Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10076-1

Why Do Employers (Fail to) Hire People with Disabilities? A Systematic

Review of Capabilities, Opportunities and Motivations
Rosanna Nagtegaal1 · Noortje de Boer1 · Rik van Berkel1 · Belle Derks1 · Lars Tummers1

Accepted: 9 October 2022 / Published online: 23 January 2023

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Purpose To increase the number of people with disabilities in employment, we need to understand what influences employ-
ers’ hiring decisions. In this systematic review, we map out factors affecting employers’ hiring decisions about people with
disabilities.
Methods This study is a systematic review that applies the COM-B model to identify factors that contribute to employers
(not) hiring people with disabilities. The COM-B model proposes that employers will perform hiring behavior (B) if they
have the capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) to do so. We also investigate if factors have a negative, positive
or no effect. We report in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
Results In a review of 47 studies, we find 32 factors. Most of these factors are barriers. The most frequently mentioned
barriers are employers’ (1) expectations that people with disabilities are unproductive, (2) expectations that people with
disabilities cost a lot of money, and employers’ (3) lack of knowledge about disabilities. The most researched facilitators for
employers to hire people with disabilities include (1) the motivation to help others, (2) working in a large organization, and
(3) expecting a competitive advantage. The effect of factors can differ depending on contextual circumstances, including the
type of organization, the type of disability and different policies.
Conclusions We conclude that hiring decisions are influenced by an array of different barriers and facilitators. The effect of
these factors can differ across organizations and disability types. Our study of factors affecting hiring can be used by scholars,
policy makers, and organizations to create interventions to increase the hiring of people with disabilities.

Keywords Hiring · Employers · People with disabilities · Systematic review · COM-B

Approximately 15 percent of the world’s population, hence adopted measures to increase employment rates, such as
more than 1 billion people, live with some form of disability anti-discrimination laws and quotas. Regardless, employ-
[1]. At the same time, employment rates for people with ment of people with disabilities remains low [3].
disabilities are much lower than those for people without Social policies aimed at promoting the labor-market
disabilities. The 2021 Joint Employment Report of the EU, participation of people with disabilities have traditionally
for example, reports an employment gap of 24% across EU mainly focused on the supply side by targeting people with
countries when comparing employment of people with and disabilities. Policies thus targeted the motivations, skills,
without disabilities [2]. This inequality in the distribution and capabilities of people with disabilities to make them
of employment is important to address because unemploy- more attractive for employers [4]. An example is that well
ment can lead to poverty [1]. On top of that, employment can designed vocational rehabilitation programs for people with
improve social inclusion and human dignity. Many countries a disability can increase employment [5, 6]. More recently,
are taking measures to promote the labor-market participa- however, policies that combat unemployment of people with
tion of people with disabilities. Countries have, for instance, disabilities have started to focus on the demand-side of the
labor-market by targeting employers and their organizations.
* Rosanna Nagtegaal For example, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
[email protected] with Disabilities that became effective in 2008 stimulated
the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation in many
1
Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University, countries [7]. This demand-side orientation in social policies
Bijlhouwerstraat 6, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
330 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340

increases the relevance of knowledge of what drives employ- Third, and finally, we add to literature by including a sys-
ers to (not) hire people with disabilities and what barriers tematic overview of capabilities, opportunities and motiva-
and facilitators play a role [8]. tions with a positive, negative or no effect on hiring behav-
There are numerous theories aimed at understand- ior. We also distinguishing these factors across different
ing changes in behavior, such as hiring. These theories types of disabilities. Other reviews have focused on either
are however diverse, complex and can even overlap [9]. the negative side [18] or the positive side [19] of hiring peo-
Therefore, Michie et al. [9] created a comprehensive ple with disabilities, or both [20, 21]. The field, however,
model that bundles theories used to understand changes lacks a systematic overview in which positive, negative and
in behavior into the ‘COM-B model’. The COM-B model no effects on hiring behavior are mapped per factor. Here,
proposes that for people to perform a certain behavior the inclusion of null effects is especially important as they
(B) they need capability (C), opportunity (O) and motiva- are often overlooked yet informative [21]. We also study
tion (M). This model has been widely applied to under- whether factors work differently for disability types, being
stand behavior and pinpoint interventions that can change psychological, physical and intellectual disability. This can
behavior [10, 11]. We use the COM-B model to under- help policy makers to create effective interventions while
stand employers’ hiring behavior of people with a disabil- taking important contextual factors into account.
ity. Therefore, our research question is: Which capabili-
ties, opportunities and motivations of employers impact
whether they hire people with disabilities? Theoretical Framework
We answer this research question by conducting a sys-
tematic literature review. We contribute to existing literature People with Disabilities
in three ways. First, we focus specifically on hiring behav-
iors by employers. Scholars have so far mainly focused on The International Classification of Functioning, Disabil-
intentions to hire as an outcome variable [12] rather than ity and Health (ICF) defines disability as an umbrella term
on the actual hiring behavior of employers. While insights for impairments, activity limitations and participation
into intentions to hire are valuable, these do not necessarily restrictions. It denotes the negative aspects of the interac-
translate into hiring behavior. There is a notable intention- tion between an individual (with a health condition) and
behavior gap. In an overview article, Sheeran and Webb [13] that individual’s contextual factors [22, p.8]. This means
conclude that intentions translate into action one-half of the that disabilities are not only a result of bodily functions
time. We therefore focus on understanding hiring behavior and structures (the medical model of disability), but also
instead of intentions. a result of a person being unable to operate within an envi-
Second, we are—to the best of our knowledge—the first ronment (the social model of disability) [23]. For example,
to use the COM-B model to understand hiring behavior of when a blind person (physical impairment) does not have to
employers. While scholars have started to investigate which use sight for a job (activity and participation restrictions),
factors drive employers to hire people with disabilities, this person is not considered disabled in that context. We
scholars primarily dissected employer attitudes (see Burke use the ICF definition because it is the most used definition
et al. [14] for a systematic review). Few studies have used for disability [24, 25] and includes medical as well as social
theoretical models of behavior to analyze these factors. In aspects of disability. This definition is in line with the UN
this study we use the COM-B model. The COM-B model Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities [7,
explains that capabilities, opportunities and motivations p. 1] that stipulates in its preamble that “disability results
are factors that influence behavior. The COM-B model from the interaction between persons with impairments and
can be used to conduct a behavioral analysis [9] and has attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full
already been used to identify factors influencing behavior and effective participation in society on an equal basis with
in various settings [11, 15–17]. It has, however, not yet others”. Finally, the ICF definition fits with the increasing
been applied to hiring behaviors. Our behavioral analysis demand-side orientation in social policies mentioned above
contributes to evidence-based policy measures directed at that focus on attitudinal and environmental barriers in the
employers such as campaigns and quotas [3]. It can also offer workplace.
avenues for novel interventions as every COM-B component
is connected to specific interventions through the Behavior The COM-B Model
Change Wheel [9]. Our study can thus identify factors that
could help policy makers create interventions that reduce The aim of this review is to identify capabilities, opportu-
barriers or amplify facilitators and, ultimately, stimulate nities and motivations of employers that influence hiring
employers to hire more people with disabilities. people with disabilities. Many different theories about how
psychological factors affect decisions exist, including the

