Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Deborah C Poff, Alex C. Michalos

Corporate Social Responsibility and Domestic Violence

  • Alice de JongeEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_551-1

Introduction

This entry begins with a brief description of two phenomena of twenty-first-century societies: the persistent problem of domestic violence and the dissolving boundaries between home and work. The entry then discusses the challenges these two phenomena present for ethical reasoning about corporate social responsibility in relation to employees affected by domestic violence. A number of ethical frameworks for understanding these challenges are discussed. The final section of this entry focusses upon six specific questions for businesses to ask when addressing the impacts of domestic violence in the workplace: (i) the question of leave entitlements for workers affected by domestic violence, (ii) the challenge of dealing with privacy concerns, (iii) dealing with workplace safety issues raised by domestic violence, (iv) whether and how to establish a workplace support network for affected workers, (v) whether and how to provide counselling and referral services, and (vi) how to manage the enterprise relationship with wider society in relation to domestic violence.

The Twenty-First Century: A Persistent Problem of Domestic Violence and Dissolving Boundaries Between Work and Home

The term “domestic violence” (also known as “intimate partner violence”) is defined here to include: “any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or are family members. This includes: psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional abuse. It also includes ‘honour’-based violence and forced marriage” (NICE 2014: 1).

The cost of domestic violence, including the costs of lost productivity and of legal, health, and other social services, has been estimated at up to 2% of global GDP (The Economist 2018). The total cost to the US economy of the almost 5 million domestic violence cases recorded per year is about $460 billion p.a. (Lomborg and Williams 2018). Domestic violence costs the UK an estimated £15.7 billion in 2008 (Walby 2004; NICE 2014: 3–4; ILO 2011). In Canada, a Department of Justice study estimated that domestic violence cost employers $78 million in 2009 (Department of Justice 2016).

In Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, growing awareness of the persistent prevalence of domestic violence has prompted Royal Commissions and taskforce inquiries (Queensland Taskforce 2015; Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence 2016; Andrews 2015), and legislative initiatives to incorporate domestic violence leave entitlements into workplace standards. Yet overall throughout the Western world, funding cuts to social services mean that fewer victims of violence have access to support, while rates of domestic violence continue to rise or remain persistent (Leins 2015; CDC Survey 2015; Bureau of Justice statistics 2013; Murray and Theobald 2014).

Domestic violence impacts on the workplace in a number of ways. First there are the costs of lost time and productivity of employees who are dealing with the impacts of domestic violence. Second, there are the impacts on fellow workers when a violent partner follows the affected worker into the workplace, creating a safety incident, or when the affect employee arrives at work injured, distressed, and/or fearful – even seeking to use the workplace as a refuge after hours (Murray and Powell 2007, 2008; Wathen et al. 2014).

Other issues arise when it is the violent partner who is an employee. Such employees can bring violence into the workplace. They can use workplace time and resources to facilitate stalking and/or abusive activities. They are more likely to be absent or underperforming (Murray and Powell 2007, 2008; Walden and McFerran 2014; Trade Union Council 2014; Wathen et al. 2014).

The changing nature of the modern workplace means that the impacts of domestic violence can no longer be ignored. The workplace and the domestic environment can no longer be treated as discrete or separate environments (Ericson 2013; Woods 2012; Workplaces Respond). As the proportion of women in the workforce increases across the developed world, policy-makers and businesses are increasingly forced to recognize that their employees have obligations as parents, carers, and partners (Skinner and Pocock 2014). Family-friendly policies are altering workplace practices and even the workplace physical environment (such as when creche, day-care, and/or baby-care facilities are provided) everywhere (Albrecht 2003; Wajcman 2002; Skinner and Pocock 2014). Domestic violence is an unfortunate aspect of family life for many employees, and failure to address its impacts in workplace policies discriminates against those affected.

