INTRODUCTION
Employment sustainability is the capacity to secure and retain meaningful employment over time (Gürbüz et al., 2023). It is about ensuring that individuals have access to jobs that are not just available but also enduring and providing a stable source of income (Deng et al., 2021). This concept is particularly pertinent when considering the employment prospects of individuals with physical disabilities. For these individuals, sustainable employment represents, at the same time, a way for financial security and the opportunity for ongoing participation and contribution to the workforce (Bonaccio et al., 2019) which facilitate their inclusion.
People with physical disabilities (PwPD) are those facing long-term physical impairments that significantly limit one or more major life activities (Nishioka and Wakabayashi, 2023). These activities may include general mobility, performing manual tasks, or other forms of physical exertion required in many job settings. Despite great effort to promote their employment opportunities in the labor market, the number of employed people with disabilities (PwD) is still limited, and its proportion is considered a minority compared to the whole population (Taubner et al., 2022).
Employment for PwD has been treated in several ways (Vornholt et al., 2013). However, specific research about PwPD is scarce, and the majority of research in this field tried to explore employment for all disabled people without considering its nature or its level (Qiu et al., 2023).
A few previous research studies dealing with this sustainable employment process for PwD, independently of its nature, adopted exclusively a qualitative approach (Taubner et al., 2022; Finger et al., 2023) and tried to understand how this process can be enhanced (Ellenkamp et al., 2016) while identifying some critical factors such as work environment for competitive employment (Ellenkamp et al., 2016), supported employment (Jahoda et al., 2008; Cheng et al., 2018), and social support (Burke et al., 2013; Lindsay et al., 2018). In this same line of idea, research about employment of PwD was diversified. We found studies related to the identification of barriers to employment of PwD (Erickson et al., 2014; Akram et al., 2020; Morgan, 2023), strategies for employment of PwD (Morris, 2023), facilities for this employment effort (Alnajjar and Abdulkader, 2024; Tessier et al., 2024), and employment quality of PwD (Shahidi et al., 2023).
For us, we will consider exclusively PwPD regarding employment sustainability to identify a critical pathway for this process. Our interest is oriented toward physical disabilities because it is admitted that if they are gainfully employed, they add to a society’s economic diversity and productivity (Robertson et al., 2019).
Therefore, this paper sets out to explore the question: what are the key facilitators contributing to sustainable employment for PwPD? To answer this question, we will try to identify the main facilitators cited and identified in the existing literature, and then we will proceed to an empirical investigation that provides insights into the employment landscape for these individuals.
The findings from this research are poised to offer valuable contributions to various stakeholders, including policymakers, employers, and organizations that support PwPD. Findings can inform the development of targeted strategies and programs that enhance employment outcomes and create inclusive work environments by presenting actionable recommendations that can be implemented to support the sustained employment of individuals with physical disabilities to enrich both their lives and society.
So far as we are aware, it is the only paper dealing with an empirical pathway for employment sustainability especially for PwPD. The Interpretative Structural Modeling (ISM)-Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement (MICMAC) approach used in this paper can be also considered innovative because it provides a holistic approach to the enablers of sustainable employment for PwPD.
The rest of this paper will define the research concept and identify causal factors previously treated in the employment process of PwPD. Then, the methods used to collect and analyze data and findings are discussed. The Results section details the final results, significance, and hypothesis. The Discussion section presents a discussion of different results according to the main objective proportionally to similar studies in the field and discusses the results of the study while considering the results from similar studies. The Conclusion section deals with the conclusion and implications emerging from the research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Employment sustainability
Employment sustainability is defined as a composite term that implies the maintenance of an employment trajectory that is stable for as long as possible, for at least 1 year. As a multifaceted term, it can depend on personal characteristics and market opportunities, on societal, individual, and interpersonal factors (Lövgren and Hamreby, 2011), and can be appreciated by time and progress along a specific trajectory (Lövgren and Hamreby, 2011).
In this study, the authors adopted the same definition as Taubner et al. (2022) considering it as long-term employment, a stable career, and positive career development.
