Search results

This study aims to investigate whether emergency health-care workers distinguish between different categories of perpetrators of violence and how they respond to different types of perpetrator profiles.

Five focus groups with emergency health-care workers were held in Canada. The participants were asked whether they identified different groups of perpetrators of violence and how that impacted their approach. The focus group responses were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a phenomenological approach.

Participants consistently identified five groups of perpetrators and tailored their approach on their assessment of the type of perpetrator involved. The five categories are: violence or aggressive behaviour from family members or bystander and violence related to; underlying mental health/illness issues; underlying physical health issues; addiction and substance use; and repeat visitors/offenders. Violence with an underlying (mental) health cause was handled professionally and compassionately by the health-care workers, while less patience and understanding was afforded in those instances where violence was associated with (recreational) alcohol or illicit substance use.

Emergency health-care workers can consistently distinguish between types of perpetrators of violence and aggression, which they then use as one factor in the clinical and situational assessments that inform their overall approach to the management incidents. This conclusion supports the need to move the focus away from the worker to the perpetrator and to an organisational rather than individual approach to help minimise violence against emergency health-care workers.

This chapter looks at the discursive dimension of the working environment in research and higher education organizations; more specifically at neoliberal managerial discourse and at how it participates in shaping the way researchers, teachers and support staff perceive themselves and their experiences. It is based on a multiple case study and combines an intersectional and a socio-clinical approach. The empirical data is constituted by in-depth interviews with women conducted in Ireland and Chile, and includes some observations made in France. A thematic analysis of individual narratives of self-ascribed experiences of being bullied enables to look behind the veil drawn by managerial discourse, thus providing insights into power vectors and power domains contributing to workplace violence. It also shows that workplace bullying may reinforce identification to undervalued social categories. This contribution argues that neoliberal managerial discourse, by encouraging social representations of “neutral” individuals at work, or else celebrating their “diversity,” conceals power relations rooting on different social categories. This process influences one’s perception of one’s experience and its verbalization. At the same time, feeling assigned to one or more of undervalued social category can raise the perception of being bullied or discriminated against. While research has shown that only a minority of incidents of bullying and discrimination are reported within organizations, this contribution suggests that acknowledging the multiplicity and superposition of categories and their influence in shaping power relations could help secure a more collective and caring approach, and thus foster a safer work culture and atmosphere in research organizations.

The purpose of this study is to extend existing knowledge on the determinants of sustainability report (SR) assurance practices. Four different theories – stakeholder theory, institutional theory, signaling theory and legitimacy theory – are used to formulate several hypotheses regarding the main factors that can influence a company’s decision to assure its SRs.

Using a sample of 417 listed organizations based in different European countries over five years, the effects of stakeholder commitment, country orientation toward sustainability, firm environmental performance and business ethics controversies on the decision to assure SRs are assessed.

The results show that a company’s decision to assure its SRs is motivated by the need to maintain good relations with its stakeholders (which is in line with stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory), as well as by the willingness to signal their sustainability performance (which is in line with signaling theory) and to gain legitimacy. On the contrary, business ethics controversies do not seem to be relevant to a company’s assurance practices.

This paper provides new insights into the influence that social, environmental and institutional factors have on assurance strategies. New factors that previous research does not investigate – environmental performance, business ethics controversies and corporate governance – are tested. Factors that are already investigated in the literature are considered from an original perspective of introducing alternative measures (e.g. for the scope of national sustainability policies).