Just as the workplace is altering to incorporate domestic concerns, so also the domestic environmental is adjusting to workplace demands (Pearson and Seyfang 2002; Ericson 2013; Bardoel 2012). Daily family routines are tailored around workplace needs, especially disruptive when shift-work is involved. Telecommuting turns the home into a workplace, and the physical space is altered accordingly (Ericson 2013; Woods 2012; Bardoel 2012). While telecommuting provides greater flexibility, it also means that the home is no longer a place free from workplace demands (Woods 2012; Ericson 2013; Bardoel 2012).

Modern communications technology can both facilitate domestic violence and be used to address it (Woods 2012). Abusers can use GPS and mobile phone technology to stalk their victim(s). Email and texting service can become transmitters of abusive messages (DVRCV website; Hand et al. 2015; Woods 2012). Yet modern technology can also be used to help victims seek help and decrease isolation (Woods 2012). Evidence collected via mobile technology can be used to bring abusers and stalkers to account. Communications technology can provide security for victims through emergency signaling (NNEDV 2014; Finn 2000).

The Expanding Scope of Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethical Reasoning About Corporate Responsibility in Relation to Domestic Violence

As Scherer and Palazzo (2011) have noted, “under the conditions of globalization, the strict division of labour between private business and nation-state governance does not hold any more” (2011: 899). In recognition of this changing environment, “many business firms have started to assume social and political responsibilities that go beyond legal requirements” (Scherer and Palazzo 2011: 899–900). Employee welfare has at the forefront of this expanded area of corporate responsibility (Jenkins et al. 2002; Compa 2008; Flanagan and Gould 2003; Yu 2008; US Dept. of State Archive 2001–2009). The International Labour Organisation (ILO) and Social Accountability International have led the shift toward international recognition of corporate responsibilities for employee welfare (SA8000 2014; Compa 2008). The OECD and the UN Human Rights Commission have led the move toward universal recognition that transnational businesses have a duty to respect human rights more generally (Ruggie 2008, 2010; UNHCR 2011). Individual companies have developed their own voluntary codes of conduct in relation to employee welfare (Compa 2008; Flanagan and Gould 2003; Pearson and Seyfang 2002). The question arises, however, of exactly how far the responsibilities of business for employee welfare should extend into what has traditionally been seem as the private sphere of domestic life.

Questions arising in relation to business responsibility for employee welfare have been discussed from a number of different philosophical perspectives. Sison and Fontrodona (2012), for example, draw upon three schools of thought to develop a conception of the common good applicable to the relationship between the corporation and its employees. From Aristotle, they borrow a general conception of the common good defined in terms of eudemonia – a shared human flourishing. From Aquinas, they adapt a conception of the common good to extend it beyond the broader social polis, to include the transnational corporation. From Catholic Social Thought (CST), Sison and Fontrodona (2012) borrow a multilevel way of thinking about the need for all social actors, including business organizations, to contribute to the common good. For Sison and Fontrodona (2012), combining these three perspectives highlight a view of the corporation as both able and liable to participate in working toward the common good of wider society. Yet this view has little to say about the extent to which the firm, as a shared enterprise, might be responsible for the flourishing of individual employees outside of the workplace. It is a perspective which, by emphasizing the common or shared nature of the corporate endeavor, tends to lose sight of the individual within it.

A social contract view (Rawls 1971, 2001) of corporate responsibility in relation to employee welfare goes further toward addressing the needs and rights of individuals within the corporation and society. According to Bishop (2008), a social contract viewpoint respects corporate autonomy and the right of companies to pursue private purposes, but also places upon corporation concomitant responsibilities:

to respect the freedom and human rights of all people, and not to interfere with government programs that [provide] … education … and … a safety-net that prevents destitution [as well as other] … rights and responsibilities … established by … legitimate democratic processes. (2008: 191)

Examples of corporate responsibilities “established by legitimate democratic processes” include minimum wage legislation, occupation health and safety standards, and minimum award conditions and entitlements. Awards and Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBAs) exist in many jurisdictions as a primary forum for negotiating the relationship between the workplace and the domestic sphere. In an increasing number of jurisdictions, these entitlements now include, in addition to parental, carers’, and other leave entitlements, employee access to domestic violence leave (Schneiders 2012; UNSW Gendered Violence Research Network website). A social contract perspective, however, justifies and explains such provisions as essentially voluntary, with each side able to enter the pact in pursuit of self-interest.