13
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340 331

theory of planned behavior [26] and self-efficacy theory social pressures that an employer experiences, but also the
[27]. These theories have been bundled into different mod- regulations that an employer has to deal with.
els [28]. One of these models is the COM-B model. The
COM-B model explains that Capability, Opportunity and Hiring Behavior
Motivation (COM) influence Behaviors (B). Capabilities can
be physical (for instance physical skill, strength or stamina) This review focuses on which factors impact hiring people
or psychological (cognitive knowledge or skills, strength with disabilities. This means that we concentrate on actual
or stamina). Opportunity can be physical (influences from hiring behaviors. We refer to hiring behavior and decisions
the environment including time, resources, locations) and as behavior and decisions made by employers, which is com-
social (interpersonal influences such as social cues, group mon practice in the literature. However, ‘employers’ behav-
pressures and cultural norms). Motivation can be reflective ior and decisions’ in practice are actually a set of diverging
(processes involving plans and evaluations) and automatic operations within the hiring process by many different actors
(emotional reactions, desires, impulses etc.) [9, p. 63]. Fig- such as HR departments, supervisors, managers and teams.
ure 1 shows the COM-B model with examples. The decisions and behaviors of these actors are often struc-
The COM-B model has benefits over other models that tured by official organizational personnel and HRM policies.
aim to understand behavior [11, 28]. First, the COM-B Thus, in many cases hiring behavior is not just employer
model has a strong theoretical underpinning. Connected to behavior, nor is it individual behavior. We, therefore, con-
the COM-B model is the Theoretical Domains Framework, sider the whole variety of organizational actors as hirers.
which bundles 33 behavioral theories into 14 domains [29, Several studies have investigated factors related to the
30]. An overview of the Theoretical Domains Framework is COM-B model that affect hiring. Kaye, Jans, and Jones [32]
shown in the Supplementary Information. Second, the model for instance show that lack of awareness of disability and
is linked to the Behavior Change Wheel, which is specifi- accommodation issues, concern over costs, and fear of legal
cally aimed at designing interventions to change behavior liability affect decisions to hire. Bonaccio et al. [18] show that
[31]. This is important for the research field of rehabilitation, employers often have negative stereotypes of people with dis-
as one clear goal is to increase the hiring of people with abilities. Employers for instance could believe that people with
disabilities. Third, the model includes environmental and disabilities are less productive. Employers can also believe that
social factors, which in the context of hiring people with providing accommodations is costly. We however do not have
disabilities is relevant. These factors refer for instance to an overview of factors relating to the COM-B model.

