1. Introduction

2. Theory and hypothesis development

3. Method

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Potential limitations and future research

7. Implications for practice

8. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Appendix A. Supplementary material

References

Abstract

Ability to influence within organizations has been identified as a key capability for occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals. By utilising aspects of intra-organizational influence theory, this study explores the specific behaviors that OHS professionals use to influence organizational decision-makers. Survey data was collected from OHS professionals (n = 385) on proactive influence tactics used and the perceived outcomes of influencing attempts. The results show that certain individual factors (i.e. gender, age, OHS experience) and organizational factors (i.e. level of safety maturity and organisation size) impact on tactics used and influencing effectiveness. The use of influence tactics explains a significant amount of variation in OHS professionals’ effectiveness in influencing organizational decision-makers, and certain tactics (rational persuasion and inspirational appeal) were positively associated with influencing effectiveness, while others (legitimating and exchange) had a negative association. This study extends existing research in the upward influencing context by exploring how OHS professionals exert influence at a granular level and proposes implications for professional practice.

Introduction

Since Swuste and Arnoldy’s (2003) suggestion in this journal that personal effectiveness and the ability to influence is as critical to safety as formal management systems, there has been increasing recognition that the ability to influence organizational decision-making is a key capability for occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals (INSHPO, 2017; Provan et al, 2017). Influence by definition, is any action or behaviours that cause a change in the attitude or behavior of another person or group (Yukl, 2013). Influence behavior in the workplace can be distinguished according to the direction of influence i.e. upward, lateral, or downward (Lee et al, 2017)

Upward influencing, defined as “attempts to influence someone higher in the formal hierarchy or authority in the organization” (Porter et al, 1983, p.409), is of particular interest to the OHS profession. This is because OHS professionals are often embedded as middle level managers, advisors or consultants in organizational systems. Since the mid1990’s, the role of the OHS professional has been evolving from that of the traditional OHS specialist who shouldered the responsibility for OHS to that of a change agent, who influences others to enact change in both organizational and management practices (Blewett and Shaw, 1996). Although it is acknowledged that decisions that impact on health and safety occur within all levels of an organisation (Bofinger et al, 2015), the key decisions relating to objectives, strategies, operational procedures and the allocation of resources are largely made by managers within organizations. From an OHS perspective, these key management decisions include making informed choices; prioritising actions; and distinguishing among alternative courses of action to minimise risk and optimise worker health, safety, and well-being. Since these critical decisions may ultimately affect health and safety outcomes, it is essential that OHS professionals are able to influence in an upward direction.

Real-time communication, Big Data, human–machine cooperation, remote sensing, monitoring and process control, autonomous equipment and interconnectivity are becoming major assets in modern industry. As the fourth industrial revolution or Industry 4.0 becomes the predominant reality, it will bring new paradigm shifts, which will have an impact on the management of occupational health and safety (OHS). In the midst of this new and accelerating industrial trend, are we giving due consideration to changes in OHS imperatives? Are the OHS consequences of Industry 4.0 being evaluated properly? Do we stand to lose any of the gains made through proactive approaches? Are there rational grounds for major concerns? In this article, we examine these questions in order to raise consciousness with regard to the integration of OHS into Industry 4.0. It is clear that if the technologies driving Industry 4.0 develop in silos and manufacturers’ initiatives are isolated and fragmented, the dangers will multiply and the net impact on OHS will be negative. As major changes are implemented, previous gains in preventive management of workplace health and safety will be at risk. If we are to avoid putting technological progress and OHS on a collision course, researchers, field experts and industrialists will have to collaborate on a smooth transition towards Industry 4.0.