Causal factors of employment sustainability of PwPD
To facilitate the literature process, the researchers first tried identifying all causal factors based on a brief bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer in Scopus and Web of Science using keywords, such as employment, people with disabilities, barriers, facilitators, and accommodations. Figure 1 shows the final output of this first explorative step.
As can be seen, four main dimensions or causal factors are detected in the literature. As a primary investigation, it can be supposed that the determination of employment sustainability of PwPD depends on organizational factors with green color (effort entertained by the organization such as application, innovation, form, etc.), social factors with red color (facilitators and barriers created by stakeholders and ability to collaborate), structural factors colored in blue (which determine a social integration of PwD in the labor market without discrimination), and personal factors represented by yellow color but seem to be marginal such as degree, qualification, and personality.
Remembering that our main goal is to predict the employment sustainability of PwPD, this involves a comprehensive approach throughout the employment process including creating a supportive environment for PwPD to apply for jobs and ensuring equality in society (job acquisition). During and after the application process, we need to prevent barriers to employment integration to maintain their employment. Once employed, specific workplace accommodations should be adopted to sustain employment and facilitate their integration.
In this part, we will try to establish the final list related to these factors while considering three main stages of employment as discussed below: obtaining, maintaining, and integrating PwD in the sustainable employment process.
Figure 1 confirms the interdependence between different factors, but the question related to each system factor’s relative importance and priority is still unclear. Finally, five main factors were identified and discussed: structural, personal, social, psychological, and organizational.
Structural factors
Adequate government support enhances employment outcomes by improving employers’ willingness and reinforcing their work engagement (Chen et al., 2016). The effect of government support seems to be indirect on the employment sustainability of PwPD. It is reported that employers who benefit from government support (tax credits, wage, and training subsidies) develop a positive attitude toward PwPD (Houtenville and Kalargyrou, 2012). This suggests that boosting employer access to specific government support will stimulate their concerns about accepting and hiring PwD in the workplace (Ikutegbe et al., 2024).
Several studies argued that not being a beneficiary of basic living security positively impacts the employment of disabled people, especially those with intellectual disabilities (Park and Kim, 2017; Park and Park, 2019).
The income level of the family may also positively affect the employment process of PwD (Chan et al., 2018). Therefore, this impact is still controversial, and few studies have considered it, but the authors decided to integrate it because, either positively or negatively, it has an impact that matters to be identified and appreciated.
Personal factors
Sharing information about disability is a personal decision, and sometimes, there is no choice about sharing or not due to the characteristics of disability (McKinney and Swartz, 2021). When sharing such information, mismatches and problems can be prevented by defining adequate work accommodations (Peterson et al., 2017). This can depend on the individual personality and attitude directly related to positive acceptance of disability.
Employer attitudes toward PwD can interact with other sociodemographic factors (age, sex, and education) and affect employment outcomes. Male, younger PwD who are more educated and are located in urban regions can be more successfully employed (O’Neill et al., 2017). As seen and as supposed at the beginning of this research, interrelationships between factors can impact the employment sustainability of PwD.
Characteristics commonly mentioned in research addressing the acquisition and retention of jobs for PwD include education level (Båtevik, 2019), sex, especially male (Bush and Tassé, 2017; Båtevik, 2019), and age (Wehman et al., 2014).
Social factors
Social support is directly related to the work motivation of PwD and can be considered a main stimulator (Andrews and Rose, 2010). PwD are supported by peers, and families seem to be more motivated to obtain and look for jobs and keep employment. The continuous encouragement received from others matters for PwD (Meacham et al., 2019). This social support is needed to attract, maintain, and integrate employment. Family members can provide advice and aspirations, assist the search process, and ensure moral support to maintain employment (Holwerda et al., 2013). This support can also be provided by co-workers or flexible employers (Lindstrom et al., 2014).
Parents’ education level has also been considered a critical factor that can affect the employment of PwD, but the results, at this level, are still controversial (Kang and Jun, 2009; Park and Park, 2019).
