Making management decisions on infectious disease prevention in the corporate environment: barriers and incentives

Introduction. The article presents the complex analysis of management decision making on implementing recommended (not mandatory) preventive measures against infectious diseases in the corporate environment.

The purpose of the study. To detect and systemize key barriers enterprises have to face at various stages in decision making when implementing recommended measures for infectious diseases prevention; to consider targeted instruments to stimulate their implementation.

Materials and methods. The study relies on using the process approach, which considers a management decision as a sequence of interrelated stages: problem identification, search for options how to solve it, selecting an optimal variant, implementation, and efficiency estimate. The research methodology combines theoretical simulation (based on the adapted model by G. Simon) and qualitative analysis of data obtained by a social survey, which was conducted among top managers. This allowed verifying the existing barriers and to describe them in detail using examples form real business practices. Special attention is paid to identifying critical points of intervention where public measures can stimulate businesses most effectively.

Results. Typical barriers were detected at each stage that hampered implementation of preventive measures. They included an absence of risk awareness, deficit of reliable information about preventive techniques, uncertain selection criteria, managerial difficulties in implementation, and difficulties in assessing performance and efficiency. At the problem identification stage, information campaigns and creation of standards for reporting are the key instruments; when selection options, creating registers of evidence practices and ‘packet solutions’; in implementation, financial support mechanisms.

Research limitations. The study is limited by the size of the analyzed sample.

Conclusion. The study results show the necessity to overcome information asymmetry and develop targeted instruments for stimulating businesses, which consider specific features of each stage in decision making. The study makes a contribution to developing the management decision and state regulation theory by suggesting a new outlook for analyzing interaction between businesses and the state in preventive medicine.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies of Rospotrebnadzor (The meeting report No. 1 dated February 03, 2020). Prior to taking part in the survey, all respondents were provided with information about the study aims and had the right to cease their participation at any stage. All data were depersonalized.

Contribution of the authors:
Goleva O.I., Shur P.Z., Luzhetskiy K.P. — concept, editing the text, approval of the final version of the manuscript;
Barg А.О., Luzhetskiy K.P., Goleva O.I. — data collection and analysis, writing the text and abstract, responsibility for the integrity of all the parts of the article;
Barg А.О. — development of the questionnaire, data analysis.

Funding. The study had no sponsorship.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: August 29, 2025 / Accepted: October 8, 2025 / Published: December 17, 2025

1. Onishchenko G.G., Zaitseva N.V., eds. Health Risk Analysis in the Strategy for the State Social and Economic Development [Analiz riska zdorov’yu v strategii gosudarstvennogo sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya]. Moscow–Perm’; 2024. (in Russian)

2. Drucker P.F., Maciariello J.A. Management. New York: Collins; 2008.

3. Simon H.A. Rational decision making in business organizations. Am. Econ. Rev. 1979; 69(4): 493–513.

4. Pozdnyakov A.N. Stimulating employers to ensure harmless and safe working conditions. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika. 2017; (39): 109–21. https://doi.org/10.17223/19988648/39/8 https://elibrary.ru/ytpdhb (in Russian)

5. Korneeva V.M., Pupentsova S.V. Modern methods of enterprise risk management. Problemy sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Sibiri. 2020; (2): 33–8. https://doi.org/10.18324/2224-1833-2020-2-33-38 https://elibrary.ru/yjkdej (in Russian)

6. Kovalev S. P., Yashina E.R., Ushakov I.B., Turzin P.S., Lukichev K.E., Generalov A.V. Corporate workplace health promotion programs in the Russian Federation. Ekologiya cheloveka. 2020; (10): 31–7. https://doi.org/10.33396/1728-0869-2020-10-31-37 https://elibrary.ru/rtxuyq (in Russian)

7. Koshechko I.I., Saltykova T.S. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the formation of the attitude of the population of the Russian Federation to the prevention of infectious diseases. Problemy sotsial’noi gigieny, zdravookhraneniya i istorii meditsiny. 2022; 30(6): 1184–94. https://doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2022-30-6-1184-1194 https://elibrary.ru/nygnwj (in Russian)

8. Barahoeva R.B. Changing self-preservation behavior (a case study of the period of the COVID-19 pandemic). Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Sotsiologiya. Ekonomika. Politika. 2023; 16(1): 20–40. https://doi.org/10.31660/1993-1824-2023-1-20-40 https://elibrary.ru/zampgn (in Russian)

