign Talk About How To Do It Right, Hoboken, N.J., USA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. UN. 1999. UN Global Compact [Online]. Available: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/index.html [Accessed]. UN 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol 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: ARNARDÓTTIR, O. M. & QUINN, G. (eds.) The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. European and Scandinavian Perspectives. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. WEBER, M. 2008. The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 2, 247-61. WEHMAN, P. H. 2011. Employment for persons with disabilities: Where are we now and where do we need to go? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 145151.

18