Another perspective known as stakeholder theory combines both Aristotelian notions of the common good and social contract theory. According to Freeman (2008), stakeholder theory is based on the notion that “Businesses and executives are responsible for the effects of their actions. They are responsible precisely to those groups and individuals that they can affect or be affected by” (2008: 164). Freeman is critical of the tendency for corporate social responsibility discourse to fail at any attempt to define the boundaries of business’s responsibility for problems which are essentially social in nature. His answer is to draw the boundaries as far as “stakeholders” and no further (2008: n. 9).

Feminist theories provide another set of perspectives that (like Freeman) view employees not as units of production, but as “whole, fully integrated human beings, with names, faces, families, and pasts …” (Freeman 2008: 163). What the many different bodies of feminist thought share in common is an ethical criterion that places emphasis on the concrete reality of people’s lives (Ashcroft 2000, 2001; Phillips 2006; Wajcman 2002). A feminist lens thus becomes one through which the true impacts of domestic violence in the workplace can perhaps be most clearly understood. In particular, a feminist lens ensures that policy-makers do not lose sight of the fact that “Domestic violence is a gendered issue. … the rate of domestic and family violence perpetrated against women is significantly higher than it is against men” (Queensland Task Force 2015: para. 2.3; see also Bureau of Justice Statistics 2013) and elsewhere in the Western world. Moreover, feminist reasoning, by paying close attention to social relations, serves to strengthen the foundations of modern democracy in a way that abstract notions of eudemonia, or individualistic notions of the social contract, cannot.

In the close attention it pays to the importance of social relations, feminist theory shares many of the same concerns as those shared by CSR scholars (Bishop 2008; Scherer and Palazzo 2011; Flanagan and Gould 2003; Compa 2008). As Albrecht explains:

Modern, democratic societies depend upon families to pass on traditions of meaning and value, to revaluate these traditions in new generations, and to model and teach this generational process of becoming acting moral agents. Democratic societies depend upon ordinary citizens, as nature moral agents, to do the work of maintaining democratic communities and institutions. Ultimately, it is the purpose of both the products and processes of business to serve these foundations of individual and social wellbeing. (2003: 180)

Related to this is the way feminist scholars have exposed power relations within social structures. This is useful in creating awareness of the biases built into existing processes of negotiating, drafting, and implementing policies aimed at addressing domestic violence and its impacts (Phillips 2006; Wajcman 2002; Ashcroft 2000, 2001).

Dealing with the Impacts of Domestic Violence in the Workplace: Issues for Business to Consider

Responding to domestic violence challenges by incorporating new practices and altering existing practices within the workplace involves risks and challenges for managers (Yuan et al. 2011). Diplomacy is required when consulting with stakeholders about change; and managerial skills must be called upon to ensure coordination across all relevant functions (Yuan et al. 2011; Workplaces Respond website; Swanberg et al. 2005). No single set of “best practice” guidelines will apply to all workplace settings. But some questions are generally applicable to nearly all modern Western workplaces (ALRC 2012; Queensland Taskforce 2015; Phillips 2006; Wathen et al. 2014; Murray and Powell 2008). The first of these is the question of tailored leave entitlements for workers affected by domestic violence.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the Philippines are among the countries where formal legislated entitlements to domestic violence leave for employees can be found. Each jurisdiction has its own combination of paid and unpaid leave entitlements, and there are important variations in levels of awareness, access, and enforcement (ALRC 2012; ILO 2011; TUC 2014). Even in these nations, it is business which must take the lead in providing genuine access to supported leave for employees affected by domestic violence. Supported leave means more than an entitlement to remain absent from work without penalty. It means that affected employees have access to financial entitlements and support services while they remain affected by a violent domestic situation. Affected employees need the ability to tailor, in consultation with the employer, the manner in which they access different entitlements and services according to their individual circumstances. For employers unable to provide immediate access to paid leave entitlements, an expanded definition of existing “special,” “family,” “flexible,” or other leave entitlements can be used as a first step.