Psychological factors
Motivation and self-esteem as psychological factors are considered in a great number of research studies as critical to securing employment for PwD (Foley et al., 2012). According to Park and Park (2019), these factors determine and regulate self-determination to obtain a job, maintain it, and be integrated. Causal Agency Theory supports this conception and details how people react while developing beliefs and engaging in autonomous action proportionally to their psychological needs, motivation level, contextual challenges, and environmental difficulties to enhance individual outcomes such as participation in the community and employment (Shogren et al., 2017). This effect was also supported by Wehmeyer et al. (2012), especially for persons with intellectual disability. Self-esteem generates positive employment outcomes, which can support its sustainability.
Organizational factors
Organizational factors can be divided into three subdivisions: integration barriers for employment, which contain application and steps before employment; workplace accommodations after being employed or what we can consider as internal environmental factors; and corporate culture, which determines the way to interact between different organizational levels and individuals.
Corporate culture can determine the perception of PwD in work and, consequently, behavior and attitude toward them. A culture that recognizes and tolerates differences will benefit PwPD, who feel valorized in their workplaces (Crowther et al., 2022). So, they will be satisfied with their job, be engaged, and stay longer while being more productive (Nevala et al., 2015). A negative attitude or bad circumstances can generate a risk of discrimination and develop a negative attitude from the PwPD, leading to a negative decision (Gladman and Waghorn, 2016).
Work accommodations imply the definition of equal opportunity for PwPD employment (Butterfield and Ramseur, 2004). Three main levels of the benefits of such accommodation can be identified in the literature. The first is defined on the individual level proportionally to work performance and job satisfaction through eliminating obstacles (Lacaille et al., 2004; Varekamp et al., 2011). The second is related to the workplace level by getting and retaining qualified employees while increasing workers’ productivity, and this reduces the costs of training (Rumrill et al., 2013). The third and last level is appreciated by society as it increases equality for PwD by providing and implementing rules and laws (Solovieva et al., 2010).
Employment integration barriers interact with work accommodations, which means that such accommodations have to be considered from the beginning. When there is an alignment between job demands and personal capacity, or matching jobs, it will be easier for PwD to accomplish work and achieve the required employment outcomes (Wen et al., 2023).
All dimensions were defined, and brainstorming and discussions with researchers and teachers were performed to fix the final list of relevant causal factors of employment sustainability for PwPD.
METHODOLOGY
The research employed a mixed approach to achieve the research objective, leveraging the strengths of ISM and the MICMAC analysis.
The choice of ISM as a methodological tool was pivotal to this study. ISM is renowned for its effectiveness in dissecting and organizing complex interrelationships among variables into a coherent and structured model. It particularly stands out for its ability to convert fragmented conceptualizations of systems into tangible and systematically organized frameworks.
This transformation is essential for researchers to dissect, analyze, and understand factors that influence employment sustainability for individuals with physical disabilities according to our research objective.
Data collection
Several experts on special needs persons’ assistance, researchers, and the restrictive number of employed PwD were interviewed after the redaction of a guide for semi-structured interviews according to the research objective. The study protocol was approved by Committee of Research Ethics, Qassim University No. ID: 24-74-06. Written consent for the study was obtained from clients’ legal representatives after they were fully informed about the aims of the study both orally and in writing.
The redaction of this guide was elaborated after a rigorous literature review to identify 13 causal factors. The semi-structured nature of the interviews provided a delicate balance—it allowed us to steer the conversation toward the core topics of interest while simultaneously giving participants the latitude to articulate their thoughts and experiences without any constraints.
We initially tried to contact 18 experts (responsible in specialized centers, via e-mail in different specialized centers), but only 11 were approved to participate in the research. Researchers and academic experts were also considered. Employed PwPD were a little bit difficult to identify which confirms that the number of employed PwPD is still limited and its relative aspect is not well identified but, in the end, the authors could access three of them with experience ranging from 2 to 5 years in their actual jobs.
