# Understanding the determinants of employability over the age of 45: A PRISMA systematic review

Nicolas Bazine, Anne Pignault, Jean-Luc Bernaud, Eve Saint-Germes, Natacha Pijoan, Laure Guilbert

► To cite this version:

Nicolas Bazine, Anne Pignault, Jean-Luc Bernaud, Eve Saint-Germes, Natacha Pijoan, et al. Understanding the determinants of employability over the age of 45: A PRISMA systematic review. Acta Psychologica, 2026, 263, pp.106277. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106277. hal-05487758

HAL Id: hal-05487758

https://hal.science/hal-05487758v1

Submitted on 1 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Understanding the determinants of employability over the age of 45: A PRISMA systematic review

Nicolas Bazine<sup>a, *,</sup> Anne Pignault<sup>b</sup>, Jean-Luc Bernaud<sup>c</sup>, Eve Saint-Germes<sup>d</sup>, Natacha Pijoan<sup>e</sup>, Laure Guilbert<sup>f</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

Systematic literature review

Employability

Older worker

Mature worker

## ABSTRACT

Policymakers, researchers and practitioners have recently drawn attention to the issue of employability among workers over 45 in the context of an aging workforce. Consequently, a review of the determinants of employability among these workers is both necessary and timely. This systematic review thus addresses the question, aims to provide an overview of the antecedents of employability of employees over 45 but also to highlight through which conceptualization employability has been studied. A systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using six databases relevant to the fields of work and organizational psychology, covering studies published between 1996 and 2025. In total, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Results showed that the determinants of employability of the older workers (+45) can be divided into four subsets of determinants: demographic, psychological, job characteristic and organizational. Our review highlighted the fact that most of the studies focused on demographic determinants and more specifically on age originating mostly from cross-sectional studies. Hence, many different conceptualizations and instruments used coexist, demonstrating a disparity in how determinants of employability have been studied.

## 1. Introduction

The populations of many countries are aging and, as a result, people will need to stay in the workforce for longer periods of time (OECD, 2023). Although extending working lives enables companies and governments to maintain their performance, productivity and profitability (Froehlich, Beausaert, & Segers, 2015), the aging of the workforce poses several challenges. One of the most critical challenges for companies and governments is to ensure employability throughout working life. Developing employability has been highlighted as an effective way of facing up to the current demands and rapid changes in the organizational environment (e.g., changes in tasks and work-related processes; Bozionelos et al., 2016). To illustrate this, Van der Heijde et al. (2018) have shown that employable workers tend to be more skilled and flexible than their less employable counterparts; they adapt quickly to new environments, and thrive there (Van der Heijde et al., 2018).

Furthermore, these workers are more confident in their capacity to secure alternative employment and are therefore less likely to experience feelings of job insecurity or concerns about their future. They are sufficiently confident in their abilities to pursue employment, should the necessity arise, outside of their current organization (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011).

However, the literature set forth that older workers face a decline in employability as they age (De Lange et al., 2020). A considerable amount of research has attempted to understand this issue and has agreed to postulate that this is the result of a multifactorial issue (Harari, McCombs, & Wiernik, 2021). First, older workers face difficulties in adapting to new work tasks and contexts due to a decline in fluid intelligence (Peng, Wang, Wang, & Lin, 2019) and the loss of their cognitive and physical abilities. Even thought, research has demonstrated that job experience can partly compensate for these losses (Quiñones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995). Second, the literature has also

<footnote><sup>a</sup> NEOMA Business School, Rouen, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Centre de Recherche en Psychologie de la Connaissance, du Langage et de l'Emotion (PsyCLÉ) – UR 3273, Aix-Marseille Université, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Centre de Recherche sur le Travail et le Développement (EA 4132), CNAM-INETOP, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Groupe de Recherche En Droit, Economie et Gestion (UMR CNRS UCA 7321), GREDEG CNRS, Université Côte d'Azur, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Université Montpellier Paul Valéry - Laboratoire CORHIS (EA7400), Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> Université Montpellier Paul Valéry - Laboratoire EPSYLON (EA4556), Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: NEOMA Business School, Rue du Maréchal Juin, 76130 Mont-Saint-Aignan, 76000, Mont-Saint-Aignan, Cedex, France.
E-mail address: nicolas.bazine@neoma-bs.fr (N. Bazine).</footnote>
argued that older workers can be expected to be less motivated to invest in their employability, as they place less value on opportunities for advancement and continuous learning (Peters, Van der Heijden, Spurk, De Vos, & Klaassen, 2019). Third, academic research has pointed out that societal and organizational factors play a tremendous role in the development of employability (Alcover, Mazzetti, & Vignoli, 2021), certain studies have indicated that older workers suffer from a lack of investment from their organizations which may be due to the negative stereotypes associated with older workers (Peters et al., 2019).

Within contemporary labour markets, employability represents a particular challenge for older workers and attracted the attention of policy makers, researchers and practitioners, making it essential to understand the factors that influence and sustain their employability overtime. To date, while the literature has yielded valuable contributions, the findings remain fragmented, and the specific factors involved in the identification, development, and reinforcement of employability are still unclear and scattered.

Thus, this paper presents an overview of the antecedents of older workers' employability. Although several reviews have been conducted to map the antecedents of employability (Alcover et al., 2021; Dinh, Dinh Hai, & Pham, 2023; Harari et al., 2021), our work aims to complement these previous works and literature reviews in two main ways. First, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the conceptual frameworks used in studying the antecedents of employability. Most existing reviews on employability have focused on a specific conceptualization such as perceived employability or sustainable employability (e.g., Alcover et al., 2021; Harari et al., 2021), even though research on the antecedents of older workers' employability has been carried out in very different ways and with diverse approaches. The second objective of this review is to provide a broader mapping of the antecedents of the older workers' employability by categorizing them into demographic, psychological, job-related, organizational determinants and address the gap left by previous studies that have mainly focused on more specific antecedents. To address the limitations identified in previous reviews and to provide greater conceptual and methodological clarity, this review focuses on the following research question:

## 2. Research question (RQ): What are the major determinants of employability for workers aged 45 and above across conceptual frameworks, and how robust is the evidence across study designs

To address this research question, Page et al.'s (2021) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was conducted. To the best of our knowledge, this literature review is among the first to synthesize empirical findings on the determinants and factors influencing the employability of older workers. This method will help us to advance research into older workers' employability allowing us to identify, select and evaluate a set of studies in order to report on the current state of knowledge. As such, it represents a valuable contribution to the employability literature.

This review contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it provides a comprehensive overview of the determinants of employability among workers aged 45 and above. Second, our findings will extend our understanding of employability and older workers by identifying the conceptual frameworks employability through which employability has been studied. Such analyses will contribute to the literature because in spite of former great endeavors to categorize these approaches properly, many overlaps still exist. These overlaps become problematic when they tap into different yet related aspects of the same overall concept, inducing a jingle-jangle fallacy. This occurs when one label is used for very different dimensions or measures, or conversely, when different labels are used for very similar dimensions and measures. However, the lack of systematic documentation of this conceptual "fuzziness" continues to hinder progress in the field. Addressing this issue is essential for moving forward and developing a clearer understanding of employability in later career stages. Third, by identifying key

study characteristics, this review extends the existing literature how employability has been studied and by identifying potential methodological weaknesses in the current evidence base, particularly those related to the robustness of study designs (e.g., reliance on cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, experimental approaches). This analysis helps clarify existing gaps and provides researchers with guidance for strengthening future investigation. Fourth, based on the findings of this review, this review will extend the current literature by the proposition of some recommendations to strengthen the current literature on older workers and employability. This review also offers practical implications for practitioners, enabling them to develop and design actions and training programs to enhance the employability of older workers.