Both parties bear rights and responsibilities in relation to the duty to consult. The affected employee owes a responsibility to make their needs clear to the employer in so far as it affects existing workplace arrangements and to keep the employer informed as relevant circumstances change. The employer is responsible for ensuring that the employee has access to culturally appropriate consultation and other services, and a duty to protect the affected employee’s right to privacy.

The right to privacy is one of the basic rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (Article 17). The employer’s undertaking to keep employee personal information confidential is essential to the employee’s dignity and security. The employee’s undertaking to keep the employer informed of workplace-related circumstances is essential to the preservation of workplace routines and workplace security. An effective enterprise agreement consultation clause retains the balance between these demands.

For employee perpetrators of violence, privacy is also an essential part of facilitating disclosure and providing support in appropriate cases. Employee perpetrators assessed as being able to benefit from attending counselling/treatment are most likely to benefit if they are able to remain in the workplace. Guarantees of confidentiality are an important part of making this possible.

Integrating privacy as a routinized part of workplace practices may require investment in additional record keeping/communications infrastructure and human resources and forms an essential aspect of workplace safety. Where needed, managers need to be able to efficiently arrange new office premises, phone number, and/or email address, or even altered workhours, for employees affected by domestic violence. All employees need awareness training so that if an abusive partner seeks entry to the workplace (physically or virtually), the situation can be dealt with and so that staff are able to assist and refer affected colleagues where necessary.

In larger organizations especially, workplace safety is enhanced if a network of trained support staff is established throughout the workforce. A choice of contact points for affected employees is particularly important for culturally diverse workplaces. It also provides for a larger number of referral points able to refer affected staff to appropriate external support services – medical, legal, migration, housing, and other social services.

In the case of employee perpetrators, the challenge for HR is to balance a zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence with a safe and supportive environment for rehabilitation and treatment where that is possible. Case-by-case assessments are desirable but costly. Clear guidelines setting out the obligations of perpetrator employee assessed as willing and able to benefit from counselling and/or treatment are essential, along with HR staff trained in their implementation.

“Positioning” refers to adding independent, peripheral CSR routines that may not exert much influence internally; but serve to facilitate linkages between an organization and the community within which it is located. When positioning strategies serve to generate working relationships between the firm and community service providers, this can evolve into what Yuan et al. refer to as “thickening” – making use of externally sourced services to enhance the effectiveness of workplace policy implementation (2011: 83).

A public commitment to opposing domestic violence is an important part of “positioning.” It stands as a symbol and a message to both employees and the wider community of what the company stands for. As such, it needs to come from, and be endorsed by, the highest level of organizational authority. There must be a commitment to developing a supportive workplace in which victims of domestic violence can come forward for help and support (see, e.g., Brimbank City Council 2014; NAB Domestic Violence Policy 2011; City of Sydney 2011; Loddon Shire Council 2014).

A strong organizational statement condemning abusive behavior is an equally necessary part of addressing the impacts of domestic violence in the workplace. Such a statement provides a firm foundation for penalizing the misuse of workplace resources by perpetrators and for directing relevant employees to specific counselling and, where needed, treatment services.

A public commitment to addressing the causes and impacts of domestic violence also facilitates the sharing of experience and expertise with relevant community organizations, including unions, employer organizations, and local service providers. This requires investment of resources – an investment in the building of relationships of reciprocity and trust (Ashcroft 2001; D’Enbeau and Buzzanell 2013; Pearson and Seyfang 2002).