Fig. 1 The COM-B model with dimensions and examples

13
332 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340

Methods model influencing hiring behaviors regarding people with

disabilities.
We report in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines [33]. • Study design: The studies had to be empirical. We
Our strategy consists of four steps [34]. First, we search the included qualitative as well as quantitative studies.
databases PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed • Publication status and language: Studies had to be pub-
for studies using search terms that cover ‘hiring’ and ‘disa- lished in journals, peer-reviewed and written in English.
bled people’ and related terms. The full list of search terms • Year of publication: Studies reported in articles published
is included in the Supplementary Information. The databases from 2010 onwards. The search ended on 22-02-2022.
were selected based on earlier systematic reviews as well as
a consultation with a university librarian. Scopus and Web of We coded factors into the Theoretical Domains Frame-
Science are general databases that include sociological and work (TDF). Factors were later placed in the COM-B frame-
business journals. Furthermore, PsycINFO is the primary work as described by Michie et al. [9]. We used this stepwise
database for psychological studies. We selected a number of approach as we wanted the coding of factors to be as detailed
key articles to help identify the effectiveness of the search. as possible. We, therefore, chose to start with the detailed
For this search, we selected our articles with the ASRe- TDF and then re-cluster our codes into the COM-B frame-
view tool [35]. This is a novel machine learning tool aimed at work. For example, we first coded the factor ‘not knowing
selecting articles for full text review from database searches how to manage people with disabilities’ into the TDF cat-
by sorting articles based on relevance. ASReview was devel- egory ‘knowledge’ which falls under the COM-B category
oped by researchers of Utrecht University to help scientists ‘psychological capability’. We also coded different types of
provide timely and transparent systematic reviews. During disabilities (physical, psychological and intellectual) and
its development, ASReview’s performance was assessed types of companies (public/private). For a measure in size
by conducting simulations [35]. In the current study, two of the organization we used the EU definition regarding
coders reviewed the first 10% of identified articles. After- small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This demar-
wards we aimed to either exclude 100 articles sequentially cates micro companies (< 10 employees), small companies
or review 36%. The latter percentage was based on the most (< 50), medium-sized companies (< 250) and large compa-
conservative estimation from a simulation study [36]. We nies (> 250) [37]. We also coded for the journals, the authors
reached the point of 100 sequential exclusions after review- and countries the studies were conducted in. This was done
ing 26%. This same technique was also applied to the second by one coder. Difficult cases were discussed.
step of our strategy, which was a search specific journals.
We searched in the three journals: Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation and Results
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. These journals pro-
vided the most articles through our database search and had a Finding 1: Distribution of the Studies
search function available. For the database search we limited
ourselves to titles. For the journal search we expanded our We included 47 articles in our study. We found that most
search to all fields. For the journal search, we reached 100 studies were conducted in Western countries such as the
sequential exclusions after reviewing 15.1%. United States of America (40%), Australia (9%), the Nether-
Third, we scanned the reference list of 5 earlier systematic lands (4%) and Sweden (4%). Some studies were conducted
reviews on the topic of interest that we found either in the in non-Western countries such as South-Africa (6%), and
database or journal searches. Fourth, we asked 9 experts to China (4%). Studies were most often qualitative in nature
add relevant studies to the studies we had selected. Experts (62%) and used interviews (47%). Other studies were quan-
suggested two studies, which were in the end excluded. The titative (47%) and mostly used survey methodology (31%).
full process of identifying studies is visible in Fig. 2. We did Experiments were rarely used (6%). Articles were most often
not preregister our review. Yet, to ensure transparency, we published in Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (15%),
provide open data, from the search results to the coding. Our Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (9%) and Rehabili-
data is available on Open Science Framework (see https:// tation Counseling Bulletin (9%). We also found that most
osf.io/av95r/). studies investigated companies of multiple sizes (43%), did
We included studies if they met the following criteria: not clarify the type of disability they addressed (64%), and
included both public and private employers (58%).
• Type of study and participants: Studies had to be about
employers and focus on factors related to the COM-B

13
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340 333

Fig. 2 PRISMA flow chart. **ASReview were used to screen the data. We screened (n = 881, 25.95%) of the database search and (n = 271,
15.1%) of the journal search

Finding 2: Hiring Behaviors Mostly Measured called people back for interviews (2%). Studies sometimes
Subjectively also referred to real accounts of hiring in the past (25%).

Table 1 shows an overview of the dependent variables used Finding 3: Beliefs About People with Disabilities
to measure hiring behaviors in the articles. Measures of hir- not Being Productive and Expectations About Costs
ing varied substantially. We found that most measures of Mentioned Most in Literature
hiring were subjective. This means that employers reported
their thoughts on what influenced hiring behavior, without In total, we identified 32 factors that can influence hiring
data on the actual amount of people with disabilities hired behavior. These factors were reported 421 times in total.
being reported. Of these subjective measures, some studies Some factors were recoded for interpretation purposes. For
focused on hiring of people with disabilities by employers example, in the factor ‘lacking knowledge about recruiting’
in general (7%). This means employers reflected about what we also included recoded instances where ‘knowledge about
factors influenced employers hiring in society. These stud- recruiting’ was mentioned. Effects of these factors were
ies for instance asked about what challenges employers can recoded as well. In the Supplementary Information we have
experience in hiring people with disabilities [32]. Although reported which percentage of factors is recoded.
these studies do not measure actual behavior, the benefit of In Tables 2, 3 and 4 we show the capabilities, opportuni-
asking about hiring of other employers is that it can account ties and motivations that were mentioned in the literature.
for social desirability bias. Other studies focused specifically We indicate whether they were mentioned as having a nega-
on hiring people with disabilities in their own organizations tive, positive or no effect. Overall, we found that employ-
(47%). This was at times abstract, and for instance about ers’ beliefs about people with disabilities not being produc-
hypothetical hiring (i.e. what would influence your hiring tive (14%) and employers’ expectations about costs (11%)
behavior). Some studies used more objective hiring meas- were mentioned the most in literature. After that, having
ures. These studies for instance measured whether employ- pro-social motivation, not knowing how to manage people
ers were actively recruiting people with disabilities (5%) or with disabilities, lacking knowledge about disabilities and

13
334 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340

Table 1 Measurements of hiring behaviors

Measurement Number (%) Example [reference]

Subjective
Hiring of people with disabilities in general by employers 4 (7%) Asking for proposed reasons for employers (third-parties) not to hire
people with disabilities [32]
(not) Hiring of people with disabilities in their company 28 (47%) Asking for perceptions of barriers to the employment of people with
disabilities within their organizations [37]
Reported actively recruiting 3 (5%) Percent actively recruiting people with disabilities as reported in
survey [38]
Reported hiring of employees with disabilities 4 (7%) Reported percent of people with disabilities in the company’s work-
force [39]
The perceived extent of hiring people with disabilities 1 (2%) 4-point Likert type scale on the extent to which people with disabili-
ties are hired [40]
Objective
Call back for interview 1 (2%) Employers expressing desire for an interview [6]
Employer expressing interest in candidate 1 (2%) Employers expressing other interest than an interview, for instance by
asking for more credentials [6]
Hypothetical hiring in an experiment 2 (3%) A scale from 1 to 10 about whether the fictitious candidate would be
offered an interview [41]
Having hired in the past or having employed currently 15 (25%) Reflecting on real past hiring accounts by including current employ-
ers of people with disabilities [42]
Total 59 (100%)