## 3. Theoretical background

### 3.1. Employability: definitions and conceptualizations

Over the decades, the meaning of employability has evolved, resulting in multiple conceptualizations (Hoedemakers, Vanderstukken, & Stoffers, 2023; van Harten et al., 2022). Gazier (1998) was one of the very first to propose a solid definition of the concept of employability as the contrast between employable individuals and unemployable ones and defined as a set of attitudes, knowledge and skills. Then, Hillage and Pollard (1998) identified employability as the ability to find employment, maintain jobs, obtain a new job and maintain quality of work. These definitions marked a shift in the conceptualization of employability. Whereas previous research, employability had mainly investigated at macro level (e.g., governments, labor market), the focus has increasingly moved toward an individual perspective.

Since these definitions, employability has been used and defined in many different ways. Fugate et al. (2021) proposed several perspectives from which employability can be studied, including labor economics, education, vocational counselling, careers, human resource management, work and organizational psychology. Although multiple debates exist regarding this taxonomy and how employability should be conceptualized (van Harten et al., 2022), van Harten et al. (2022) identified the major strands that examine employability through an individual perspective.

In the first strand, employability is seen in terms of personal strengths that promote the individual's employment potential. Personal strengths typically encompass competencies (e.g., Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006), attitudes (van Dam, 2004), and dispositions (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004). First, Heijde and Van Der Heijden (2006) conceived of it as an individual's capacity to enable the achievement of his or her potential through the acquisition and fulfillment of permanent employment for one's current or new customers, or for future prospects within or outside one's organization (Vargas, Sanchez-Queija, Rothwell, & Parra, 2018), while Fugate et al. (2004) defined employability as a form of work-specific adaptability enabling workers to identify and realize career opportunities, facilitating movement between jobs, both within (i.e. internal employability) and between organizations (i.e. external employability). From an individual perspective, the trait-based individual employability approach (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008) refers to proactive attitudes adopted by individuals when looking for and seeking to hold onto a job (De Vos, De Hauw, & Van der Heijden, 2011). Then, van Dam (2004) proposed the concept of employability orientation, defined as employees' attitudes and proclivities toward interventions aimed at fostering organizational flexibility by improving and maintaining workers' employability within the organization.

In the second strand, employability is seen in terms of the individual's self-assessment of employment potential, namely the perceived range of available employment opportunities or "self-perceived employability" (Berntson, Näswall, & Sverke, 2008; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011; Rothwell, Herbert, & Rothwell, 2008).
Perceived employability is the ability to attain sustainable employment appropriate to one's qualification level (Rothwell et al., 2008) and can be described as an individual's subjective view of their ability to obtain, retain or secure a new job (Alvarez-Gonzalez, Lopez-Miguens, & Cazzolla, 2017). Perceived employability is an effective approach because it focuses not just on internal personal factors related to one's perception of one's own capacities and skills for finding a job, but also on structural or external factors, such as the individual's perception of the impact of the external employment market and the importance of their qualifications or profession when trying to find a job (Vargas et al., 2018). Accordingly, perceived employability is divided into perceived internal and external employability (Blokker, Akkermans, Tims, Jansen, & Khapova, 2019).

The third strand covers the potential achievement of employment in the form of actual job transitions. Regarding these transitions, several researchers are interpreted through different dimensions such as lateral or vertical job changes, and transitions within the same organization or to another employer (e.g. Nelissen, Forrier, & Verbruggen, 2017).

In addition of the three strands identified by van Harten, Cuyper, Knies, and Forrier (2022), a more recent line of research has focused on sustainable employability. The seminal definition proposed by Van der Klink et al. (2016) conceptualizes sustainable employability as an employee's ability to participate in work overtime while maintaining health and well-being, together with the conditions that enable this continuity. Since then, various frameworks have emerged (Alcover et al., 2021; Fleuren, de Grip, Jansen, Kant, & Zijlstra, 2016; Fleuren, de Grip, Jansen, Kant, & Zijlstra, 2020; Hazelzet, Picco, Houkes, Bosma, & de Rijk, 2019; Van der Klink et al., 2016), contributing to a growing fragmentation and the absence of unified conceptualization. In response to this, Alcover et al. (2021) proposed an integrative definition of sustainable employability that distinguishes between an individual dimension—personal resources, capabilities, and perceived employability—and a contextual dimension—including external resources, job opportunities, and external evaluations, producing the following definition “*in the mid-and late-career refers to the dynamic fit throughout these career stages between the worker's personal resources, individual capability, and perceived employability (individual SE) and external resources, job opportunities, and external assessments of employability (contextual SE).* This dynamic fit translates into three domains: well-being and health levels, work behaviors and outcomes, and job capacity and attitudes, valued by the worker and the context, which have a direct effect on the maintenance, eventual increase, and development of employability until the end of the working career.” (p.170).

## 3.2. Older workers

The study of aging at work with a particular focus on “older workers” is at the forefront of the international research agenda. However, despite this prominence, there remains little consensus on the age at which an “older worker” is defined. As previously noted by McCarthy, Heraty, Cross, and Cleveland (2014), the designation of a threshold for defining an older worker remains a subject of debate. In this study, we opted for 45 as threshold for three main reasons despite no real consensus has been postulated (McCarthy et al., 2014): to date, researchers generally agree on 45 or 50 as the cut-off point. As emphasized by Ilmarinen (2001), or by Cloostermans, Bekkers, Uiters, and Proper (2015) workers at the age of 45 begin to experience biological changes (physical and mental) that occur in line with the natural aging process and that may impact their health and wellness, physical ability to perform tasks and cognitive ability. Moreover, some authors have highlighted that ageism or discrimination based on age begins around 45 years old (McMullin & Dryburgh, 2011; von Humboldt et al., 2023), as their studies show that attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral discrimination toward older workers typically start at this age. Furthermore, from the age of 45, workers start to think about their remaining time in a different way. Lang and Carstensen (2002) have underlined that perception of the remaining time

and the future can be viewed in two distinct ways: future as a time of opportunities and future as a time of limitations. Thus, Cate and John (2007) have demonstrated that a shift occurs in how individuals perceive their time throughout their life. Prior to the age of 45, individuals tend to perceive their future as a time of opportunities and after the age of 45, workers perceive their time as a time of limitation.

## 3.3. Overview of the study

To the best of our knowledge, to date, there is no literature review aiming to synthesize empirical findings on the determinants and factors influencing the employability of older workers with a focus through which conceptualization. The following sections outline the review methodology, including the search strategy, eligibility criteria, data extraction and analysis procedures. The results section then reports the PRISMA flow and provides an overview of how employability has been conceptualized, followed by a synthesis of the key determinants for workers over 45. Finally, the discussion summarizes the main findings, outlines their theoretical and practical implications and offers recommendations to guide future research.

# 4. Methods

This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement (Page et al., 2021). This method is apt to respond to our Research Question in a transparent and replicable manner as it adheres to rigorously predefined procedure intended to ensure both a thorough and systematic search process while mitigating research bias.

## 4.1. Eligibility

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected in order to ascertain the determinants of employability among older workers and older job seekers, and respond to the research question. To be included in this review, articles were required to meet the following eligibility criteria: articles should (1) be written in English or French. These were restricted to English and French language peer-reviewed articles because such articles identify validated knowledge (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Bachrach, & Podsakoff, 2005), the authors lacking the knowledge or resources to make clear translations into other languages; and (2) be an original published empirical research study, thus review articles, books, book chapters, qualitative studies, theses, editorials, guidelines, conference abstracts, indexes and model proposals were excluded; (3) studies should focus on employability and older workers or job seekers (over the age of 45); (4) employability must be properly measured. This threshold was based on the prevailing consensus regarding the classification of older workers, which considers a decline in physical and mental capacity (Ilmarinen, 2001).

