Search results

Employers are increasingly attempting to mitigate subtle but harmful forms of employee rudeness and slights. These include “microaggressions”, “everyday discrimination” and “workplace incivility”, among others. It is unclear which of these various terms is most acceptable for introducing the topic in the workplace. This paper explores human resources (HR) leaders' considerations about the terms and the organisational context that allow for successful implementation.

16 expert interviews were conducted with HR leaders from large organisations in the United Kingdom. Reflexive Thematic Analysis was used to explore interview transcripts.

HR leaders reflected on various terms for subtle slights, largely according to how understandable (coherent) and emotionally resonant (provocative) they appeared. They did not converge on any universally accepted term. Less abstract terms were regarded as most acceptable for a broad audience. There was a view that leaders, often representing dominant groups, would find provocative terms such as microaggressions less acceptable than under-represented groups; the latter would find their experiences of subtle slights validated by terms such as microaggressions. Participants suggested that understanding the need for change was a necessary precursor to participation in training. Compliance-based approaches were considered less helpful. Implications for the design of training initiatives are presented whereby several terms could be used and explained.

This is the first study to gather HR leaders' views on the acceptable terminology for subtle slights. Findings suggest employers may find value in adopting an implementation science approach to introducing diversity initiatives.

This study investigates the drivers of social innovation in disability services with specific reference to the context of nonprofit organizations of social farming. In addition, it highlights the role of stakeholder networks in enhancing the social innovation process and the characteristics of stakeholders and networks driving and supporting social innovation.

Following a qualitative methodology, research was conducted through a case study survey with interviews to 13 nonprofit organizations of social farming for people with disability located in the northeast of Italy.

Insights gained from the interviews revealed that individual, organizational and contextual factors drive social innovation in disability nonprofits. In addition, networks play a key role in enhancing the three drivers of social innovation through the social innovation journey, from opportunity recognition to implementation of the innovation, to its consolidation phases. Characteristics of the networks and the stakeholders involved are also outlined.

Practical implications for social entrepreneurs include the need to establish cross-sectoral partnerships with diverse stakeholders, including private companies.

Implications for policy makers stress the need for ongoing support for nonprofit disability organizations. Social implications are not limited to the inclusion of socially weaker groups; rather, the entire community benefits from the social innovation process.

Social farming represents a valuable solution to meet the needs of disadvantaged people. While much research has investigated the topic of social innovation in social entrepreneurship, only a few studies have addressed social innovation in the context of disability nonprofits involved in social farming.

Communication about sustainability in fashion is complex. While fashion businesses have increasingly sought to manage their sustainability practices, their understanding of how to communicate about sustainability persuasively remains limited. The authors argue that a key problem with a firm’s efforts in communicating about sustainability is that it is a psychologically distant issue for both businesses and stakeholders. This paper aims to apply construal level theory to explore managers’ construal level in shaping communication about sustainability.

The paper used a two-phase qualitative methodology. Phase one involved undertaking interviews with ten managers in fashion firms to address communications about sustainability in the UK. In phase two, 16 consumers interpreted and reflected on the persuasiveness of communications about sustainability encompassing both concrete and abstract forms of messaging.

The authors identify the factors driving different approaches to communication (concrete and abstract) depending on the construal levels of managers, managers’ perceptions of the construal level of target stakeholders and the perceived authenticity of the sustainability claim. The paper highlights the conditions under which the (mis)match with the brands’ sustainable practices works in crafting communication. The authors also highlight three main communication strategies in responding to the complexity of sustainability in fashion ecosystems: amplification, quiet activist and populist coupling.

As an in-depth qualitative study, the authors seek to expose an under-researched phenomenon, yet generalisations both within the fashion industry and beyond are limited by this focus.

Fashion managers need to be flexible and evaluate how their communications about sustainability affect stakeholders’ evaluations of their brands. As sustainability in fashion brands grows, concrete and specific sustainability messaging may be necessary to improve sustainable behaviours.

The prevailing literature encourages symbiosis between sustainability practices and communications; such relationships are rare, and studies outside the consumer perspective are also rare. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this exploratory study is the first to understand how managers’ construal level influences decisions around communications about sustainability in fashion and how these messages are perceived by consumers.