liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Ethical Perspectives in Work Disability Prevention and Return to Work: Toward a Common Vocabulary for Analyzing Stakeholders’ Actions and Interactions
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. (Rikscentrum för arbetslivsinriktad rehabilitering)ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3310-0895
Institute for Work & Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Canada Research Chair on Occupational Health and Safety Law, Law Faculty, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada .
2014 (English)In: Journal of Business Ethics, ISSN 0167-4544, E-ISSN 1573-0697, Vol. 120, no 2, 237-250 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2014. Vol. 120, no 2, 237-250 p.
Keyword [en]
Business, Ethics, Medicine, Public administration, Social insurance, Work disability
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-105559DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1661-yISI: 000332580900007OAI: diva2:708370
Available from: 2014-03-27 Created: 2014-03-27 Last updated: 2014-04-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(508 kB)323 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 508 kBChecksum SHA-512
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ståhl, Christian
By organisation
Division of Community MedicineFaculty of Health Sciences
In the same journal
Journal of Business Ethics
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 323 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 144 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link