## 4.2. Information sources

The systematic review was conducted using the following databases: PsychINFO (1992–present), PsycArticles (1894–present), Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection (1965–present), SocIndex (1895–present), Business Source Premier (1984–present), PubMed (1950–present). These databases were chosen because they align with our aim of identifying the antecedents of employability from an individual-centric perspective. No publication date was applied.

The search was conducted using a Boolean phrase including a set of key-words pertaining to our review: (“employability” OR “employment” OR “employed” OR “unemployed” OR “trajectory”) AND (“45 and over” OR “older workers” OR “mature workers” OR “age” OR “aged workers” OR “older job seekers” OR “senior” OR “elderly*”). The keywords were intentionally broad to capture as many relevant articles as possible across employability literature streams. Thus, we proceeded to the
search and produced 1766 items.

### 4.3. Study selection

The selection of studies was conducted by the first author and verified by the five other authors. The first step consisted of screening titles, which produced a number of 405 articles among 1766 initially identified. Of these, 65 duplicates were removed and 119 articles were excluded after abstract screening, leaving 221 articles. Then, full-text extraction was performed, and 21 full-texts could not be retrieved. Among the 200 remaining articles, 3 were excluded because they were not written in either French or English, and 32 were removed because they were not research paper. Thus, 165 full-text articles were perused and assessed in order to determine their eligibility for this review. After full-text analysis, 62 were removed due to the absence of a proper measure of employability. 46 because they did not examine the role of age or did not specifically focus on older workers, 7 due to the fact they were qualitative studies and 7 because they were review papers. Finally, 39 studies were included in this review for full-text analysis.

### 4.4. Data extraction

Systematic data extraction from the included studies was carried out and is reported in Table 1. We extracted the data describing the type of study, the study population characteristics, the study objectives, outcomes, instruments used to assess employability, the underlying theoretical framework of employability, and study results. The extraction was performed by the first author (NB) and was verified by five other authors to limit the risk of bias. In addition, all the articles were blindly evaluated by the first author and two other authors to ensure robustness.

### 4.5. Assessment of methodological quality

Two authors (NB and AP) assessed blindly the paper included in the final analysis through the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Checklist for Cross-sectional Studies. This tool consists of 8 items and these items were evaluated as Yes, No, Unclear, or Not applicable. One point was granted for Yes, whilst zero points were attributed for all other answers. Papers were classified into three categories: low quality (0–3), moderate quality (4–6) and high quality (7–8). The results are presented in Table 2.

## 5. Results

The study selection is detailed in Fig. 1. The findings yielded 167 articles that were subjected to full-text analysis. Of the 167 articles found during the searches, 39 met the inclusion criteria (See Table 2). The researchers agreed on using these 39 articles as the final set to be analyzed.

### 5.1. Study characteristics

Since 1999, researchers have examined the determinants and factors influencing the employability of older workers, and since 2014, the number of studies has grown exponentially (See Fig. 2).

### 5.2. Methodological quality

Based on Joanna Briggs Institute assessment tool, 36 of 39 studies included in this review were rated as high quality, three as moderate quality and one as low quality. Given the predominance of high-quality studies, the overall strength of the evidence can be considered robust, which supports confidence in the synthesis presented in this review.

Regarding participation, in most studies, data were collected in the Netherlands (29), followed by Italy (3) (Dordoni et al., 2017; Picco et al., 2022; Ramaci et al., 2021) and Belgium (3) (De Vos et al., 2017;

Kovalenko & Mortelmans, 2016; Verbrugghe et al., 2016). Two studies were conducted in Austria (Froehlich et al., 2014; Froehlich et al., 2016). One study was conducted in South America in Chile (Yeves et al., 2019), one study was conducted in Germany (Böttcher et al., 2018), another was realized in United Kingdom (Fasbender & Froidevaux, 2025) and finally one study was conducted in Asia in South Korea (Chun & Jyung, 2022).

Regarding methodology, the majority of studies are cross-sectional (35) and the rest are follow-up studies (4) (De Lange et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2015; van der Meer et al., 2016; Veth et al., 2019). One used a longitudinal design (Fasbender & Froidevaux, 2025). Among the cross-sectional studies, one (Kroon et al., 2016) used an experimental approach, whilst the remaining studies used a correlational approach.

### 5.3. Measurement and conceptualization of employability

We reviewed the conceptual framework that have been used in employability and older-worker research to understand of how different studies have approached the determinants of employability. As depicted in Fig. 3, the competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006) was the most frequently used framework following by the sustainable employability model (Van der Klink et al., 2016). Except for the model of Fugate et al. (2004), the other conceptualizations were used in a more anecdotal manner.

Sixteen studies (De Vos et al., 2017; Dordoni et al., 2017; Froehlich et al., 2014; Froehlich et al., 2016; Kroon et al., 2016; Le Blanc et al., 2019; Oostrom et al., 2016; Peters et al., 2019; Scholarios & Van der Heijden, 2021; Van der Heijde et al., 2018; Van der Heijden, 2002; Van der Heijden et al., 2009; Van der Heijden et al., 2016; Van der Heijden et al., 2020; Veth et al., 2018; Veth et al., 2019) operationalized employability through the theoretical framework of Heijde and Van Der Heijden (2006), which conceptualized employability through a competence based approach and can be defined as the continuous fulfilling, acquiring or creating of work through the optimal use of competences.

Then, all of these studies measured employability using Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item instrument, which comprises of five dimensions—occupational expertise (15 items), anticipation and optimization (i.e., whether an individual responds to changes to internal and external job markets; 8 items), personal flexibility (8 items), corporate sense (7 items), and balance (i.e., balancing personal and a team's or organization's preferences; 9 items). These studies presented an alignment between theoretical framework and measures (Fig. 4).

Ten studies (Brouwers et al., 2015; De Lange, Van der Heijden, et al., 2020; Fleuren et al., 2018; Le Blanc et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2015; Picco et al., 2022; Schriemer et al., 2022; van Scheppingen et al., 2015; van Vuuren et al., 2023; Verbrugghe et al., 2016) operationalized employability through the theoretical framework of Van der Klink et al. (2016) which proposes that sustainable employability (SE) can be defined as an employee's capability to participate in present and future jobs while preserving good health and well-being as well as the necessary conditions for this to occur.