Introduction

Industrialisation has undergone remarkable transformations since its beginnings in the 18th century. Following the introduction of machinery powered by local generation of steam, which uncoupled production from the limitations of human manual effort (Industrial revolution 1.0), the next paradigm shift came in the 19th century with the introduction of electricity, which allowed the broad distribution of power from a central facility. Thanks to electricity, machinery became less bulky and ran faster (Industry 2.0). The 20th century brought powered assembly lines, and with the development of electronics, manufacturing became more and more automated (Industry 3.0) and focused on performance. With automation came opportunities to optimise manufacturing processes and improve productivity through the design of more flexible, ergonomic and safer machinery (MESI, 2016). In comparison, the term “Industry 4.0” was coined very recently. As might be expected, it refers to the convergence of manufacturing with the digital revolution, artificial intelligence, the Internet of things and with every device called “smart”. Its goal is to allow manufacturers to meet ever-changing demand more efficiently using adaptable and responsive machinery. This idea goes beyond the design of single machines and now encompasses a broadened vision that can best be described as a global revolution in manufacturing. Conceived in Germany, this vision has spread to several other industrialized countries, some of which have been investing heavily in order to catch up to the innovators (MacDougall, 2014; MESI, 2016). Real-time communication, Big Data, man–machine cooperation, remote sensing, monitoring and control, autonomous equipment and interconnectivity are all considered as non-negligible assets in industries that face fierce competition and seek to improve productivity and reduce costs. The fourth industrial revolution goes well beyond concepts such as interconnectivity and digital manufacturing. In Industry 4.0, businesses digitize their physical assets and integrate them into digital ecosystems throughout the value chain. Industry 4.0 promises increases in productivity through the integration of digital systems of production with analysis and communication of all data generated within an intelligent environment.

The objective of this article was to investigate the effectiveness of occupational safety and health’s (OSH) compulsory training since it has never been addressed before. Although previous researchers find that OSH training is very important as an intervention to create safety climate; however, some researchers find that compulsory training is ineffective as compared to optional training. Hence, findings of this current research offers original contribution by determining whether OSH’s compulsory training could stimulate OSH implementation using a quasi-experimental design. An amount of 287 Malaysian participants attended 21 OSH’s compulsory training organized by the Malaysian’s National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 2015 was taken for sample. A paired sample t-test indicates a significant implementation of OSH among respondents. In fact, 88.5% respondents passed learning examination at the end of training and majority or 98.3% respondents used what they learned in training at their respective workplaces after training completion. Additionally, using independent sample t-test, it is indicated that there is no significant different between respondents that felt they are mandated and voluntary to attend the OSH’s compulsory training. Hence, it is verified that compulsory training could also be effective; in which, the NIOSH’s compulsory training had stimulate OSH implementation among the Malaysian. Implications for future research and practice were also discussed.

Introduction

Safety training is very important as a part of safety climate (Ajslev et al., 2017; Christian et al., 2009); this is why most of countries around the globe, such as Malaysia required their people to attend safety training especially for those holding high risk hazard occupations. Unfortunately, some of research findings including by Tharenou (2001), Curado et al. (2015), and Aziz and Selamat (2016) reported that compulsory training would not be as effective as optional training. Since, this issue was not addressed using sample from trainees that attended safety training; there is a need to determine the effect of compulsory safety training on training effectiveness. In fact, this issue is significant to be investigated because it would determine whether safety training should be mandated because of its importance; otherwise, alternative intervention should be considered if compulsory safety training is ineffective. For example, Ngah et al. (2016) reported that the number of occupational accidents and injuries in Malaysia have increased by years. Ironically, the government has been initiating occupational safety and health (OSH) implementation through laws and regulations. For instance, under the Malaysian Occupational Safety and Health Act/OSHA (1994) revised in 2006, a list of job tasks that is dealing with high risk hazard is mandated to obtain certificate of practice by the Malaysian Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). This means that those employees involved should attend compulsory training organized by the Malaysian’s National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or other training organizations that approved by DOSH in order to get the certificate of practice. Nevertheless, there are some employers that still unconvinced about the importance of OSH’s compulsory training. For example, Ilham (2016) reported that a Malaysian contractor is dead after inhaling methane gas when cleaning a tank at PETRONAS plant in Kertih, Terengganu. The incident demonstrates the lack of specific knowledge and skills to prevent occupational accidents; it also provides lesson for employers and top management to be aware of complying the government’s laws and rules especially to provide OSH’s compulsory training for employees. Unfortunately, some researchers, such as Curado et al. (2015) found that compulsory training is ineffective as compared to optional training. Hence, there is a need to determine whether OSH’s compulsory training is effective to improve safety performance since previous researches have neglected this issue.