Note. Studies can contain multiple dependent variables

experiencing administrative burden were mentioned the literature. The most common factor for the physical oppor-
most (5%). Most factors fall into the motivation category of tunities category was experiencing administrative burden
the COM-B model. In the Supplementary Information, we (5%). This was predominantly a barrier (89%). Administra-
have defined all factors. tive burden refers to those burdens that citizens, or in this
In Table 2 above we see that for capabilities the focus case employers, experience when interacting with the state
is mostly on the lack of knowledge about different topics [44]. We found that studies referred to, for instance, excess
related to hiring people with disabilities. The factor men- bureaucracy [45], limited help in finding applicants [46] and
tioned most was that a lack of knowledge about disabilities a lack of understanding of the rules [47]. After that, the most
can be a barrier (5%). An example is that employers are reported facilitator (in 89% of cases) was working in a large
more reluctant to hire someone with an unknown disabil- organization (4%). This can be because large organizations
ity type [43]. We found no mention of physical capabilities have more resources, such as a specialized diversity man-
influencing employers. ager, that contribute to hiring people with disabilities [46].
For social opportunities, as shown in Table 3, the most Table 4 shows which motivations influence hiring
mentioned factor was that employers believe co-workers behavior. The most researched motivational factor was that
will respond negatively to people with disabilities (3%). employers believe that people with disabilities are not pro-
We also find that physical opportunities were mentioned in ductive (14%). An example is that employers expect that

Table 2 Capabilities influencing Negative No effect Positive Total

hiring behaviors
Capabilities (psychological)
Lacking knowledge about recruiting 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 0 7 (2%)
Believing negative stereotypes 6 (55%) 5 (45%) 0 11 (3%)
Not knowing how to manage people with 12 (60%) 8 (40%) 0 20 (5%)
disabilities
Lacking knowledge about disabilities 16 (71%) 5 (24%) 0 21 (5%)
Total 39 (66%) 20 (34%) 59 (14%)

Note. The percentages accompanying the effect are in relationship to one factor. The percentages in the
right column represent how many times the factor is mentioned/all mentions of factors

13
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340 335

Table 3 Opportunities influencing hiring behaviors

Negative No influence Positive Total

Opportunities (social)
Believing co-workers will respond negatively 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 0 11 (3%)
Believing customers will respond negatively 4 (100%) 0 0 4 (1%)
Not having support from within the organisation 5 (100%) 0 0 5 (1%)
Opportunities (physical)
Working in a worksite with physical barriers 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 0 7 (2%)
Working for a public organisation 0 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 8 (2%)
Getting financial incentives 0 1 (8%) 11 (92%) 12 (3%)
Not encountering qualified people with disabilities applying 10 (77%) 3 (23%) 0 13 (3%)
Working in an organisation with a policy for inclusion 0 1 (8%) 12 (92%) 13 (3%)
Having positions available 0 2 (14%) 12 (86%) 14 (3%)
Lacking external support 14 (93%) 1 (7%) 0 15 (4%)
Working in a large organization 0 2 (12%) 14 (88%) 16 (4%)
Experiencing administrative burden 17 (89%) 2 (11%) 0 19 (5%)
Total 64 (47%) 22 (16%) 51 (37%) 137 (33%)

Note. The percentages accompanying the effect are in relationship to one factor. The percentages in the right column represent how many times
the factor is mentioned/all mentions of factors

Table 4 Motivations influencing hiring behaviors

Negative No influence Positive Total

Motivation (reflective)
Expecting limited consequences of hiring 0 0 1 (100%) 1 (0%)
Being willing to take a risk 0 0 4 (100%) 4 (1%)
Feeling in control 0 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 (1%)
Lacking intentions to hire 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 0 3 (1%)
Expecting financial gains 0 0 7 (100%) 7 (2%)
Expecting negative safety consequences 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 0 7 (2%)
Worrying about spending more time to assist 7 (100%) 0 0 7 (2%)
Believing people with disabilities have unique advantages 0 0 8 (100%) 8 (2%)
Worrying about legal consequences 10 (67%) 5 (33%) 0 15 (4%)
Expecting a competitive advantage 0 1 (6%) 15 (94%) 16 (4%)
Having pro-social motivation 0 2 (9%) 20 (91%) 22 (5%)
Expecting costs 26 (57%) 20 (43%) 0 46 (11%)
Believing people with disabilities are not productive 50 (82%) 11 (18%) 0 61 (14%)
Motivation (automatic)
Experiencing positive emotions 0 0 1 (100%) 1 (0%)
Experiencing negative emotions 6 (55%) 4 (36%) 1 (9%) 11 (3%)
Complying with laws 0 4 (31%) 9 (69%) 13 (3%)
Total 107 (48%) 50 (22%) 68 (30%) 225 (53%)

Note. The percentages accompanying the effect are in relationship to one factor. The percentages in the right column represent how many times
the factor is mentioned/all mentions of factors

people with disabilities will have more work-related per- and moving. Beliefs about people with disabilities not being
formance difficulties [48]. This was sometimes related to productive had a predominantly negative effect on hiring
the nature of the work. To illustrate, Huang and Chen [43] behavior (82% negative, 18% neutral, 0% positive).
showed that some employers mentioned they did not hire The second most mentioned factor was that employers
applicants in wheelchairs because the jobs required standing expect costs when hiring a person with a disability (11%).