In our review, sustainable employability has been assessed in very different ways. Each study measured sustainable employability differently. De Lange, Van der Heijden, et al. (2020) and Fleuren et al. (2018) measured sustainable employability through the measure of De Cuyper et al. (2014) which perceives employability through two dimensions (3 items for internal, 4 items for external). However, De Lange, Van der Heijden, et al. (2020) used a composite approach to evaluate sustainable employability. They used the Work Ability Index (WAI; Ilmarinen, 2007) which consists of seven constructs (60 items in total): i.e., (1) current work ability, (2) work ability in relation to the physical and mental demands of the job, (3) current diseases, illnesses, and injuries, (4) limitations due to diseases, illnesses, and injuries, (5) sick leave, (6) future expectation of work ability, and (7) mental resources. Vitality was measured with three items of the shortened Utrecht Engagement Scale
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Details of included studies.</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Empirical context</th><th>Research design</th><th>Sample/ participants</th><th>Conceptualization of employability</th><th>Instruments</th><th>Determinants</th><th>Relevant Results</th><th>Quality assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Böttcher et al. (2018)</td><td>Germany</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Mediated moderated research model</td><td>1006 employees Proportion and number of older workers who didn't report</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>Perceived employability ( Rothwell & Arnold, 2007), two dimensions internal (4 items) and external employability (7 items). α = 0.78.</td><td>Age Transformational leadership</td><td>• Transformational leadership is related to employability and buffers the negative impact of age</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Brouwers, Engels, Heerkens, and van der Beek (2015)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative Validation Main effect research model</td><td>1722 employees 43.3% female Mean age = 45.7 years 18–34 (n = 377) 35–54 (n = 780) Over 55 (=489)</td><td>Sustainable employability ( Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>Brouwers et al.'s (2015) 28-item, 5-factor (balance and competence, motivation and involvement, resilience, mental and physical health, social support)</td><td>Sustainable employability Age</td><td>• Older workers report less employability and more problems with their employability compared to younger workers</td><td>Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Chun and Jyung (2022)</td><td>South-Korea</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Hierarchical linear model Moderated model</td><td>552 workers 73.6% male Mean age = 34.4 Sample divided into three groups: Under 30, 30–40, and 40–50 Proportion and number who didn't report</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>Perceived employability ( Rothwell & Arnold, 2007), two dimensions internal (4 items) and external employability (7 items). α = 0.78.</td><td>Positive psychological capital Proactive personality Social network capital Openness to changes Fairness in HR management Supervisor feedback Organizational career management</td><td>• Psychological capital, social network capital, proactive personality, openness to changes have a positive effect on perceived employability for younger workers only<br>• Organizational career management is related to employability<br>• No effect of HR fairness and supervisor feedback on employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>De Lange, Pak, et al. (2020)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative follow-up study Moderated model</td><td>1.478 employees 84% female Mean age = 46.8 years</td><td>Sustainable employability ( Van der Klink et al., 2016)<br>-three-dimension framework used Work ability ( Ilmarinen, 2007)<br>Vitality (Schaufeli et al., 2006)<br>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Perceived employability developed by De Cuyper and De Witte (2008), two dimensions internal and external employability. α = 0.96.</td><td>Work ability Vitality Internal and external employability Job demands and resources Future time perspective Calendar age</td><td>• Calendar age has a negative influence on employability<br>• Future time perspective has no significant influence on employability<br>• Moderating influence of calendar age and future time perspective on employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Dello Russo et al. (2020)</td><td>30 different countries</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>9119 managers and professionals 50.7% female Mean age = 40.5 years Divided into three samples Under 30 (n = 47) Between 30 and 50 (n = 32) Over 50 (n = 19)</td><td>Perceived employability ( Vanhercke, De Cuyper, Peeters, & De Witte, 2014)</td><td>Perceived external employability ( Janssens, Sels, & Van Den Brande, 2003), two dimensions internal (4 items) and external employability (7 items). α = 0.78.</td><td>Age Human resource developmental practices Unemployment rate</td><td>• Age is negatively related to perceived external employability<br>• The negative age-employability relationship is less pronounced for individuals who have experienced more HRDPs<br>• No moderating effect of country's unemployment rate</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>De Vos, Forrier, Van der Heijden, and De</td><td>Belgium (Flemish)</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Mediated</td><td>2137 unemployed persons 51.3% male</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor</td><td>Occupational expertise Job search intensity</td><td>• Occupational expertise is related to job search intensity through employability</td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>Table 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Empirical context</th><th>Research design</th><th>Sample/participants</th><th>Conceptualization of employability</th><th>Instruments</th><th>Determinants</th><th>Relevant Results</th><th>Quality assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cuyper (2017)</td><td></td><td>research model</td><td>Three groups aged &lt;35 (n = 1003) 35–49 (n = 893) &gt;50 (n = 241)</td><td>Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td></td><td></td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Dordoni, Van der Heijden, Peters, Kraus-Hoogeveen, and Argentero (2017)</td><td>Italy</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>2081 employees 77% male Between 55 and 60 (n = 1921) Over 61 (=269)</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Participation in employability activities developed by van Dam (2004), 5-item scale α = 0.71</td><td>Perceived job support for learning Perceived age stereotype Participation in employability activities Intention to retire</td><td>• Participation in employability activities is negatively related to intention to retire<br>• Perception of job support for learning is negatively related to intention to retire through employability enhancing activities</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Fasbender and Froidevaux (2025)</td><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Quantitative longitudinal structural equation modeling</td><td>758 employees 54.9% female Mean age = 55.75 years old (SD = 4.66)</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>Perceived employability developed by De Cuyper and De Witte (2008), two dimensions internal and external employability. α = 0.96.</td><td>Age-inclusive HR practices Age-specific development practices Age Future time perspective</td><td>• Age-inclusive HR practices is positively related to employability as well as age-specific development practices<br>• Age is negatively related to employability<br>• Future time perspective is positively related to employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Fleischmann, Koster, and Schippers (2015)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional</td><td>983 employers Demographic variables not properly reported</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>Employability of enhancing practices (scale developed for this study), 15 -item scale</td><td>Percentage of older workers Size of organization Perception of older workers Sector of organization</td><td>• Size of organization is related to employability of enhancing practices<br>• Positive perception of older workers is related to enhancing practices<br>• Percentage of older workers not related to enhancing employability practices</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Fleuren, van Amelsvoort, de Grip, Zijlstra, and Kant (2018)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Main effect research model</td><td>2671 employees 1781 males, 829 females and 62 missing Mean age = 52.9 years</td><td>Sustainable employability (Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>Perceived employability developed by De Cuyper and De Witte (1992), two dimensions internal and external employability. 's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td>Age</td><td>• Age has a negative influence on employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Froehlich, Beausaert, Segers, and Gerken (2014)</td><td>The Netherlands and Austria</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>780 employees 59% female Mean age = 40.66</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td></td><td>Age Formal training Informal training (Feedback seeking: colleagues, supervisors, help, information)</td><td>• Age is negatively related to formal and informal training<br>• Formal and informal training mediate the relationship between age and employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Froehlich, Beausaert, and Segers (2016)</td><td>The Netherlands and Austria</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>282 employees 41.84% female Mean age = 41.85 years</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 3-factor employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td>Age Future time perspective Goal orientation Employability</td><td>• Goal orientation is related to employability<br>• Future time perspective is related to anticipation and optimization and personal flexibility<br>• An indirect relationship exists between chronological age and employability through perceived remaining opportunities</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Hennekam (2016)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Main effect research model</td><td>973 employees 68% male Mean age = 59.7 years</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>Perceived employability (Sanders & De Grip, 2004), two dimensions internal and external</td><td>Generation age (Veterans vs baby-boomers) Job performance</td><td>• Veterans demonstrate more employability than baby-boomers<br>• Employability is related to job performance</td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>Table 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Empirical context</th><th>Research design</th><th>Sample/participants</th><th>Conceptualization of employability</th><th>Instruments</th><th>Determinants</th><th>Relevant Results</th><th>Quality assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Kovalenko and Mortelmans (2016)</td><td>Belgium</td><td>Quantitative Cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>1055 employees 550 males and 505 females 50% reported being 45 years of age or over</td><td>Employability as psycho-construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>employability (9 items). α = 0.86.<br>Perceived employability developed by De Cuypier and De Witte (1992), two dimensions internal and external employability. α = 0.96.<br>Heijde and Van Der Heijden (2006)'s 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.81</td><td>Protean career orientation<br>Employability<br>Age<br>Educational attainment<br>Ethnic background</td><td>• Protean career orientation has an impact on perceived employability<br>• Structural factors (age -, Additional education +, Gender -, job mobility +, no diploma -, family income -)</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Kroon, van Selm, ter Hoeven, and Vliegenthart (2016)</td><td>Dutch</td><td>Quantitative experimental cross-sectional study</td><td>249 employees 55.8% of male Mean age = 45.65 60.6% indicated that they work with older worker</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Implicit stereotypes: warmth (High vs low), competence (High vs low)</td><td>Implicit stereotypes: warmth (High vs low), competence (High vs low)</td><td>• Implicit warmth is related to employability perceptions<br>• Employability perceptions are related to hire an older worker<br>• Low competence stereotypes are negatively related to employability perceptions</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Le Blanc, Van der Heijden, and Van Vuuren (2017)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Main effect research model</td><td>180 employees 67% male Mean age = 48.99 years</td><td>Sustainable employability (Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>Ability to continue working, motivation to continue to working, opportunity to continue to working (Ybema et al., 2020)</td><td>Sustainable employability Age conceptualization (calendar age, organizational age, functional age, life span age)</td><td>• Age conceptualization is related differently to employability<br>• Having only one child is positively related to employability.