 Introduction

Recent studies have devoted specific attention to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in different types of industries, including the tourism and hospitality industry (e.g.,Bohdanowicz and Zientara, 2008; Eraqi, 2010; Hendersen, 2007; Lee et al., 2012). A number of organizations recognize the necessity of balancing profitability and the development of a positive image through environmental and social responsibility (Lee and Heo, 2009; Mozes et al., 2011). About 60 percent of surveyed industry professionals perceived that their customers expect them to be involved in CSR activities (Musgrave, 2011). As people’s concern for CSR activity increases, firms are under pressure from regulators and auditors, and they find themselves in urgent need of assistance (Fu et al., 2014). According to Tsai et al (2012), “in the context of the hospitality and tourism industry, the concerns on CSR are a response to the guidelines established by the World Travel and Tourism Council and the United Nation World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), as well as the environmental awareness raised by the Green Hotels Association.” (p. 1143). In addition to customers’ expectations regarding CSR, a number of reports mention that at potential employees take account of firms’ social and environmental responsibility when they select their jobs (Quinn, 2013). They may consider whether the firm contributes to the community in an environmentally and responsible manner and whether the business is governed in a fair and transparent fashion. For these reasons, over the past few years, researchers have become interested in understanding the role of CSR in the hospitality and tourism industry (e.g., Cho et al., 2006; Fu et al., 2014; Peng et al., 2013; Tsai et al., 2012). For example, several studies have examined the relationship between firms’ CSR and their financial performance (e.g., Inoue and Lee, 2011; Kang et al., 2010; Levy and Park, 2011) or customer satisfaction (e.g., Bohdanowicz and Zientara, 2008; Lee and Heo, 2009; Martinez and Bosque, 2013). However, limited attention has been devoted to the effects of CSR in the hotel industry from an employee perspective (e.g., Lee et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Tsai et al., 2012). Employees are also among major stakeholders in CSR, and their behaviors and attitudes toward it can have significant implications for organizations.

Logging is the process of harvesting trees by which workers fell, process, and transport them for further manufacture. It is an important component of the U.S. economy, in that forest products account for ~4% of the total manufacturing gross domestic product [1]. Logging is considered as one of the most dangerous occupations in the U.S., often involving heavy physical demands, nonpermanent worksites, and challenging work environments such as inclement weather, rough terrain, and being in remote or isolated locations [2]. An increase in mechanization and logger safety training have played important roles in improving logging workers’ safety. These advancements have decreased adverse work-related events and injuries associated with manual tree felling and processing using a chainsaw [3–6]. However, logging machines themselves pose safety and health threats, and logging workers remain at high risk of injuries and adverse health problems. In 2015, for example, the fatality rate in the U.S. logging industry was 132.7 per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, the highest in any private industry [7]. Similarly, the rate of lost workday injuries was 144.1 per 100,000 FTE workers, compared to the private industry mean of 93.9 per 100,000 FTEs [8]. Common non-fatal injury mechanisms include contact with objects; slips, trips, and falls; and overexertion and bodily reaction, and which is consistent with processes related to the use of logging machinery. Specifically, machine operators are frequently injured while performing machine maintenance/repair [4,9,10] and from falls while mounting/dismounting machinery [4,6,10]. Machine operators and ground logging workers also can be exposed to contact risks with moving machinery and the risk of machine rollover [6,11]. A few studies have reported that machine operators have a high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), for example, in the neck, shoulder, and lower back regions [12,13], which are attributed to working postures [13] and psychological demands [14]. The use of logging machinery may have broader safety and health implications beyond work-related injuries, in that logging workers are likely exposed to machine-related diesel exhaust. Though little information is available on such exposures in the logging industry, diesel exhaust is a pervasive airborne contaminant in workplaces where diesel-powered equipment is used [15]. Diesel engine exhaust is a highly complex and variable mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. The amount and composition of the exhaust vary greatly, depending on factors such as fuel type, maintenance practices, workload, and exhaust system type. Vapor constituents include hydrocarbons and oxides of carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen, while particulate components consist of liquid droplets and soot particles bearing organic compounds, sulfates, metals, and other trace contaminants. The organic fraction is mainly unburned fuel and oil and can contain thousands of compounds; most notably the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known to be carcinogenic and genotoxic [16]. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies diesel exhaust as “carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)” [17]. Large cohort and case-control studies have yielded evidence demonstrating an association between exposure to unfiltered diesel exhaust and an increased incidence of lung neoplasm [18–20]. Diesel exhaust also has been shown to be an airway irritant, triggering release of cytokines, chemokines, immunoglobulins, and oxidants [21]. It may promote expression of the immunologic response phenotype (Th2) associated with asthma and allergic disease. This immunologic evidence is consistent with epidemiologic studies associating traffic-related air pollution, and diesel exhaust, with increased prevalence of respiratory disease.