This entry has drawn upon major streams of ethical theory – Aristotelean ethics, social contract theory, and feminist thought – to explore the limits of corporate social responsibility in relation to domestic violence and its impacts. As with other aspects of corporate social responsibility, these limits will vary from organization to organization and from setting to setting. What is important is that the organization and its leaders be open to addressing the needs of domestic violence victims – for time away from work, for workplace flexibility (both temporal and physical), for protection of privacy rights, and for safety at work. Each of these needs can be realized most effectively when a workplace support network exists for affected employees to tap into, when counselling and referral points within the workplace have sound relations with relevant services outside of the workplace, and when there is a public commitment by the organization to act as a responsible member of society in combatting domestic violence.

Cross-References

References

  1. Albrecht GH (2003) How friendly are family-friendly policies? Bus Ethics Q 13(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews D (2015) Media release: nothing off limits in family violence royal commission. 19 January. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/nothing-off-limits-in-family-violence-royal-commission
  3. Ashcroft KL (2000) Empowering ‘professional’ relationships: organisational communication meets feminist practice. Manag Commun Q 13:347–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashcroft KL (2001) Organized dissonance: feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Acad Manag J 44: 1301–1322Google Scholar
  5. Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) (2012) Family violence and commonwealth laws – improving legal frameworks. ALRC Report 117. Tabled in Parliament 7 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardoel A (2012) Tool or time thief? Technology and the work-life balance. The Conversation. 30 July. http://theconversation.com/tool-or-time-thief-technology-and-the-work-life-balance-8165
  7. Bishop JD (2008) For-profit corporations in a just society: a social contract argument concerning the rights and responsibilities of corporations. Bus Ethics Q 18(2):191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brimbank City Council Enterprise Agreement 7 (2014) 28 January 2015. Brimbank City Council (AG2014/11068). [2015] FWCA 667. https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae412401.pdf
  9. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Crime Data Brief, Criminal Victimization (2013) Revised 19 Sept 2014. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. CDC Survey (2015) National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: data brief 2015 – updated release. United States. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf
  11. City of Sydney (2011) Dealing with domestic violence at work policy. 5 December. Retrieved at https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/114744/domestic-violence-policy-2011.pdf
  12. Compa LA (2008) Corporate social responsibility and workers’ rights. Comp Labour Law Policy J 30(1):1–10Google Scholar
  13. D’Enbeau S, Buzzanell PM (2013) Constructing a feminist organization’s identity in a competitive marketplace. Hum Relat 66:1447–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Justice, Canada (2016) An estimation of the economic impact of spousal violence in Canada, 2009 (compiled by Ting Zhang, Josh Hoddenbagh, Susan McDonald and Katie Sarim)Google Scholar
  15. Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria (DVRCV) Website. Cyber stalking & harassment. http://www.dvrcv.org.au/help-advice/cyber-stalking-and-harassment
  16. Ericson J (2013) Telecommuting could improve productivity, work-life balance: is working from home for you? Medical Daily. 29 September. Retrieved at https://www.medicaldaily.com/telecommuting-could-improve-productivity-work-life-balance-working-home-you-258458
  17. Finn J (2000) Domestic violence organizations on the web: a new arena for domestic violence services. Violence Against Women 6(1):80–102.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022181723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flanagan RJ, Gould WB (eds) (2003) International labour standards: globalization, trade and public policy. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman RE (2008) Ending the so-called “Friedman-Freeman” debate. Bus Ethics Q 18(2):153–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hand T, Chung D, Peters M (2015) The use of information and communication technologies to coerce and control in domestic violence and following separation. Stakeholder Paper 6. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. UNSW. Retrieved at https://advocacy4oromia.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/stakeholderpaper_6.pdf
