Search results

This chapter analyses the private financial sector's policy responses, lending practices and various forms of engagement with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), communities and institutional clients involved in controversial commodity industries. The chapter demonstrates that secrecy plays a constitutive role in this engagement. For investment banks, client-confidentiality is the ultimate limit to transparency. At the same time, NGOs campaign to make public and reveal links between investment banks and clients in commodity industries. The chapter also explores techniques within the financial sector for the assessment of social and environmental risk. The chapter argues that these techniques combine both practices of uncertainty and practices of risk. For civil society organisations, NGOs and local communities, these techniques remain problematic, and various campaigns question both the robustness of the financial sector's social risk screening methods as well as the sustainability of the investments themselves.

In this introductory chapter, we establish the basis for the theme of this volume, “Emotions and Disruption.” We discuss how the initial idea for the theme arose during the height of COVID-19. At this time, and as widely reported in the press (e.g., see Grensing-Pophal, 2020), a myriad of workplace disruptions occurred impacting employees' moods and emotions and their subsequent well-being and performance. We open by discussing some key work on emotions research during change and disturbance, followed by a synopsis of each of the chapters in this volume, including discussion of their key contributions. This includes an overview of how some of these chapters were first presented as conference papers at the Twelfth International Conference on Emotions and Worklife (EMONET XII), an event that took place for the first time online in response to the turbulence and travel disruptions created by the pandemic.

In this chapter we give an outline of the organization of this book and discuss its four major parts. We then relate each chapter to the relevant part and consider its key contributions in terms of what we have learnt about emotions when applying the lens of disruption.

We conclude that the chapters provide a range of insights and practical solutions for dealing with emotions during different types of disruption that should be helpful to practitioners and academics.

The chapters investigate underresearched topics and thus make new and important contributions. While many topics addressed in the chapters are still in their initial stages, they clearly have the potential to make a significant impact on people's work lives.

Purpose – Using elective egg and sperm freezing as a case to compare representations of men and women as agents of biological reproduction, this chapter aims to understand how gender and risk are co-produced in the context of new reproductive technologies (NRTs).

Methodology – Through a content analysis of newspaper articles published between 1980 and 2016 about egg and sperm freezing, the author traces how fertility risks facing men and women are portrayed in the media.

Findings – Candidates for egg freezing were portrayed in one of the three ways: as cancer patients, career women, or single and waiting for a partner. The ideal users of sperm freezing are depicted in primarily two ways: as cancer patients and as employees in professions with hazardous working conditions. Threats to future fertility for women pursuing careers uninterrupted by pregnancy and child-rearing and women seeking romantic partners are largely portrayed as the result of internal risks. However, threats to future fertility for men working in dangerous professions are largely portrayed as external to them.

Research Limitations – Race and class did not emerge as dominant themes in these data; given the lack of accessibility to NRTs by class and race, this silence must be interrogated by further research.

Value – By comparing the constructions of at-risk groups, the author argues the medicalization of reproduction is gendered as fertility risks portrayed in the media take on a different character between men and women. This research shows how the gendered construction of infertility risk reinforces normative expectations around child-rearing and perpetuates gender inequity in parenting norms.