Modern economies are driven by agriculture, manufacturing and service industries. Regardless of the governing factors, national economic growth and development on the basis of weak Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) regulatory regime is an invitation for accident [30]. Yesterday, occupational safety and health was not the concern of all parties. But, nowadays, health and safety is becoming the key issues of global worries. In many studies, effective management of occupational safety and health found to play a pivotal role in running a successful business [21]. The global issue for sustainable development of the citizen is the health and safe working groups at their workplace. In order to achieve this, one of them is the development of sustainable occupational safety and health environments. Having this challenges, it is mandatory to answer the questions how workplace safety and health innovation results in sustainable development of citizens and forward the roads toward sustainable development in industrial occupational safety hand health. The dynamism of socio-economic development has brought change on all aspects of the expansion. Dynamical change on workplace health and safety innovation, high prevalence of occupational diseases and accidents registration are the initial factors of sustainable development. The existence of occupational safety and health problems is adding level of poverty onto existing burden of the society. There is a strong Malthusian movement which maintains that continued economic growth will disturb the balance of nature, and will eventually lead to ecological catastrophes [34]. This imbalance between innovation and development tends to result in failure in sustainable developments. As Zohreh and Napsiah [33] wrote in their research findings in summarizing that sustainable development and occupational safety, health, and environment are the two controversial concepts which have attracted the attention of many researchers in recent years. They argue that sustainable development cannot be thought without considering environment, society, economy and their working condition. Hence, this research has attempted to asses OSH innovation in relation to sustainable development variables and their impact on each other. The other approach used is from the interview and observation made in some of Ethiopian manufacturing industries. The researcher used semi-structured interview question to justify the how industrial occupational safety and health innovation affects sustainable development of socio-economy. The result obtained showed us that workplace safety and health innovation has not been considered as a key driver of sustainable development. The companies have less consciousness about these issues. As it has been discussed in literature review, most of the companies’ focus on productivity improvement, technological build up and profit maximization of the industries than workplace safety and health innovation.

The provision of Occupational safety and health (OSH) services to workers has long been a global concern. The International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 161 of 1985 [1] and the World Health Organization (WHO)’s 2008e2017 Global Plan for Action [2] both demonstrate the value that the international community has to safety issues. Unfortunately, developing countries are lagging far behind in comparison with their industrialized counterparts, with regard to the provision of OSH services to workers [3e6]. According to LaDou [6], 20e50% of workers in developed countries have access to adequate OSH services, whereas in developing countries, it is only 5e10%. Even worse, in some countries, for example, Tanzania, less than 5% of the workforce has access to OSH services [3]. More importantly, the lack of adequate OSH services contributes to high work-related injuries [3,4,7]. Because OSH legislation is a vital component of injury prevention programs, compensation, and litigation functions, an examination of such legislation for developing low- and middle-income countries may help to identify their current limitations, strengths, and priority areas for continual improvement. Consequently, a review of existing OSH legislation is required. To date, original articles, short communications, commentaries, and reviews on OSH legislation in low- and middle-income countries are limited. Nonetheless, a recent article by Moyo et al [8] raised several critical issues on OSH legislation in Southern Africa using case studies of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Zambia. For example, although this article is rich with details of fragmentation of OSH laws among government departments, it addressed neither how such fragmentation affects enforcement nor how such fragmentation can be resolved. In the present study, this issue was revisited with deliberate attempts to fill this gap. The lack of gender sensitivity in OSH laws has not been addressed in previous studies. In our opinion, this issue deserves a closer scrutiny. Therefore, we provide evidence of lack of gender sensitivity in existing OSH laws, its historical origins, and how it can be corrected. We conclude this issue by detailing the ILO’s standpoint on gender sensitivity in the context of OSH. Moreover, the inadequacy of current OSH laws in the context of the agricultural sector has not received sufficient attention in the available literature. For three reasons, this issue shall receive more scrutiny in our present article: (1) in most low- and middle-income countries, agriculture employs more than 70% of the entire labor force, yet it is not fully covered by existing OSH laws, (2) there is compelling evidence that the greatest number of injuries occurs in the agricultural sector [9,10] although a large number is also recorded in the construction industry [11], and (3) workers are exposed to pesticides from agricultural products [10]. To the best of our knowledge, no documented study on OSH laws has used predesigned review criteria for analyzing these laws. Currently, there are no universally agreed upon international OSH criteria for evaluating the adequacy of OSH legislation. We developed ten-point review criteria and uniformly applied it to OSH legislation of the selected countries (Table 1). The crux of the review criteria was to ultimately influence future OSH policy directions in such countries by unearthing key areas requiring correction.