9. Dukhanina E.V., Kulakov K.Yu., Khametova A.T. Analysis of approaches to define risk and to risk management. Vestnik evraziiskoi nauki. 2022; 14(1): 24. https://elibrary.ru/jzdjhs (in Russian)

10. Rodionov A.V., Shcherbakova E.V., Postolenko M.V. Characteristics of risk management methods at the enterprise.Zhurnal monetarnoi ekonomiki i menedzhmenta. 2024; (2): 48–57. https://doi.org/10.26118/2782-4586.2024.73.86.007 https://elibrary.ru/blmvev (in Russian)

11. Zaitseva N.V., Alekseev V.B., Luzhetskiy K.P., Kiryanov D.A., Ustinova O.Yu., Nosov A.E. Development of an electronic reference book of technologies and tools for the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, taking into account the features of the organization of the labor process. Profilakticheskaya meditsina. 2023; 26(4): 20–5. https://doi.org/10.17116/profmed20232604120 https://elibrary.ru/ghjerg (in Russian)

12. Luzhetskii K.P. On the digital transformation of information and reference systems for the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases for the safe organization of labor processes. In: Health Risk Analysis — 2025. Towards the scientific sovereignty of Russia: Collection of materials dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Federal Scientific Center for Medical and Preventive Health Risk Management Technologies [Analiz riskazdorov’yu — 2025. K nauchnomu suverenitetu Rossii: Sbornik materialov, posvyashchennyi 30-letiyu obrazovaniya Federal’nogo nauchnogo tsentra mediko-profilakticheskikh tekhnologii upravleniya riskami zdorov’yu naseleniya]. Perm’; 2025: 263–8. https://elibrary.ru/cvlvfc (in Russian)

13. Gavrilina O.P., Shalnova O.A. Transformation of business requests to the qualities and skills of managers in the face of global challenges. Liderstvo i menedzhment. 2023; 10(3): 703–16. https://doi.org/10.18334/lim.10.3.117850 https://elibrary.ru/jgtrpv (in Russian)

14. Minkina N.I., Boldyrev R.O. Employees’ refusal to get vaccinated against covid-19: new problems and social and legal consequences. Meditsinskoe pravo. 2022; (3): 24–8. https://elibrary.ru/fbewrc (in Russian)

15. Koropets O.A., Chudinovskikh M.V. Preparedness of working population to adhere to legal constraints and prohibitions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psikhologiya i pravo. 2021; 11(1): 223–37. https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2021110117 https://elibrary.ru/yfdyrz (in Russian)

16. Mikheeva I.V., Mikheeva M.A. Economic significance of infectious diseases as a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of their prevention. Infektsiya i immunitet. 2017; (S): 204. https://elibrary.ru/xvjqvv (in Russian)

17. Shibaeva N.A., Avdeeva S.E. Economic damage reduction opportunities via development of a centralized system of artificial immunization of the population. Drukerovskii vestnik. 2022; (1): 185–200. https://doi.org/10.17213/2312-6469-2022-1-185-200 https://elibrary.ru/pfxlie (in Russian)

18. Goleva O.I. Investing in employee health: an overview of the effects and methods to evaluate effectiveness. Trud i sotsial’nye otnosheniya. 2022; 33(5): 70–88. https://doi.org/10.20410/2073-7815-2022-33-5-70-88 https://elibrary.ru/jxyrdb (in Russian)

19. Sartakova P.V. Efficiency of investments in health: approaches and methods. Permskii finansovyi zhurnal. 2019; (2): 121–36. https://elibrary.ru/acnpqg (in Russian)

20. Aksenova E.I., Kamynina N.N., Derbenev D.P., Turzin P.S. Modern organizational aspects of strengthening the corporate health of workers. Sovremennye problemy zdravookhraneniya i meditsinskoi statistiki. 2024; (5): 580–601. https://doi.org/10.24412/2312-2935-2024-5-580-601 https://elibrary.ru/nfzhnw (in Russian)

21. Lockey J.E., Redlich C.A., Streicher R., Pfahles-Hutchens A., Hakkinen P.B., Ellison G.L., et al. Isocyanates and human health: multistakeholder information needs and research priorities. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015; 57(1): 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000000278

22. Fabius R., Bildner M., Goldfarb N.I., Kirshenbaum D., Thayer D., Kiwi I.R., et al. Advancing employer cultures of health and well-being: lessons for business coalitions and employers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2025; 67(8): 581–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000003414