After this, we scheduled an online session with each of them. The interview process was extensive, involving 15 stakeholders and 3 employed PwPD. Each interview was meticulously planned to last 45 minutes, ensuring sufficient depth and breadth of discussion.
The response rate was commendable, at 80%, and participants were meticulously selected based on their direct experience with or understanding of the organization’s disability employment initiatives. The included specialist educational levels ranged from bachelor’s level to doctoral level.
Before the main data collection phase was commenced, a pilot test of the interview protocol was conducted. This preliminary step was critical for refining the questions, ensuring they were unambiguous, pertinent, and capable of eliciting the intended information.
During the data collection process, the majority of respondents insisted on the importance of personal characteristics and personality. Interview 4 stated that: “…to be employed we have to accept it and try to obtain the job according to available resources….” Interview 7 also insists on this point and tries to explain how parental education level matters in this state: “it is not enough to be strong and accept disabilities, especially physical disabilities because there is always a feeling of being different ……each person needs support and orientation, what do you think about people with disabilities?…” after this, he continued: “the level of education, in my point of view, is critical because it determines their awareness level and enriches their social experience so they can support their children with disabilities….” Interview 9 explained that: “the governmental support only seems to be necessary and I consider that this sustainable process must be collective…a collaborative one in which each intervenents have to play the role of assistant, coach, mentor, and motivator…the structural requirements exists and are very well defined, clear for all…we have just to operationalize this process and encourage them to overcome difficulties…culture and personality are the most prevalent in my point of view.”
All participants were allowed to review the research findings. This served as a verification process, allowing them to confirm the veracity of the interpretations derived from their input.
During these sessions, eventual relationships between different variables were discussed and debated. In general, the result was satisfactory and constructive. 0 and 1 are attributed to different collected answers based on their approvement about the existence or non-existence of effects and interrelationships between causal factors: 0 for no and 1 for yes. Based on this, the ISM diagram was elaborated, and a hierarchical structure was created showing the transitivity and the power interaction through the generation of the reachability matrix. A deeper analysis was performed using the MICMAC approach, which attributes power to each factor and dependence on another factor. The proportionality of research objectives with the ISM analysis principles confirms that ISM is the most suitable method to describe eventual interrelationships and their power.
ISM methodology
This methodology depends on nine steps:
The constitution of expert teams: experts’ opinions are applied to define the structural model according to the initial reachability matrix and transitivity links.
The identification of causal factors of employment sustainability of PwPD cited in the previous literature review.
The definition of interpretative logic knowledge: by working with experts, we insisted on the nature of the eventual association between factors, and a pairwise relationship was constructed proportionally to the yes or no answers of the expert team.
All interrelationships were detected and discussed to create the initial reachability matrix and comparison matrix. The logical interpretations for each pair of factors were elaborated according to the nature of their corresponding effects.
The indirect effects were also checked and represented in the matrix through transitive links. This step was very interesting and very enriching. Expert interactions provided many useful interpretations for further studies, such as the definition of an appropriate ecosystem for PwPD or the entrepreneurial ecosystem for these special needs proportion of people.
The determination of reachability, antecedents, and the intersection set to define, sequentially, factor levels or level partitioning are based on the final reachability matrix. The most important level of factors is considered level I and factors corresponding to this level qualify as root factors. Each factor previously defined is associated with a level as well as the correspondence with other factors.
The diagraphs reached in this step detail links and levels of the final reachability matrix.
The interpretative matrix of all factors with 1 as a value is interpreted.
The ISM model is established, detailed, and interpreted.
RESULTS
Structured self-interaction matrix
A deep analysis of the existing literature reviews associated with the opinions of experts indicated the existence of specific causal factors of the employment sustainability of PwD. This research aimed to detect these factors, compare them, and look for their possible association to improve our comprehension of this action and define a corresponding successful critical pathway. A, V, X, and O appreciate the interaction between rows (i) and columns (j):
V supports that (i) leads to (j);
A supports that (j) leads to factor (i);
X supports that a bidirectional relationship exists between (i) and (j); and
O supports that no relation exists between (i) and (j).