13
336 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340

Sometimes, these concerns were abstract. For instance, some employers mentioned that people with disabilities
Houtenville and Kalargyrou [49] showed that employers could offer products without mistakes [46]. We also found
mentioned that it ‘costs more to employ people with disabili- that factors can differ depending on the type of disability.
ties’. More specifically, these cost concerns were related to, Some employers for instance mentioned that people in a
for instance, accommodation or supervision (see for exam- wheelchair were turned down for jobs because the nature
ple Ta et al. [50]). This factor had a negative (57%) as well of the job required prolonged standing and it would be very
as no effect (43%) on hiring. In the category motivation, costly to adapt the working environment [43]. Nevertheless,
we also found that pro-social motivation was often men- we found that most studies researched disability in general
tioned as a facilitator (5%). Pro-social motivation is defined (59%). This means that these studies did not focus on one
as the desire to contribute to the well-being of others [51]. specific type of disability. Other studies focused on one type
Concerning hiring people with Autism Spectrum Disorder, of disability (37%) or specified multiple types of disability
employers for instance noted that every person has a right to (6%). For each factor we coded if variability between dis-
work [52]. This factor had positive effects (91%) on hiring abilities was reported or if studies researched disability in
behavior. Another factor that was mentioned often as a facil- general. We found that variability was often unknown (65%
itator (94%) was expecting a competitive advantage (4%). of cases). In other words, most studies did not differentiate
The inclusion of people with disabilities can for instance between disabilities.
help strengthen the brand of the organization [48].
We also identified a number of factors that were rarely
discussed, these factors were ‘expecting limited conse- Discussion
quences of hiring’ (1%) ‘lacking intentions to hire’ (1%)
‘feeling in control’ (1%), and ‘experiencing positive emo- This review aimed to map which capabilities, opportuni-
tions’ (0%, rounded). We are unable to conclude if the lack ties and motivations of employers impact whether they hire
of reporting on these factors is because they are insuffi- people with disabilities. We have systematically investigated
ciently researched or just not found by researchers. capabilities, opportunities and motivations (COM) that influ-
ence hiring behaviors (B) as reported in scientific studies.
Finding 4: A Factor Does not Always Have the Same We found (1) most studies measure hiring behavior subjec-
Effect on Hiring Behavior tively; (2) 32 factors based on the COM-B model that affect
hiring behavior; (3) factors can have mixed effects on hiring
Tables 2, 3 and 4 show that not all factors have a clear-cut behavior, meaning they can have a positive, negative or no
influence on hiring behavior. The direction of the effect on effect. Our findings contribute both theoretically and meth-
hiring (negative, positive or no effect) can vary for the same odologically to the literature and result in a research agenda
factor. To illustrate, factors often had positive or negative for future research on employers’ hiring behavior.
effects on hiring while they were also reported to sometimes First, hiring behavior of employers is rarely measured
have no effect. For example, this was found for the factor objectively. It is rather measured by subjective reports of
‘having positions available’. Some employers mentioned employers that vary from reflecting about factors that influ-
that for people with intellectual disabilities technology has ence employers across society to estimating hypothetical
reduced the need for manual completion of certain tasks hiring of people with disabilities. This can be problematic
[53]. Other employers were reported to apply a strength- because subjective reports of hiring do not always represent
based, person-centred approach and were able to able to actual hiring, which harms our understanding of employ-
identify more employment opportunities [46]. In other ers’ hiring behavior. Future research should attempt to use
words, the factor ‘having positions available’ has mixed organizational data to objectively measure hiring behavior.
effects on hiring people with disabilities. This finding is in line with a bigger trend in research where
On top of that, some of these factors seem to contra- studies using objectively measured behaviors are becoming
dict each other. For instance, ‘expecting costs’ (11%) and more important [54]. On top of that, experimental method-
‘expecting financial gains’ (2%) seem polar opposites. This ology is rarely used. Experimental methodology, however,
means that some employers are not concerned about costs can be beneficial to detect causal relationships [55]. This is
associated with hiring people with disabilities but instead a valuable avenue for future research because it would allow
see financial gains from hiring, for instance because of low researchers to dissect what causes employers to (not) hire
turnover [43]. This was found also for ‘believing people with people with disabilities rather than state correlations. Ideally,
disabilities are not productive’. In contrast with employers we would use field experiments to research what influences
thinking people with disabilities are not productive, some hiring behavior in real life settings. However, experimen-
employers stated that people because of their disabilities tal methods such as survey experiments can also measure
have unique advantages in organizations (2%). To illustrate,