<br>• Other conceptualizations are negatively related to employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Le Blanc, Peeters, Van der Heijden, and Van Zyl (2019)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative multi-sample Structural equation modeling</td><td>223 employees (Sample 1) 44.8% female Mean age = 51.9 years 325 employees (Sample 2) 48.9% female Mean age = 54.2 years</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Perceived employees' employability measured using Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument</td><td>Training Organizational career management practices Learning value of the job Health Intention to work until retirement</td><td>• Employability is related to intention to continue to work<br>• Neither training and education nor organizational career management practices contribute to employability<br>• Perception of being healthier is related to employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Nielsen (1999)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Main effect research model by logistic regression</td><td>5575 employees No precise information about the sample</td><td>No specific framework</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Sustainable employability worries Work ability</td><td>• Issue of employability is higher for older workers<br>• Older workers report more worries about employability</td><td>Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Oostrom, Pennings, and Bal (2016)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>247 workers 35.7% female Mean age = 53 years</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td>I-deals for task and work responsibilities Self-efficacy Future time perspective</td><td>• I-deals for tasks and work responsibilities are related to employability through self-efficacy and future time perspective<br>• Future time perspective is related to employability<br>• I-deals for location flexibility</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Peters, Engels, de Rijk, and Nijhuis (2015)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative follow-up study Main effect research model</td><td>468 nurses 96.8% female Mean age = 42.2 years</td><td>Sustainable employability (Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>Sustainable employability measured with a set of measures: General health, general fatigue, emotional exhaustion,</td><td>Type of work schedule Age (calendar, tenure and life span age: structural home characteristics and psychosocial home characteristics,</td><td>• The variation in sustainable employability is more explained by the type of work schedule than age<br>• Type of schedule influences age</td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>Table 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Empirical context</th><th>Research design</th><th>Sample/ participants</th><th>Conceptualization of employability</th><th>Instruments</th><th>Determinants</th><th>Relevant Results</th><th>Quality assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Peters et al. (2019)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Moderated hierarchical linear model</td><td>98 workers 58% female Sample divided into three groups Under 30 (n = 47) Between 30 and 49 (n = 32) Over 49 (n = 19)</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>work ability, work engagement, work-home interference, job satisfaction, sickness absence Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.80</td><td>functional age) Sustainable employability Sickness absence Perceptions of age-based (meta-) stereotyping Age</td><td>• Older workers didn't report lower levels in employability<br>• Older workers report less corporate sense<br>• Negative stereotypes of older workers are related to lower levels of employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Picco, Houkes, De Rijk, and Miglioretti (2022)</td><td>Italy</td><td>Quantitative Validation Main effect research model</td><td>455 employees 59.5% female Mean age = 46.7 Under 55 (n = 303) Over 55 (n = 120)</td><td>Sustainable employability (Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>Sustainable employability Houkes, Miglioretti, Picco, and De Rijk's (2020) 50-item, 4-factor, employability instrument</td><td>Age Work health</td><td>• Age not related to sustainable employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Ramaci, Faraci, Santisi, and Valenti (2021)</td><td>Sicily (Italy)</td><td>Cross-sectional questionnaire Structural equation modeling</td><td>222 respondents (123 unemployed or jobless workers and 88 workers 57.3% male Four groups aged &lt;30 (n = 39) 30–40 (n = 75) 40–50 (n = 42) &gt;50 (n = 41)</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>Perceived employability (Lo Presti and Nonnis, 5-item, (2008)) α = 0.90</td><td>Age Job insecurity Proactiveness Self-efficacy Psychological distress</td><td>• Age is negatively related to employability<br>• Employability is positively related to a neat reduction of the time taken to find a job and a better chance of keeping it<br>• Employability influences job search strategies<br>• Employability decreases psychological distress</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Scholarios and Van der Heijden (2021)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional survey research Moderated model</td><td>295 pairs of employees and supervisors Mean age = 41 years 84% male Three groups aged &lt;35 (n = 73) 35–49 (n = 153) &gt;50 (n = 69)</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Perceived employees' employability measured using Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument α = 0.90</td><td>Directional age-gap (younger supervisor-older worker) with supervisor Duration of supervision Organizational learning climate Training and development participation</td><td>• Age gap with supervisor is negatively related to employability<br>• Duration of supervision effect didn't affect result<br>• Participation in training and development and OLC didn't affect the results</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Schriemer et al. (2022)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Main effect research model</td><td>737 teachers 519 aged over 46 Sample composed of 451 females and 282 males</td><td>Sustainable employability (Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>Sustainable employability evaluated with CSWQ (Capability Set for Work Questionnaire) developed by Abma et al. (2016)</td><td>Hearing loss</td><td>• Hearing loss harms the employability of teachers</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Van Dam et al. (2017)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional study Moderated model</td><td>119 employees 47.9% male Mean age = 43.3 years 32.8% were older than 50</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>Berntson, Sverke, and Marklund's (2006) 7-item; α = 0.91</td><td>Age Intrinsic job value Age-supportive climate</td><td>• Job value influences employability positively<br>• Intrinsic job value is moderated positively more strongly for older workers than younger workers</td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>Table 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Empirical context</th><th>Research design</th><th>Sample/ participants</th><th>Conceptualization of employability</th><th>Instruments</th><th>Determinants</th><th>Relevant Results</th><th>Quality assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Van der Heijde et al. (2018)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative Cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>967 employee/ supervisor pairs 71.8% male Mean age = 34.50 years</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.88</td><td>Employability Learning climate Organizational support for learning Age</td><td><ul><li>Age-supportive climate has no effect</li><li>Age and another career and life stage characteristics moderates positive psychological learning climate—employability relationship</li></ul></td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden (2002)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Moderated research model</td><td>418 employees Divided into three groups Starters 20–34 years (n = 115), Middle-aged 35–49 years (n = 191) Seniors over 49 years (n = 112)</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Van der Heijden, 2002)</td><td>Van der Heijden's (2002) 68-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.93</td><td>Age Professional expertise Social recognition Growth and flexibility</td><td><ul><li>Older workers present lower level of employability</li><li>Social recognition and growth and flexibility are related to employability but don't affect the relationship between age and employability.</li><li>For older workers, social recognition decreases the relationship between age and employability</li></ul></td><td>Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden, de Lange, Demerouti, and Van der Heijde (2009)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative Cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>303 pairs of employees and supervisors 85% male Mean age = 41 years Over forties not reported properly</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td>Employability (self-rated/ supervisor rated) Objective career success Age</td><td><ul><li>Employability (supervisor rated) not related to objective career success</li><li>Employability (self-reported) is related to career success</li></ul></td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden, Van Vuuren, Kooij, and de Lange (2015)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional study Moderated model</td><td>182 teachers 75.8% female teachers Mean age = 42.3 years</td><td>Self-perceived employability (Maurer, 2001, Van der Heijden et al., 2015)</td><td>Self-perceived employability (Verboon et al.'s 3-item scale, 1999), α = 0.76</td><td>Age Developmental opportunities Proactive personality</td><td><ul><li>Developmental opportunities and proactive personality are related to employability</li><li>Interaction effect between age and developmental opportunities on employability</li><li>Developmental opportunities better for older teachers</li></ul></td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden, Gorgievski, and De Lange (2016)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional Mediated moderated research model</td><td>Employee/ supervisor pairs (n = 330) 83.5% male Mean age = 41.9 77.6% were under 50</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td>Applicability of training and development Learning value</td><td><ul><li>Learning value predicts different dimensions of employability</li><li>Applicability is related to self-rated employability</li><li>Interaction effect of age, better results for younger workers than older workers</li></ul></td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden, Kruyen, and Notelaers (2020)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative Cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>374 employees 61.76% female Mean age = 37.78 years 170 older workers >45 and over</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td>Intra-organizational networking Individual task performance Age Employability</td><td><ul><li>Employability fully mediates the relationship between intra-organizational networking and individual task performance</li><li>No effect of age</li></ul></td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>van der Meer et al. (2016)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative follow-up study Main effect research model</td><td>6922 employees 56.7% male Mean age = 53.74 years</td><td>No specific framework used to evaluate employability</td><td>Work ability scale measured with one single item Ahlstorm et al. (2010)</td><td>Company policies for employability Work ability Work engagement Physical workload Job demands Age discrimination Lifestyle factors (Physical activity, smoking and</td><td><ul><li>Reducing working hours per week affects work ability negatively</li><li>Vitality is related to employability</li></ul></td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>van Scheppingen et al. (2015)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional</td><td>629 employees 78.2% male</td><td>Sustainable employability (</td><td>Single-item scale No validation</td><td></td><td></td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued on next page)
<table><caption>Table 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>References</th><th>Empirical context</th><th>Research design</th><th>Sample/participants</th><th>Conceptualization of employability</th><th>Instruments</th><th>Determinants</th><th>Relevant Results</th><th>Quality assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>van Vuuren, Van der Heijden, and Semeijn (2023)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative Cross-sectional Structural equation modeling</td><td>16–25 (7.6%)<br>26–35 (18.9%)<br>36–45 (28.3)<br>Over 46 (45.0%)</td><td>Van der Klink et al., 2016</td><td></td><td>alcohol use, Healthy dietary habits, relaxation)<br>Self-determination needs (competence, autonomy, relation)<br>Organizational factors (Balanced workstyle and organizational social capital)</td><td>• Lifestyle factors aren't related to employability<br>• Autonomy need is related to employability<br>• Organizational factors (balanced workstyle and organizational social capital) are related to employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Verbrugghe, Kuipers, Vriesacker, Peeters, and Mortelmans (2016)</td><td>Belgium</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional study<br>Cross-sectional association</td><td>211 employees<br>49% female<br>Mean age = 46 years<br>77.3% were over 40</td><td>Sustainable employability (Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>Self-perceived employability (Linstrom), vitality (Bakker, 2001), work ability (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992)</td><td>Employability<br>Organizational learning climate<br>Career commitment<br>Age</td><td>• Self-perceived employability, vitality, and work ability are increased when the work context facilitates learning<br>• Organizational learning climate and career commitment are positively related to sustainable employability</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Veth, Van der Heijden, Korzilius, and De Lange (2018)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative Follow-up Structural equation modeling</td><td>790 workers with decision-making powers<br>44.3% were directors<br>23.7% were prevention advisors<br>And the rest were human resources managers</td><td>Sustainable employability (Van der Klink et al., 2016)</td><td>No validated scale used</td><td>Complaints of older workers<br>Topics concerning health and well-being of older workers</td><td>• Most companies do not yet have an active policy for sustainable employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Veth, Korzilius, Van der Heijden, Emans, and De Lange (2019)</td><td>The Netherlands</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional study<br>Moderated model</td><td>228 employees (T1 and T2)<br>76.50% male<br>Mean age = 69.20 years</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.95</td><td>HRM bundles Quality of LMX and CWX<br>Work engagement Employability Health</td><td>• Job resources (social support and LMX and CWX) are related to employability and health<br>• HRM doesn't affect employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Yeves, Bargsted, Cortes, Merino, and Cavada (2019)</td><td>Chile</td><td>Quantitative cross-sectional survey<br>research<br>Moderated model</td><td>1589 workers<br>72.9% female<br>Mean age = 46.9 years<br>Divided into three samples<br>Under 35 (n = 176)<br>Between 35 and 50 (n = 464)<br>Over 50 (n = 532)</td><td>Perceived employability – competence-based model (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006)</td><td>Heijde and Van Der Heijden's (2006) 47-item, 5-factor employability instrument; α = 0.93</td><td>HRM practices (maintenance and development practices)<br>Age</td><td>• HRM practices are related to employability<br>• Age weakens the relationship between HRM practices and employability</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1116 employees<br>56.5% male<br>Under 30 = 22.2%<br>Between 30 and 44 = 36.7%<br>Over 45 = 41.1%</td><td>Employability as psycho-social construct (Fugate et al., 2004)</td><td>De Witte's (1992) 4 items; α = 0.90</td><td>Job insecurity<br>Age as moderator<br>Job satisfaction</td><td>• Age is negatively related to employability<br>• Age and perceived employability affect the relationship between job insecurity and intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction</td><td>High</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Schaufeli et al., 2006). Schriemer et al. (2022) assessed sustainable employability with the CSWQ (Capability Set for Work Questionnaire) developed by Abma et al. (2016), while Verbrugghe et al. (2016) used no specific validated tool and asked employees what their complaints about their health and employability were. Then, Picco et al. (2022) used

