Search results

This study aims to revisit the link between employee welfare and firm financial performance using a large sample. Besides, the study explores mechanisms behind the link and heterogeneous effects of employee welfare on firm performance across firms and industries with different characteristics. These findings help partly explain mixed results in previous works.

This study utilized KLD database data from 2001 to 2015 to capture the firm-level employee welfare, then analyze the link between employee welfare and firm financial performance. The findings are further verified using clustered standard errors ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis along with robustness testing, which supports the validity of our conclusions.

The research result confirms a positive association between employee-friendly practices and firm performance indicated by Tobin's q. Regarding the mechanisms linking the two, the study shows that higher employee welfare is positively associated with firm productivity and innovation investment, while it is negatively related to the cost of finance. Further, consistent with agency and modern management theories, the effect of employee welfare on financial performance is more pronounced for human-intensive (i.e. R&D-based) firms and firms with better corporate governance.

This study contributes to the existing literature on the association between employee welfare and firm performance in several ways. First, using the index of employee welfare from KLD can alleviate inherent limitations in previous studies. Second, the authors provide and validate the possible mechanisms linking employee welfare and firm value. Third, the authors also extend the literature by providing new insights into the employee welfare–firm performance nexus through a contingency perspective.

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.

Employees play a vital role in the success of a corporation. While boards of directors are created to protect shareholders’ interests, it is unclear if these directors also ensure employee welfare. In this vein, our paper examines the relationship between board leadership structure and employee well-being.

The authors employ several analysis techniques, including univariate analysis, ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, two-stage least squares (2SLS) regressions, propensity score matching methodology, the Heckman Selection model and difference-in-differences analysis. The sample comprises USA public firms for the period 1998–2018.

Our findings indicate that having an independent chairperson can significantly benefit the welfare of employees, especially for firms with overly powerful chief executive officers (CEOs) and during times of financial distress.

Independent leadership structure is one of the crucial board characteristics that have not been examined to explain employee welfare at firms. We find that an independent chairperson can mitigate the negative effect of overly powerful CEOs on employee benefits. Importantly, independent chairpersons are beneficial for employees in difficult times and when CEOs are busy with daily activities.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between corporate board co-option and employee welfare practices.

The authors employ several analysis techniques including univariate analysis, OLS regressions, Poisson regressions, and propensity score matching methodology. The sample consists of US public firms for the period of 1996–2017. The variables of interest are the employee welfare index (EWI) proposed by Ghaly et al. (2015) and the co-option ratio proposed by Coles et al. (2014).

The authors find that firms with a higher fraction of co-opted directors on their boards are less committed to the firms' employee well-being. The empirical results support the argument that the interests of co-opted directors are more closely aligned with the interests of the CEO who had an influence on selecting them to the board, which compromises their monitoring role.

This paper contributes in several ways to the literature on corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) by linking board co-option to employee welfare. By focusing on board co-option to explain the degree of firms' involvement in employee welfare, which is one of the crucial components of CSR performance, the authors provide pinpointed and detailed findings on a timely issue of CSR.

The purpose of this paper is to study how individuals assess responsibility during an uncontrollable event requiring collective action, using crises affecting service workers as contexts. Specifically, the authors examine what parties consumers hold responsible for ensuring service worker welfare following an uncontrollable event and determine what factors make customers more open to accepting responsibility for ensuring worker welfare themselves.

The authors surveyed a nationally representative sample of US consumers regarding their attitudes toward protecting service workers during COVID-19 and used regression analysis to identify factors that predict attributions of responsibility to customers. The authors also conducted an experiment (using a new crisis context) to determine whether certain key factors impact customer perceptions of their own responsibility for helping employees during an uncontrollable event.

The survey results show US consumers hold firms most responsible for worker welfare, followed by customers and, finally, government. When examining factors that drive attributions of responsibility for customers, perceptions of how sincere firms are in their efforts to help employees predict higher responsibility attributions, and experimental results confirm that higher perceived firm sincerity increases consumers’ own sense of responsibility toward workers.

This research identifies factors that affect consumer support for efforts to help service employees and collective action problems more generally.

This research highlights an under-studied crisis context – uncontrollable events that require collective action – and shows how consumers make assessments about their own responsibility (in addition to the responsibility of the service firm) in these contexts.

A brief background to the historical context of welfare in the workplace is provided and current attitudes amongst UK companies in the private sector are explored. It is argued that both the link with personnel and prevailing social and economic theories have had a direct bearing on the status of welfare provision. From the research, current styles of welfare provision are examined, falling roughly into three categories: (1) informal assistance through management; (2) specialist provision, either in the health facility or in its own right; and (3) external counselling services, including independent consultancies and psychiatrists and psychoanalysts. Few organisations, however, offer the complete range of skills and services related to general welfare needs, and UK companies are not making use of those that do exist. As personnel managers choose to marginalise their welfare role and maximise their contribution to supporting management needs they are distancing themselves not only from that role but also from the employees. Ways must be found of establishing an approach to company welfare compatible with the needs of society in the 1990s.

Despite supposed widespread consumer support for ethical clothing, it still often fails to translate into actual purchase. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the way in which academics have defined and measured ethical clothing could account for this.

An over reliance on convenience sampling and the use of student samples has also been touted as a possible reason for this attitude-behaviour gap. To address this, this study employed a consumer household sample. It also used a quantitative survey approach to collect its data and structural equation modelling to analyse it.

In contrast to the way in which academics have conceptualised the construct, consumer perceptions of ethical clothing were found to be influenced by four dimensions: environmental responsibility, employee welfare, animal welfare and slow fashion attributes.

Ethical clothing has typically been operationalised using just two of these four dimensions. Ironically, one of the two dimensions often overlooked by academics – animal welfare – had the strongest influence on consumer perceptions. Previous academic efforts had never employed more than three dimensions, and yet the results of this study suggest that all four must be present if an item of clothing is to be regarded as “ethical”.

Examines UK retailers’ attitudes towards employee welfare in general, and the development and implementation of policies in respect of staff with HIV/AIDS in particular. From the research results, provides a valuable insight into retailer motivation in respect of staff welfare provision and the methods adopted by retailers in the development of welfare policy; identifies the need to ensure that a credible support strategy exists in order that welfare policies, such as those related to HIV/AIDS, can be implemented effectively. Indicates that the management of HIV/AIDS within the retail sector is complicated further by the threat of criminal attack on retail staff and the potential for negative consumer reaction to policy decisions, and concludes by suggesting that the development of a considered response to HIV/AIDS is one which UK retailers cannot afford to ignore.

Recent developments in alcohol policies provide tangible signs that major strands of personnel policy are beginning to merge (concern for welfare, corporate efficiency and joint determination through collective agreement) as indicated by a survey of alcohol policies carried out in Britain.

This article ties together two aspects of employment relations which have significant implications for the phenomenon of polarisation: participation by employees in company decision making and the development of occupational welfare — more specifically occupational pension schemes as a prime example of such welfare. After briefly reviewing the relevance of each independently and generally, they will be considered conjointly, focusing on the company level and presenting evidence from recent empirical research on employee participation in the management of pension schemes.