13
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340 337

proxies of behavior by for instance letting an employer hypo- employers’ attitudes. Employers for instance mentioned that
thetically hire a person. having seen a person with a disability perform well has led
Second, we found 32 different factors that can influence them to believe that people with disabilities could be pro-
employers’ hiring behavior of people with disabilities. These ductive [57].
factors are spread across most dimensions of the COM-B Third, we showed that some factors can have no effect,
model. This finding supports our idea that hiring behav- as well as a positive or negative effect on hiring people with
ior is the result of a complex decision-making process that disabilities. For instance, ‘believing co-workers will respond
includes capabilities, opportunities as well as motivations. negatively’ can negatively influence hiring behavior (82%),
Moreover, it shows how the COM-B model can be a useful but can also have no effect on hiring whatsoever (18%). This
framework for gaining insight into how to stimulate employ- suggests that there may be contextual explanations why a
ers to hire more employees with a disability. The most men- factor sometimes does and sometimes does not impact hir-
tioned barriers were employers’ beliefs about people with ing of people with disabilities. We have identified three
disabilities not being productive (14%) and their expecta- possible explanations worth further investigation. The first
tions about costs (11%), and lacking knowledge about dis- explanation is company size. Studies in our sample indicate
abilities (5%). The most mentioned facilitators were pro- that while small companies might be very concerned about
social motivation (5%), working in a large organization (4%) costs, while this is less important for large companies [49,
and expecting a competitive advantage (4%). Believing peo- 58]. Small companies can also have more problems with
ple with disabilities are not productive is related to attitudes administrative burdens or limited internal resources [46].
about people with disabilities which is often discussed in Future research could explicitly compare the hiring behavior
literature [14]. Working in a large organization and expec- of employers of large and small companies.
tations about costs are also mentioned in overview articles The second explanation is pro-social motivation. We
[18]. The other factors, such as lacking knowledge about find that pro-social motivation might be a reason to ‘push
disabilities, expecting a competitive advantage and pro- through’ certain barriers for hiring people with disabilities.
social motivation have—to date—been largely overlooked For instance, studies show that the lack of available positions
in overview studies. Future research is especially needed into can have negative effects on hiring [59]. Sometimes this lack
the conditions under which these factors influence hiring of available positions has, however, no effect as positions
behaviors. It has to be noted that expecting a competitive were tailored to individuals [60]. This happened because
advantage might occur in this review because over the last employers were motivated to include people with disabilities
decade, attention for on positive aspects of hiring people in their organization due to their mission. Then, when posi-
with disabilities is growing [19]. tions did not match, they decided to find a better match, and
Future research will need to use validated concepts and not give up. This indicates that for some employers, hiring
scales. This can be beneficial because, first, it supports people with disabilities is important regardless of barriers
scholars’ communication with one another with can lead such as available positions. Future research could explicitly
to theory building. Second, it allows us to draw on other study pro-social motivation of employers and test interven-
streams of literature that explains the origin, causes and tions to amplify pro-social motivation if present.
intervention possibilities related to these variables. Organi- Third, institutional and, specifically, policy contexts mat-
zational psychology and economics for instance have a long ter as well in explaining the different impact that factors may
tradition of literature on pro-social motivation while public have on hiring behavior of employers. For example, cost
administration research has elaborated knowledge on admin- concerns may be alleviated by specific policy programs such
istrative burden [32, 44, 45]. as wage subsidies or subsidies for work accommodations.
An important benefit of using the COM-B framework is Another example is that labor shortages might stimulate
that the identification of capabilities, opportunities and moti- employers to hire more people with disabilities. Related to
vations also indicates which behavioral interventions might this, we found that most studies do not differentiate and/or
be beneficial for influencing hiring behaviors through using compare different types of disability when studying hiring
the Behavior Change Wheel [9]. For example, for capabili- behavior. This is surprising because there is a great range
ties, information about different disability types and what to of disabilities people can have. We, indeed, find that the
expect can be helpful. Here, innovations such as immersing effect of factors for hiring behavior can differ per disability
virtual reality experiences could help people to understand type. For instance, Kocman et al. [59] report that employ-
conditions such as autism [56]. For opportunities, targeting ers believed that customers would react more negatively to
especially small companies with additional resources can people with intellectual disabilities than people with physi-
increase hiring of people with disabilities. For motivation, cal disabilities. Moreover, Notaroberto and d’Angelo [61]
sharing positive experiences in working with people with reported that employers have a preference for disabilities
disabilities is a storytelling intervention aimed to influence which require less changes in the physical environment.

13
338 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340

Future research would benefit from comparing hiring to hire and feeling in control were found to be rarely
behavior of employers for people with different types of researched. Identifying their effects on hiring behaviors
disabilities, as well as hiring under different contextual cir- therefore requires future research. All factors were found to
cumstances, such as when there is a shortage of personnel. have the potential to have different effects on employers’ hir-
ing behavior under different circumstances. Changing these
behaviors will therefore require a multifaceted approach that
Limitations has to possibly vary per organization or group of employers.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-

This study, like any, inevitably has limitations. First, we used tary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10076-1.
a novel method based on machine learning, ASReview, to
select studies from databases. The method helps to identify Funding This research was funded by Instituut Gak.
eligible studies in an efficient and transparent way. However,
Data Availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed dur-
we can never be sure that we have not missed any studies. ing the current study are available in the OSF repository under https://
On top of that, our review might have missed articles due to osf.io/av95r/.
our choice of databases. This would, however, be the case
with any systematic review. We provide open data on OSF Declarations
to ensure full transparency of this process (see https://osf.
Competing interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-
io/av95r/). financial interests to disclose.
This systematic review gives insight into effects by cod-
ing for no, negative or positive effects on hiring behavior as Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
reported in literature. Because of the heterogeneity of fac- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
tors and different methodologies included, a meta-analysis as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
was not the aim of this study. We did however include a provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
measure to indicate the direction of the effect reported. This were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
measure of effect is limited as it does not include statistical included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
measures, in the case of qualitative studies, and effect sizes. the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
Future studies can focus on one study type and one factor to permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
explore their effects. need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
We used the COM-B model, and underlying, the TDF to copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
code factors into categories. We found that using this model
functioned well to identify which factors to include and how
to understand them. Nevertheless, sometimes it was unclear References
whether factors belonged to one clear-cut category. We
1. World Health Organization and The World Bank. World report on
solved this by having two coders discuss their applicability disability. 2011. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/97892
for each category. For future research, we recommend hav- 41564182. Accessed 15 Jan 2021.
ing at least two coders decide about the application of factors 2. European Commission. Joint Employment Report 2021. 2021.
were possible and pre-registering the review if possible. https:// ec. europa. eu/ social/ main. jsp? langId= nl& catId= 89&
newsId=9834&furtherNews=yes. Accessed 15 April 2021.
3. Bredgaard T. Employers and active labour market policies: typolo-
gies and evidence. Soc Policy Soc. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Conclusion S147474641700015X.
4. Froyland K, Andreassen TA, InnvÆr S. Contrasting supply-side,
demand-side and combined approaches to labour market integra-
We conclude that many different capabilities, opportuni- tion. J Soc Policy. 2019. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0047 27941
ties and motivations exist that influence hiring behavior of 8000491.
employers regarding people with disabilities. Many of these 5. Markussen S, Røed K. The impacts of vocational rehabilitation.
factors offer opportunities for interventions that can stimu- Labour Econ. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.08.001.
6. Ameri M, Schur L, Adya M, Bentley FS, McKay P, Kruse D. The
late employers to hire more people with disabilities. The top disability employment puzzle: a field experiment on employer hir-
three barriers to hiring people with disabilities as reported ing behavior. ILR Rev. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917
in literature are (1) believing people with disabilities are not 717474.
productive, (2) expecting costs and (3) lacking knowledge 7. UNG Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis-
abilities. GA Res. 2006. https://static.coorpacademy.com/conte
about disabilities. The top three facilitators to hire people nt/CoorpAcademy/content-OMS/cockpit-who/raw/who_sr_2b3_
with disabilities are (1) having pro-social motivation, (2) crpd_v2-1483980517384.pdf. Accessed 04 April 2022.
working in a large organization and (3) expecting competi-
tive advantages. Other factors such as lacking intentions