Houkes et al.'s (2020) 50-item instrument, which consists of four dimensions— Meaning of SE (10 items), level and factors affecting SE (19 items), responsibility for SE (1 item), responsibility for factors affecting SE (18 items) - to assess sustainable employability. Peters et al. (2015) used a composite measure comprised of general health (1 item),
general fatigue (20 items, Smets, Garssen, Bonke, & De Haes, 1995), emotional exhaustion (5 items), work ability (measured through the WAI, Ilmaren), work engagement (9 items, Schaufeli et al., 2006), work-home interference (8 items, Geurts et al., 2005) and job satisfaction (1 item), and sickness absence was assessed using the organizations' absenteeism reports. Then, Brouwers et al. (2015) used a measure developed in their study of 28 items composed of 5 dimensions - balance and competence (eight items), motivation and involvement (eight items), resilience (six items), mental and physical health (five items), and social support at work (two items). Similarly to the previous study, Le Blanc et al. (2017) used a composite measure to evaluate sustainable employability. This measure is divided into three dimensions - ability to continue working (1 item), motivation to continue working (1 item), opportunity to continue working (3 items). In addition, van Vuuren et al. (2023) measured sustainable employability through a composite

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Quality appraisal results.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="8">Item number checklist</th><th rowspan="2">Score</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Böttcher, Albrecht, Venz, and Felfe (2018)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Brouwers et al. (2015)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Chun and Jyung (2022)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>De Lange, Pak, et al. (2020)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Dello Russo et al. (2020)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>De Vos et al. (2017)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Dordoni et al. (2017)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Fleischmann et al. (2015)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Fleuren et al. (2018)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Froehlich et al., 2014</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Froehlich et al. (2016)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Hennekam (2016)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Kovalenko and Mortelmans (2016)</td><td>U</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Kroon et al. (2016)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Le Blanc et al. (2017)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Le Blanc et al. (2019)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Nielsen (1999)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>U</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>Y</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Oostrom et al. (2016)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Peters et al. (2015)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>U</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Peters et al. (2019)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Picco et al. (2022)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Ramaci et al. (2021)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Scholarios and Van der Heijden (2021)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Schriemer et al. (2022)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Van Dam et al. (2017)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijde et al. (2018)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden (2002)</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden et al. (2009)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden et al. (2015)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden et al. (2016)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Van der Heijden et al. (2020)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>van der Meer et al. (2016)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>van Scheppingen et al. (2015)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>van Vuuren et al. (2023)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Verbrugghe et al. (2016)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>N</td><td>N</td><td>N</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Veth et al. (2018)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Veth et al. (2019)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Yeves et al. (2019)</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>Y</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Four levels of assessment quality scores Met (Y) Not Met (N) Unclear (U) Not Applicable (NA), JBI critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses:

Q1: Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?; Q2: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?