  21. International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2011) Gender-based violence in the world of work: overview and selected annotated bibliography. ILO Working Paper 3/2011Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins R, Pearson R, Seyfang G (2002) Corporate responsibility and labour rights: codes of conduct in the global economy. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Leins C (2015) Sobering stats for domestic violence awareness month. U.S. News. 9 October. Accessed 29 Nov 2018 at https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/09/sobering-stats-for-domestic-violence-awareness-month
  24. Loddon Shire Council Enterprise Agreement No. 7 (2014) AG2014/5932. [2014] FWCA 3116. Retrieved at https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae408073.pdf
  25. Lomborg B, Williams MA (2018) The cost of domestic violence in astonishing, Washington Post, 22 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  26. Murray S, Powell A (2007) Family violence prevention using workplaces as sites of intervention. Res Pract Hum Resour Manag 15(2):62–74Google Scholar
  27. Murray S, Powell A (2008) Working it out: domestic violence issues and the workplace. Issues Paper 16. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:8031
  28. Murray S, Theobald J (2014) Domestic and family violence. In: Chamberlain C, Johnson G, Robinson C (eds) Homelessness in Australia: an introduction. NewSouth Publishing, Sydney, pp 179–195Google Scholar
  29. National Australia Bank (NAB) (2011) Website. Domestic Violence Support. Last accessed April 2018 at https://www.nab.com.au/about-us/corporate-responsibility/customers/domestic-and-family-violence
  30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2014) Costing statement: domestic violence and abuse Implementing the NICE guidance on domestic violence and abuse – how services can respond effectively (PH50), February. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph50
  31. National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) (2014) Thwarting tech-savvy abusers and empowering survivors of violence through technology in Australia. 8 Sept. Retrieved at https://nnedv.org/latest_update/thwarting-tech-savvy-abusers-and-empowering-survivors-of-violence-through-technology-in-australia/
  32. Pearson R, Seyfang G (2002) “I’ll tell you what I want …”: women workers and codes of conduct. In: Jenkins R, Pearson R (eds) Corporate social responsibility and labour rights: codes of conduct in the global economy. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips R (2006) Undoing an activist response: feminism and the Australian government’s domestic violence policy. Crit Soc Policy 26:192–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Queensland Taskforce (2015) Final report of the special taskforce on domestic and family violence in Queensland. Not now, not ever: putting an end to domestic violence in Queensland. https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/gateway/campaigns/end-violence/about/special-taskforce/dfv-report-vol-one.pdf
  35. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness: a restatement. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruggie JG (2008) Special representative of the Secretary-General. Protect, respect and remedy: a framework for business and human rights. UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5Google Scholar
  38. Ruggie JG (2010) Putting the ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’ framework into practice. Institute for Human Rights and Business. 29 April. Retrieved at https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/institute-for-human-rights-and-business-blog-john-ruggie-on-putting-the-protect-respect-remedy-framework-into-practice
  39. SA8000: 2014. Social Accountability International (2014) SA8000 International Standard http://sa-intl.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/SA8000%20Standard%202014.pdf
  40. S.D. (2018) The economist explains: how domestic violence affects the economy. The Economist. 2 AugustGoogle Scholar
  41. Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2011) The new political role of business in a globalized world: a review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. J Manag Stud 48(4): 899–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneiders B (2012) Domestic violence leave surges. The Sydney Morning Herald. 27 October. http://www.smh.com.au/
  43. Sison AJG, Fontrodona J (2012) The common good of the firm in the Aristotelean-Thomistic tradition. Bus Ethics Q 22(2):211–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skinner N, Pocock B (2014) The Australian work and life index 2014. In: The persistent challenge: living, working and caring in Australia in 2014. Centre for Work & Life, University of South Australia. Retrieved at https://www.unisa.edu.au/siteassets/episerver-6-files/documents/eass/cwl/publications/awali_2014_national_report_final.pdf