13
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340 339

8. Bredgaard T, Salado-Rasmussen J. Attitudes and behaviour of studies. Int J Manag Rev. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-
employers to recruiting persons with disabilities. Alter. 2020. 2370.2012.00329.X.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2020.04.004. 24. Vornholt K, Villotti P, Muschalla B, Bauer J, Colella A, Zijlstra
9. Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The behaviour change wheel book—a F, Van Ruitenbeek G, Uitdewilligen S, Corbière M. Disability and
guide to designing interventions. London: Silverback Publishing; employment-overview and highlights. Eur J Work Organ Psychol.
2014. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1387536.
10. Flannery C, McHugh S, Anaba AE, Clifford E, O’Riordan M, 25. World Health Organization. International Classification of Func-
Kenny LC, McAuliffe FM, Kearney PM, Byrne M. Enablers and tioning, Disability and Health. 2002. https://www.who.int/publi
barriers to physical activity in overweight and obese pregnant cations/m/item/icf-beginner-s-guide-towar ds-a-common-langu
women: an analysis informed by the theoretical domains frame- age- for- funct ioning- disab ility- and- health. Accessed 11 April
work and COM-B model. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018. 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1816-z. 26. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis
11. McDonagh LK, Saunders JM, Cassell J, Curtis T, Bastaki H, Process. 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Hartney T, Rait G. Application of the COM-B model to barriers 27. Bandura A. Self-efficacy. In: The corsini encyclopedia of psychol-
and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young ogy. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010. p. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/97804
people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review. Imple- 70479216.corpsy0836.
ment Sci. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0821-y. 28. Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould
12. Araten-Bergman T. Managers’ hiring intentions and the actual NJ, Shea CM, Weiner BJ, Francis JJ, Yu Y, Haines E, Dam-
hiring of qualified workers with disabilities. Int J Hum Resour schroder LJ. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for
Manag. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128466. Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains
13. Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engen- Framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017.
der behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evi- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0534-z.
dence. Psychol Bull. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909. 29. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker
132.2.249. A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence
14. Burke J, Bezyak J, Fraser RT, Pete J, Ditchman N, Chan F. based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005.
Employers’ attitudes towards hiring and retaining people with dis- https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
abilities: a review of the literature. Aust J Rehabil Couns. 2019. 30. Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical
https://doi.org/10.1017/jrc.2013.2. domains framework for use in behaviour change and implemen-
15. Howlett N, Schulz J, Trivedi D, Troop N, Chater A. Determinants tation research. Implement Sci. 2012. https://doi. org/ 10.1186/
of weekly sitting time: construct validation of an initial COM-B 1748-5908-7-37.
model and comparison of its predictive validity with the Theory 31. Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel:
of Planned Behaviour. Psychol Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10. a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change
1080/08870446.2020.1763994. interventions. Implement Sci. 2011. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/
16. Staddon SC, Cycil C, Goulden M, Leygue C, Spence A. Inter- 1748-5908-6-42.
vening to change behaviour and save energy in the workplace: 32. Kaye HS, Jans LH, Jones EC. Why don’t employers hire and retain
a systematic review of available evidence. Energy Res Soc Sci. workers with disabilities? J Occup Rehabil. 2011. https://doi.org/
2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.03.027. 10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8.
17. Horppu R, Martimo KP, MacEachen E, Lallukka T, Viikari- 33. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioan-
Juntura E. Application of the theoretical domains framework and nidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The
the behaviour change wheel to understand physicians’ behaviors PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-
and behavior change in using temporary work modifications for analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explana-
return to work: a qualitative study. J Occup Rehabil. 2018. https:// tion and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1007/S10926-017-9706-1/TABLES/4. jclinepi.2009.06.006.
18. Bonaccio S, Connelly CE, Gellatly IR, Jetha A, Martin Ginis 34. Cooper H. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step
KA. The participation of people with disabilities in the work- approach. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2010.
place across the employment cycle: employer concerns and 35. van de Schoot R, de Bruin J, Schram R, Zahedi P, Boer J, Wei-
research evidence. J Bus Psychol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/ jdema F, Kramer B, Huijts M, Hoogerwerf M, Ferdinands G,
s10869-018-9602-5. Harkema A, Willemsen J, Ma Y, Fang Q, Hindriks S, Tummers
19. Lindsay S, Cagliostro E, Albarico M, Mortaji N, Karon L. A sys- L, Oberski DL. Open source software for efficient and transparent
tematic review of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. J reviews. Nat Mach Intell. 2020;3(2):125–33.
Occup Rehabil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9756-z. 36. Ferdinands G, Schram RD, de Bruin J, Bagheri A, Oberski DL,
20. Gewurtz RE, Langan S, Shand D. Hiring people with dis- Tummers L, van de Schoot, R. Active learning for screening prior-
abilities: a scoping review. Work. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3233/ itization in systematic reviews—a simulation study. https://www.
WOR-162265. researchgate.net/profile/Gerbr ich-Ferdinands/publication/34509
21. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the 9697_ Active_ learn ing_ for_ scree ning_ prior itiza tion_ in_ syste
social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014. https:// matic_ reviews_-_A_ simul ation_ study/ links/ 5fce0 745a6 fdcc6
doi. org/ 10. 1126/ SCIENCE. 12554 84/ SUPPL_ FILE/ FRANCO. 97be8886d/Active-learning-for-screening-prior itization-in-syste
SM.PDF. matic-reviews-A-simulation-study.pdf. Accessed 11 April 2022.
22. World Health Organization. How to use the ICF: a practical 37. European Comission. SME definition | Internal Market, Industry,
manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/
Disability and Health (ICF). 2013. https://www.who.int/publicatio smes/sme-definition_en. Accessed 01 Jan 2022.
ns/m/item/how-to-use-the-icf---a-practical-manual-for-using-the- 38. Erickson WA, von Schrader S, Bruyère SM, Van Looy SA. The
international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health. employment environment: employer perspectives, policies, and
Accessed 11 April 2022. practices regarding the employment of persons with disabilities.
23. Williams J, Mavin S. Disability as constructed difference: a litera- Rehabil Couns Bull. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355213
ture review and research agenda for management and organization 509841.