When defining the structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM), we considered causal factors of employment sustainability (Table 1), and coding was conducted according to correspondents’ definitions and experts’ opinions (Table 2).
Final list of causal factors.
| Causal factor types | Causal factor dimensions |
|---|---|
| Organizational factors | Work accommodations |
| Barrier’s integration employment | |
| Corporate culture | |
| Social factors | Parental education |
| Social support (family) | |
| Personal factors | Positive acceptance |
| Employer attitude | |
| General characteristics | |
| Psychological factors | Motivation |
| Self-esteem | |
| Structural factors | Government support |
| Income | |
| Basic social security |
Structural self-interaction matrix.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government support | V | A | V | V | O | V | O | V | V | O | V | O | V | |
| Basic social security | A | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | O | V | V | O | ||
| Income | O | V | O | V | O | A | V | O | O | O | V | |||
| Positive acceptance | A | A | A | A | V | A | A | O | V | O | ||||
| Employer attitude | O | O | O | V | V | A | V | V | V | |||||
| General characteristics | O | O | O | O | O | O | V | V | ||||||
| Social support | A | O | O | A | V | V | V | |||||||
| Parental education | O | O | O | V | V | O | ||||||||
| Work accommodations | O | A | V | O | V | |||||||||
| Integration barriers | O | V | O | V | ||||||||||
| Corporate culture | O | O | V | |||||||||||
| Motivation | O | V | ||||||||||||
| Self-esteem | V | |||||||||||||
| Employment sustainability |
Matrix of reachability
This matrix was created from SSIM following the same rules of interactions between factors. Table 3 details this matrix. The questions are as follows: what influences others? Additionally, what is the determining factor that impacts others?
Reachability matrix.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Driving power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government support | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| Basic social security | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Income | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Positive acceptance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Employer attitude | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| General characteristics | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Social support | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Parental education | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Work accommodations | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Integration barriers | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Corporate culture | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Motivation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Self-esteem | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Employment sustainability | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Final reachability levels
In this analysis, a hierarchy of factors was identified with antecedents and their corresponding reachability factor (Table 4). An antecedent set was admitted, and the interdependence between them was created. As shown in Figure 2, there is a classification with five levels and many sub-iterations between factors and levels.
Final reachability.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Driving power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government support | 1 | 1 | 1* | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1* | 1 | 11 |
| Basic social security | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1* | 4 |
| Income | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1* | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1* | 1 | 0 | 1* | 1* | 1 | 11 |
| Positive acceptance | 1* | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1* | 1 | 1* | 11 |
| Employer attitude | 1* | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| General characteristics | 1* | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1* | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1* | 1* | 0 | 1* | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Social support | 1* | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1* | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Parental education | 1* | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1* | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1* | 12 |
| Work accommodations | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1* | 1* | 0 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1 | 1* | 1 | 11 |
| Integration barriers | 1* | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1* | 0 | 1* | 0 | 1* | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1* | 1 | 11 |
| Corporate culture | 1* | 1* | 1* | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1* | 1 | 1* | 1* | 1 | 12 |
| Motivation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Self-esteem | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Employment sustainability | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
1* shows transitivity; DNP, Dependence Power; DRP, Driving Power; V, Variable.
MICMAC analysis
No autonomous factors were identified in this state, which confirms the adequation of factors and their strong dependence. The four dependent variables are basic living support, motivation, self-esteem, and employment sustainability. The seven linkage variables are government support, income, positive acceptance, employer attitude, social support, workplace accommodations, and integration barriers to employment. The three independent variables are general characteristics, parents’ education, and corporate culture.
This matrix details factors according to their dependence power and driving power to identify the final model (Fig. 3) with the hierarchical interrelationships that may exist between factors proportionally to their importance for the sustainable employment process of PwD.
Factors in the first level are considered basic, meaning we must focus on them to ensure employment sustainability. Three primary variables or antecedents demand greater attention: parental education, general characteristics (considering age, gender, and educational level to ascertain job nature and accommodations), and corporate culture (directly linked to an awareness process for identifying disabilities, accepting them, acknowledging rights to encourage and support individuals, and fostering appropriate behavior development).