Language barriers between patients and medical professionals are becoming an increasing feature of many healthcare systems around the world (Meeuwesen et al., 2011; Quan and Lynch, 2010). Many communities are facing a growing number of immigrants in hospitals and clinics, and the issue extends to ethnic minorities who speak other languages. Hearing-impaired and visually impaired citizens also commonly face language barriers. Healthcare professionals themselves are ever more likely to practice far from their home communities, which often implies that they have to communicate in another language. Those circumstances may result in a barrier to accessing care, medical error, or an outright denial of care for a patient: as such, the right to a translator in healthcare settings would seem to be given under International Law. Furthermore, the denial of proper translation has proven to lead to denial of preventative care, maiming, and even death (Price-Wise, 1998; Kelly, 2010). Both the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, art. 25)[1] and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, art.12 (2)(b,d)[2] specifically mention the Right to Health. The 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization[3] preamble outlines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The UDHR guarantees “medical care and necessary social services” as a human right, whereas the ICESCR goes further by guaranteeing “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” which includes “the creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.” The United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights further commented on the issue of access to care in 2000[4], outlining four distinct dimensions of accessibility: non-discrimination, physical accessibility, economic accessibility (affordability), and information accessibility. To quote the attorney Natalie Huls (2004) (US Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission): “Most international human rights law tends to overlook access to health because the right to health indirectly addresses how that right is to be fulfilled. The right to health states that everyone should have access to health, but does not address the specific issues of access, guarantees to access, and does not explain what access entails.” The result is that a wronged patient seeking redress may feel that article 25 of the UDHR or article 12 of the ICESCR may not be the most practical grounds with which to bring suit before an international court, and decide to “forum shop” by appealing to other international bodies (e.g. The European Court of Human Rights), “grounds shop” (by filing using a legal basis other than the Right to Health), or simply file a case nationally.

Sanitation is one of the key challenges of our time. Every day, a lack of adequate sanitation creates immeasurable suffering, primarily through the spread of disease via water, land or insects. Sanitation problems contribute to, and are exacerbated by, disasters. Despite much interesting work being done in other fields, international legal scholars have thus far been remarkably silent on issues of sanitation. A few important exceptions exist, including Keri Ellis and Loretta Feris (2014), Catarina de Albuquerque (2014), Léo Heller (2015) and Inga Winkler (2016). Further, following the recognition by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) of the human right to sanitation as a separate right in 2015, legal attention is likely to increase. International human rights law (IHRL) is recognised as a key component of emerging international law on disaster management (see, e.g., ILC, 2016; IASC, 2011; Sphere Project, 2011; Cedervall Lauta, 2016; Cubie, 2014; da Costa and Pospieszna, 2015; Kälin, 2011). The importance of IHRL was most recently acknowledged in the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters (ILC Draft Articles), adopted by the ILC on second reading in June 2016. Still, while States now have embraced a human rights based approach to disaster management, significant question marks remain as to what these obligations mean in the disaster context. This article addresses this issue by exploring what these obligations mean in relation to sanitation, which in itself is a significantly underexplored aspect of IHRL. A few limitations should be noted. First of all, the analysis in this article is focused on disasters caused by natural and human-made hazards, while excluding armed conflicts. Secondly, although acknowledging the importance of various kinds of actors in relation to sanitation, human rights, and disaster management, the analysis in this article focuses on the obligations of States as the primary duty bearers. Thirdly, the purpose of this article is not to analyse non-legal debates around best practices around sanitation, but rather to tie together aspects of legal instruments and debates so as to illuminate existing legal obligations for States in relation to sanitation and human rights in the disaster management context. Such analysis is vital from an international law perspective, as the lack of clarity and the absence of scholarly engagement around the legal aspects of sanitation leave too much of the fulfilment of needs in the hands of relief or development organisations, while limited attention is paid to existing obligations upon States. Fourthly, this article does not engage with accountability mechanisms and challenges. However, one of the key aspects of accountability is to “clarify the exact rights and obligations at play in disaster settings” (Cubie and Hesselman, 2015), which is a key aim of this article. The next section clarifies the definition of sanitation for the purpose of this paper and introduces the contemporary challenges in relation to sanitation. Section 3 then introduces the relevant human rights framework, in particular, the development and legal status of the human right to sanitation, and the role of sanitation within other relevant rights. Following this, section 4 introduces the role of IHRL within disaster management from the perspective of State obligations, before section 5 explores human rights obligations in relation to sanitation in the different phases of disaster management.