Q3: Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?; Q4: Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?

Q5: Were confounding factors identified?; Q6: Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?

Q7: Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?; Q8: Was appropriate statistical analysis used?

measure composed of self-perceived employability (2 items), vitality (1 item) and work ability (1 item). Finally, van Scheppingen et al. (2015) used a 1-item scale to evaluate sustainable employability which was developed specifically for this study.

Eight studies (Böttcher et al., 2018; Chun & Jyung, 2022; Fleischmann et al., 2015; Hennekam, 2016; Kovalenko & Mortelmans, 2016; Ramaci et al., 2021; Van Dam et al., 2017; Yeves et al., 2019) operationalized employability through the theoretical framework of Fugate et al. (2004). This theoretical framework conceptualizes employability as a work-specific form of active adaptability that allows workers to identify and achieve career opportunities, comprised of the subsequent three dimensions: human and social capital, career identity, and personal adaptability.

Two studies (Kovalenko & Mortelmans, 2016; Yeves et al., 2019) measured employability with the measure developed by De Witte (1992) and De Cuyper et al. (2014), two-dimension internal and external employability. Two other studies (Böttcher et al., 2018; Chun & Jyung, 2022) used the measure of Rothwell and Arnold (2007), composed of two-dimension internal (4 items) and external employability (7 items). The study by Van Dam et al. (2017) measured employability with the measure developed by Berntson et al. (2006) composed of 7 items. Ramaci et al. (2021) measured employability with the measure of Lo Presti and Nonnis (2008) composed of 5 items. Then, Hennekam (2016) measured employability with the scale developed by Sanders and De Grip (2004), composed of two dimensions – 3 internal items and 6 external items. Finally, Fleischmann et al. (2015) evaluated employability with a measure developed in their study which measures employability practices implemented in the organization with 15 items.

Two studies (Nielsen, 1999; van der Meer et al., 2016) were not based on any specific theoretical framework of employability and in both studies no validated tool was used to measure employability.

One study (Dello Russo et al., 2020) conceptualized employability through the perceived employability framework of Vanhercke et al. (2014). This research defined employability as one's perceptions of the general likelihood of future employment if the person were seeking a new job (Vanhercke et al., 2014). These authors assessed employability with the perceived external employability measure of Janssens et al. (2003) composed of two dimension internal (4 items) and external employability (7 items).

Lastly, one study (Van der Heijden et al., 2015) used the conceptual framework of self-perceived employability from Maurer (2001) which defined employability as a cognitive attitude that is a factor of whether the individual feels confident that he or she could obtain a new job and broaden his or her repertoire of behavior and skills (Maurer, 2001). And in this study, authors used the self-perceived employability instruments of Verboon, De Feyter, and Smulders (1999), composed of three items.

### 5.4. Determinants of employability for older workers

We now turn to our organizing review of the empirical finding in employability and older worker. Specifically, with our overview we draw the most studied determinant, and as general trend, our findings emphasized that older workers employability literature had a strong focus on the demographics determinants (age, health, sex, ethnic background, education).

### 5.5. Demographic determinants: age

In this part, the determinants of employability for older workers are discussed. Most studies considered demographic variables as potential antecedents of employability. Our review first identified 24 studies which studied age as an antecedent of employability (Böttcher et al., 2018; Brouwers et al., 2015; De Lange, Pak, et al., 2020; Dordoni et al., 2017; Fleuren et al., 2018; Froehlich et al., 2014; Froehlich et al., 2016; Hennekam, 2016; Kovalenko & Mortelmans, 2016; Le Blanc et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2015; Peters et al., 2019; Picco et al., 2022; Ramaci et al.,
Identification of studies via databases and registers

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study selection.</figcaption></figure>

2021; Scholarios & Van der Heijden, 2021; Van Dam et al., 2017; Van der Heijde et al., 2018; Van der Heijden, 2002; Van der Heijden et al., 2009; Van der Heijden et al., 2015; Van der Heijden et al., 2016; Van der Heijden et al., 2020; van Vuuren et al., 2023; Veth et al., 2018; Yeves et al., 2019). All these studies reported that ages over 45 were negatively related to employability, except for Picco et al. (2022) and Van der Heijden et al. (2020). One study also highlighted (Hennekam, 2016) the fact that older workers (veterans) offer greater employability than baby boomers. It is important to note that our review identified the fact that age had been assessed in different ways. The majority of included studies

which assessed age measured age through a measure of calendar age. Nevertheless, our review identified several studies (Dordoni et al., 2017; Le Blanc et al., 2019; Scholarios & Van der Heijden, 2021) which assessed age differently. First, Dordoni et al. (2017) evaluated age with a scale of perceived age discrimination while Le Blanc et al. (2019) studied age through a multidimensional tool (calendar age, organizational age, functional age, lifespan age). Scholarios and Van der Heijden (2021) assessed age with an instrument which measures the age gap between workers and supervisors and colleagues.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Yearly publication of included articles.</figcaption></figure>

## 5.6. Demographic determinants: health

As well as age, our review also identified another demographic variable as a determinant of employability, namely, health. Eight studies considered health as a determinant of employability (Brouwers et al., 2015; Le Blanc et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2015; Picco et al., 2022; Schriemer et al., 2022; van Scheppingen et al., 2015; Verbrugghe et al., 2016; Veth et al., 2018). The main result of these studies was that health was positively related to employability. Health was conceptualized in different ways throughout the studies. Except for the study by Schriemer et al. (2022) which measured health by an assessment of hearing loss, the rest of the studies assessed health with a tool based on self-perception of general health. Among these studies, some dichotomized mental health and physical health (Brouwers et al., 2015; Picco et al., 2022) and the results were in line with previous findings emphasizing the fact that mental and physical health are related to employability.

## 5.7. Demographic determinants: sex and ethnic background

Finally, no significant differences in employability were found based on demographic characteristics such as sex or ethnic background. However, it should be noted that no studies properly reported on the potential impact of ethnic background on employability.

Additionally, no evidence suggested that sex influences

employability. In the current literature, sex has been conceptualized almost exclusively as biological sex, with only one study explicitly examining gender instead.

## 5.8. Psychological determinants

This review examined the psychological determinants of employability among workers over 45. Several psychological determinants were identified, including personality, future time perspective, personal orientation, and attitudes that influence their behavior.

First, findings suggest that future time perspective - defined as individuals' perceptions of their remaining time in life (Kooij, Kanfer, Betts, & Rudolph, 2018) – is related to employability and a critical antecedent of employability. Three studies (De Lange, Pak, et al., 2020; Froehlich et al., 2016; Oostrom et al., 2016) studied and highlighted the fact that future time perspective is positively related to employability. These three studies studied future time perspective as an antecedent of employability.