DISCUSSION
According to our research, employment sustainability is caused by 13 factors divided into five main dimensions. As shown in Figure 4, parents’ education, general characteristics, and corporate culture are the most critical. These factors belong to differentiated dimensions, which confirms that a collaborative effort is strongly needed for the employment sustainability of PwD.
MICMAC. Abbreviation: MICMAC, Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement.
Then, proportionally to income level, the government supports a positive acceptance level of disability, which is developed and defined by employer attitude. In this level, a strong interdependence is detected in two ways: governmental support and income increase a positive acceptance and employee attitude increase in addition to a stimulating process of social support to define work accommodations and limit integration barriers to employment.
The feeling of security will first depend on all these previous factors, and then motivation and self-esteem will be generated. However, a direct and positive effect can exist between factors in level II, considered as linkage, motivation, and self-esteem. So, the origin of psychological factors required for employment sustainability will depend on many previous factors at different levels and vary from material to immaterial.
To increase employment sustainability, the first action to take is to educate parents of PwD to be aware of the special needs requirements and necessities. Educated parents will help to assume the difference due to the disability and be a source of support and inspiration. Then, taking into account general characteristics such as age, sex, and level of education of PwD can help and assist a personalized conditions and environment to each range. Also, entertaining a great effort to develop a corporate culture is critical, which means a massive effort to sensibilize, understand, and specifically accept the difference and assume the rights of PwD.
Previous research has insisted on the importance of psychological factors (Park and Park, 2019; Elahdi and Alnahdi, 2022) but did not specify their origin; most of them were treated according to intellectual disability. In this work, we extended previous studies by providing a hierarchical approach and identifying the eventual interdependence between variables to provide a critical pathway for the employment sustainability of PwD. Moreover, the association of organizational factors with social factors was not detected in many past research and literature, and each factor was analyzed separately (Vornholt et al., 2013; Chapman et al., 2024). Our results converge with the majority of these studies insisting on the importance of causal root factors for the employment of PwPD.
This study is innovative in two main points: the first is related to the nature of this process because we consider not only obtaining employment but also maintaining and integrating this process to make it sustainable. Second, the methodological approach is different, considering an integrative and exhaustive approach of all factors combined. Insofar as statistical results and conclusions seem valid and consistent, they are based on the determination of interrelationships over time and through different perceptions: experts, researchers, and employed PwD to define what we call the pyramid of employment sustainability of PwD.
The absence of consensus about the measurement of sustainable employment and the lack of an integrative approach to its causal factors constitute the essence of this research. Considering the performance and eventual sustainable self-employment process for PwPD can enrich our findings by providing considerable solutions to facilitate the social integration of special needs persons. The methodology used here can be considered innovative and unique in this field of research and permits us to define causal factors of employment sustainability and their corresponding interrelationships. Still, multi-method research can be more appropriate to understand how this process can be evaluated during the time, which means that a longitudinal approach based on a mixed methodology can help to identify trajectories for the individual development of PwPD during the process of employment and consequently preventing interventions according to an action plan.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this research reaffirms the multifaceted nature of employment sustainability for PwD, identifying 13 influential factors across five distinct dimensions, including parents’ education, individual characteristics, and corporate culture. Our investigation underscores the necessity of a synergistic approach to foster a sustainable employment environment for PwD, taking into account the broad spectrum of influencing factors. The significance of this study lies in its holistic perspective, which can guide policymakers, educators, and employers in developing comprehensive strategies that address the diverse needs and barriers faced by PwD in the workforce. While the research provides considerable insights, it is not without limitations. The scope of factors examined, while extensive, may not encompass all possible influences on employment sustainability for PwD, and the generalizability of results may be constrained by the demographic and geographic specifics of the sample. Future research should consider longitudinal studies to examine the long-term outcomes of interventions aimed at enhancing employment sustainability for PwD and investigate additional variables that may contribute to the employment longevity of this population.