  45. Swanberg J, Logan TK, Macke C (2005) Intimate partner violence, employment and the workplace: consequences and future directions. Trauma Violence Abuse 6(4):286–312. Retrieved at http://www.workplaceviolence911.com/docs/20060324-01.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trade Union Council (TUC) (2014) Domestic violence and the workplace: a TUC survey report. April. United Kingdom. Retrieved at https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Domestic_Violence_And_The_Workplace_0.pdf
  47. U.S. Department of State Archive (2001–2009) Labor and corporate social responsibility. https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/lbr/
  48. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) (2011) Special representative of the Secretary-General. Guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing the UN ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’ framework. U.N. Doc. A/HCR/17/31. 21 March. The Principles are included as an Annex to the Report, endorsed by the Council in Res. 17/4 of 16 June 2011Google Scholar
  49. Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (2016) Final report and recommendations. March. Retrieved at http://files.rcfv.com.au/Reports/Final/RCFV-All-Volumes.pdf. (Large file)
  50. Wajcman J (2002) Feminism facing industrial relations in Britain. Br J Ind Relat 38(2):183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walby S (2004) The cost of domestic violence. Women & Equality Unit, London. http://www.devon.gov.uk/de/text/cost_of_dv_report_sept04.pdfGoogle Scholar
  52. Walden I, McFerran L (2014) Gendered violence and work: report on a scoping study into the effects of sexual violence on employees and the workplace. UNSW Australia, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, Gendered Violence Research Network. April. Retrieved at https://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/FASSFile/Report_on_a_scoping_study_into_the_effects_of_sexual_violence_on_employees_and_the_workplace.pdf
  53. Wathen CN, MacGregor JCD, MacQuarrie BJ, Canadian Labour Congress (2014) Can work be safe, when home Isn’t?: Initial findings a Pan-Canadian survey on domestic violence and the workplace. University of Western Ontario. Centre for Education & Research on Violence Against Women & Children, London. Retrieved at https://canadianlabour.ca/sites/default/files/media/dvwork_survey_report_2014_enr.pdfGoogle Scholar
  54. Woods C (2012) Finding safe distance: tracing the connections between domestic violence and information communication technologies. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo. Retrieved at https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/Colleen%20Woods%20Finding%20Safe%20Distance.pdfGoogle Scholar
  55. Workplaces Respond website. Workplaces respond to domestic & sexual violence. The facts on the workplace and domestic violence. http://www.workplacesrespond.org/learn/the-facts/the-facts-on-the-workplce-and-domestic-violence
  56. Yu XM (2008) Impacts of corporate governance code of conduct on labor standards: A case study of Reebok’s athletic footwear supplier factory in China, J Bus Ethics 81(3): 513–529Google Scholar
  57. Yuan W, Bao Y, Verbeke A (2011) Integrating CSR initiatives in business: an organizing framework. J Bus Ethics 101(1):75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legislation

    Australia

    1. Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act 2018 (Cth) Effective 12 December 2018Google Scholar

    Canada

    1. Domestic Violence, Intimate Partner Violence or Sexual Violence Leave Regulation – Employment Standards Act 2018. Effective 1 September 2018. New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
    2. Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act 2017. Amending the Employment Standards Act 2000. OntarioGoogle Scholar
    3. Labour Standards Code (amended) Bill No. 107. Nova Scotia. Retrieved at https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/63rd_1st/1st_read/b107.htm
    4. The Employment Standards Code Amendment Act (Leave for Victims of Domestic Violence, Leave for Serious Injury or Illness and Extension of Compassionate Care Leave) 15 March 2016. ManitobaGoogle Scholar
    5. The Fair and Family-friendly Workplaces Act, Alberta, June 2017. Effective 1 January 2018Google Scholar
    6. The Saskatchewan Employment (Support for Survivors of Domestic Violence) Amendment Act 2018. No. 609Google Scholar

    New Zealand

    1. Domestic Violence – Victims’ Protection Act 2018. No. 21Google Scholar

    Philippines

    1. Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash Business SchoolMonash UniversityCaulfieldAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Deborah C. Poff
    • 1
  1. 1.OttawaCanada