Despite the numerous challenges confronted by the behavioral health workforce in providing access to high-quality care, myriad examples exist of advances in workforce planning, development, and service delivery. The Nation’s first Health Workforce Research Center focused on behavioral health, funded jointly by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and HRSA, was established in 2015. The efforts of this Center and its consortium of partners, which represent a varied group of providers and professional organizations engaged in mental health and addiction prevention and treatment, are aimed at conducting research to strengthen workforce capacity. The article by Beck et al.10 summarizes the Center’s work in developing a minimum data set as a foundational step for standardizing the collection of workforce data to inform workforce planning efforts. Two articles by Andrilla and colleagues detail the geographic maldistribution of providers across the U.S.11 and barriers to seeking buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder because of physician prescribing practices,12 whereas Brener et al.13 describe how school district staffing policies related to counseling, psychological, and social services could increase availability of behavioral health services. Findings from these studies frame access to care issues for which careful workforce planning may improve availability of behavioral health services for underserved populations. This issue also includes studies that offer solutions for addressing workforce shortages and reduced capacity through policy development and effective use of human resources. Haffajee and colleagues14 propose policy pathways to address workforce barriers to buprenorphine provision and access and Altschul et al.15 summarize legislation enacted in New Mexico in 2011 to systematically survey all healthcare professionals in an effort to inform policies to address shortage issues. Further, Chapman and colleagues16 discuss the roles of psychiatric mental health nurses, an often underutilized segment of the workforce, in behavioral health care delivery; Gagne et al.17 highlight the benefits of integrating peer workers across service settings; and Au and colleagues18 propose strategies for reducing burnout of care coordinators in integrated care settings.

In the human resource management (HRM) literature there is a fundamentalquestionregardingpotentialtrade-offs betweenorganizational performance and employees’ wellbeing in contemporary organizations (Peccei, 2004). This highlights tensions between a managerialistic-oriented approach and criticism deriving from the critical management approach (Boxall, 2013). The main focus of mainstream approaches to HRM, and basically the “hard HRM” tradition with high performance work practices is on the firm’s performance and interest. Hence, the main goal of analysing the effects of HRM practices on employee outcomes has been to optimize resources towards the ultimate interests of the company (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Guest, 2011) with little emphasis on employees’ interests and wellbeing (Boxall & Macky, 2009; Kehoe & Wright, 2013). For the criticism perspective, employees’ commitment and involvement are seen only as mechanisms for achieving organizational results, the firm’s interests often prevailing over those of the employees (Godard, 2004; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, 2000). Adverse effects can appear in employees, suchas job stress andburn-out(Lopes, Lagoa, & Calapez, 2014; Ramsay et al., 2000). These have been studied much less than positive effects (Van de Voorde, Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2012). Business ethics has emerged as a growing field of interest, and within this framework a “business case” (Vogel, 2005) for the ethical management of people can also be found, along with normative and evaluative prescriptions for contemporary HRM practices (Spencer, 2013). In some cases these have given rise to codes of conduct aimed at promoting ethical HRM practices (Diller, 1999). A value-laden ethical approach to HRM represents an important way forward in the analysis of the HRM–performance relationship. This approach involves organizations taking care of employees’ needs and ensuring they are treated with due consideration for their wellbeing (Paauwe, 2009). Employees’ needs and wellbeing are also the object of interest of international organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), the European Union and the United Nations Organization. They promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) in firms’ actions and management. One of the spheres of CSR is the management of employees, and codes of conduct, recommendations and so on have emerged from these organizations (Boiral, 2003; Diller, 1999). These are the basis for national actions that go in the same direction, that is, firms being “socially responsible” towards their employees.