13
340 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (2023) 33:329–340

39. Jasper CR, Waldhart P. Employer attitudes on hiring employees perspective. Asia Pac Disabil Rehabil J. 2011. https://doi.org/10.
with disabilities in the leisure and hospitality industry: practical 5463/DCID.v22i2.28.
and theoretical implications. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2013. 51. Grant AM, Berg JM. Prosocial motivation. In: Cameron KS, Spre-
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311322934. itzer GM, editors. The Oxford handbook of positive organizational
40. Chan F, Tansey TN, Iwanaga K, Bezyak J, Wehman P, Phillips scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021.
BN, Strauser DR, Anderson C. Company characteristics, dis- 52. Waisman-Nitzan M, Gal E, Schreuer N. Employers’ perspectives
ability inclusion practices, and employment of people with dis- regarding reasonable accommodations for employees with autism
abilities in the post COVID-19 job economy: a cross sectional spectrum disorder. J Manag Organ. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/
survey study. J Occup Rehabil. 2020. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ jmo.2018.59.
s10926-020-09941-8. 53. Moore K, McDonald P, Bartlett K. Emerging trends affecting
41. Habeck R, Hunt A, Rachel CH, Kregel J, Chan F. Employee reten- future employment opportunities for people with intellectual
tion and integrated disability management practices as demand disability: the case of a large retail organisation. J Intellect Dev
side factors. J Occup Rehabil. 2010. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ Disabil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2017.1379250.
s10926-009-9225-9. 54. Banks GC, Woznyj HM, Mansfield CA. Where is “behavior”
42. Kosyluk KA, Corrigan PW, Landis RS. Employer stigma as a in organizational behavior? A call for a revolution in leadership
mediator between past and future hiring behavior. Rehabil Couns research and beyond. Leadersh Q. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
Bull. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355213496284. LEAQUA.2021.101581.
43. Huang IC, Chen RK. Employing people with disabilities in the 55. Gerber AS, Green DP. Field experiments: design, analysis, and
Taiwanese workplace: Employers’ perceptions and considerations. interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; 2012.
Rehabil Couns Bull. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355214 56. Musser G. Virtual reality could show others what autism feels
558938. like—and lead to potential treatments. Science. 2018. https://doi.
44. Moynihan D, Herd P, Harvey H. Administrative burden: learning, org/10.1126/SCIENCE.AAV8400.
psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. 57. Hemphill E, Kulik CT. Which employers offer hope for main-
J Public Adm Res Theory. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/ stream job opportunities for disabled people? Soc Pol. 2016.
muu009. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746415000457.
45. Michna A, Kmieciak R, Burzynska-Ptaszek A. Job preferences 58. Fraser R, Ajzen I, Johnson K, Hebert J, Chan F. Understand-
and expectations of disabled people and small and medium-sized ing employers’ hiring intention in relation to qualified workers
enterprises in poland: implications for disabled people’s profes- with disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2011. https://doi.org/10.3233/
sional development. Hum Resour Dev. 2017. https://doi.org/10. JVR-2011-0548.
1002/hrdq.21280. 59. Kocman A, Fischer L, Andreas W. The employers’ perspective on
46. Borghouts-van de Pas I, Freese C. Offering jobs to persons with barriers and facilitators to employment of people with intellectual
disabilities: a Dutch employers’ perspective. Alter 2021. https:// disability: a differential mixed-method approach. J Appl Res Intel-
doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2020.10.002. lect Disabil. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12375.
47. Jakovljevic M, Buckley S. Assistive technologies in a workplace 60. McDonough J, Ham W, Brooke A, Wehman P, Wright TS, God-
environment: barriers for the employment of persons with dis- win JC, Junod P, Hurst R. Perceptions of hiring and retention
abilities. Asia Pac Disabil Rehabil J. 2011. https:// doi. org/ 10. practices of people with disabilities: results from executive focus
5463/DCID.v22i2.32. groups. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/00343
48. Henry AD, Petkauskos K, Stanislawzyk J, Vogt J. Employer- 55220915766.
recommended strategies to increase opportunities for people 61. Notaroberto L, d’Angelo MJ. Employability of the disabled peo-
with disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3233/ ple: a Brazilian case in the light of the theory of social learning
JVR-140716. for sustainability. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manag. 2020. https://doi.
49. Houtenville A, Kalargyrou V. People with disabilities: employers’ org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2020.107988.
perspectives on recruitment practices, strategies, and challenges
in leisure and hospitality. Cornell Hosp Q. 2012. https://doi.org/ Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
10.1177/1938965511424151. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
50. Ta TL, Wah LL, Leng KS. Employment of people with disabili-
ties in the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia: employers’

13