Second, our review identified a set of individual orientations which influences the employability of workers over 45. First, Kovalenko and Mortelmans (2016) demonstrated that an individual orientation such as protean career orientation – an individual's proclivity to pursue a career focused on achieving subjective success through autonomous career management – was positively related to employability. Two studies (Chun & Jyung, 2022; Van der Heijden et al., 2015) also demonstrated that proactive personality was related to employability. Proactive personality can be defined as the proclivity to take action to influence one's environment. A proactive personality is one that is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and effects environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Thus, Froehlich et al. (2016) showed that goal orientation - how individuals interpret and respond to achievement situations -influences employability. Finally, Chun and Jyung (2022) demonstrated that psychological capital, proactive personality and openness to change were positively related to employability.

Third, our review also highlighted the fact that attitudes can influence employability. Furthermore, Van der Heijden (2002) demonstrated that growth and flexibility were related to employability. Then, van Vuuren et al. (2023) showed that career commitment, which refers to one's attitude toward one's profession or vocation and indicates a

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Overview of employability conceptualization used to study older worker employability.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Synthesis of the factors contributing to the older workers' employability.</figcaption></figure>

motivational career resource that is beneficial in attaining career goals, was also related to employability.

## 5.9. Job characteristics determinants

In this part, our review strived to identify the job characteristics antecedents which are involved in employability.

Based on the Job demands-resource model (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2023), our review highlighted the fact that resources at work were related to employability while job demands were negatively related to employability (De Lange, Pak, et al., 2020; van der Meer et al., 2016; Veth et al., 2019). More precisely, Veth et al. (2019) measured job resources through three variables - social support and Leader-member exchange (LMX) and Coworker-member exchange (CMX)- and these three variables were positively related to employability. LMX is defined as the quality of the working relationship between an employee and his or her immediate supervisor and CWX refers to the quality of working between two coworkers (Sherony & Green, 2002).

In the same way, the study by De Lange, Pak, et al. (2020) showed that social support and specifically colleague support were associated with employability. However, this study didn't show a significant relationship between job demands and employability. Job demands were measured through a composite measure of physical and mental demands and workloads.

Furthermore, the study by van der Meer et al. (2016) focused on the impact of job characteristics on the choice to adopt a policy of sustainable employability. They showed that social support was related to adopting a sustainable policy. One sustainable policy (hours reduction) was negatively related to employability. In addition, social support was related to employability and physical workload was negatively related to employability.

Two studies (Le Blanc et al., 2019; Van der Heijden et al., 2016) identified the fact that the learning value of a job - employees believe that their knowledge and skills are improved through performing their job - was positively related to employability. These authors pointed out the fact that designing a challenging work environment that offers chances and opportunities for growth and development was not only

important for younger workers, but also for older ones.

Lastly, Van Dam et al. (2017) reported that intrinsic job value was an important antecedent of employability. Authors measured intrinsic job value through four dimensions - meaning, recognition, work preference and learning at work - and reported that employees reported higher levels of employability when their job had intrinsic value and was perceived as meaningful, recognized, challenging and developmental. The study by Van der Heijden (2002) also identified the fact that social recognition and recognition at work were strongly related to employability.

## 5.10. Organizational determinants

Regarding organizational determinants, our review found that a significant amount of research aims to demonstrate how Human Resource Management (HRM) practices, which are practices implemented by organizations to improve organizational and individual results (Delaney & Huselid, 1996), can enhance the employability of workers over the age of 45.

The existing HRM literature has examined the employee perspectives on HRM from using different theoretical perspectives, resulting in a variety of conceptual models that have been studied that include employee perceptions of HRM as an antecedent, mediator, or outcome (Beijer, Van De Voorde, & Tims, 2019; Wang, Kim, Rafferty, & Sanders, 2020). Furthermore, there is a lack of transparency in the conceptualizations that are used to capture employee perceptions of HRM practices. This is problematic because it has been argued that different conceptualizations of employee perceptions of HR practices may have different relationships with both actual HR practices and outcomes (Beijer et al., 2019; Boon, Den Hartog, & Lepak, 2019; Wang et al., 2020). Boon et al. (2019) proposed a definition of HRM practices which captures the entire pattern of planned Human Resources' (HR) deployments and activities intended to enable an organization to achieve its goals.

Our review reported that four studies (Froehlich et al., 2014; Le Blanc et al., 2019; Scholarios & Van der Heijden, 2021; Van der Heijden et al., 2016) studied formal training - which is considered as an important HRM practice allowing organizational goals to be achieved.
We found mixed results; Froehlich et al. (2014) demonstrated that formal training was only related to anticipation and optimization, while the studies by Le Blanc et al. (2019) and Scholarios and Van der Heijden (2021) did not find any significant relationship between training and employability. Lastly, Van der Heijden et al. (2016) found that training was positively related to employability.

Thus, two studies (Dello Russo et al., 2020; Veth et al., 2018) studied HRM practices as a determinant of employability. In these studies, HRM practices refers to a set of practices (e.g., performance appraisal, career counselling, assessment center, mentoring and/or networking, peer and/or subordinate appraisal) which aim to improve the performance and competencies of employees. These studies showed that HRM practices were positively related to employability. Similarly to the previous studies, two studies (Chun & Jyung, 2022; Le Blanc et al., 2019) showed that organizational management career practices increased employability. This construct differs from the previous conceptualization because authors defined it as the planning and management of its employees' careers. However, Le Blanc et al. (2019) did not demonstrate any significant relationship. In addition, Van der Heijden et al. (2015) showed that developmental opportunities offered by the organization are related to employability. Similarly, the study of Chun and Jyung (2022) also demonstrated that fairness in HR practices, which refers to the supportive organizational practices in personnel management that are carried out in a transparent and coherent manner, was related to employability.

Then, two studies (Dordoni et al., 2017; Van der Heijde et al., 2018) demonstrated that organizational support for learning was related to employability. This concept captures the practices of the organization aiming to support workers in the development of competencies (Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2011).

Beyond managerial practices, our review suggested that climate is an important determinant of employability. Climate is defined as how employees' perceptions of the work environment influence their behaviors and attitudes (Schneider, 1983). Two studies (Van der Heijde et al., 2018; van Vuuren et al., 2023) demonstrated that the learning climate at work is related to employability and can be defined as perceptions of work settings that may help or hinder learning at work. Van der Heijde et al. (2018) used a composite measure to evaluate learning climate with a measure of learning value of the job, one measure of supervisor support for learning and one measure of organizational support for learning. Another study (Van Dam et al., 2017) assessed climate as a determinant of employability. These authors focused on the age-supportive climate which refers to the different ways (i.e. policies, procedures and practices) in which the organization, its leaders, and its employees encourage and value the contribution of older employees. However, authors did not find any significant relationship between age-supportive climate and employability.

Finally, our review identified one study which emphasized the fact that leadership was an important determinant of employability (Böttcher et al., 2018). More precisely, this study emphasized the fact that transformational leadership enables an improvement in employability for workers over 45.

# 6. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this review was one of the first to provide an overview of the determinants of employability for a specific population: workers aged over 45. With the aging of the workforce, the theme of employability of workers over 45 has grown considerably and has become an important issue in both academic research and in the industrial sector (De Vos, Jacobs, & Verbruggen, 2021), as shown by the increasing number of studies on this area. In our review, we identified 39 empirical studies seeking to understand the antecedents of employability among workers over 45.

The first picture to emerge was that since the mid-2010s, an acceleration has been observed in the study of this subject which follows

ageism in the workforce. Second, as previous reviews of employability have noted and in order to respond to our RQ, different conceptualizations of employability have been used, and employability has been conceptualized and measured in different ways. Our review illustrated this report by showing that 16 studies used the competence-based employability approach (42%), whereas 10 used the sustainable employability framework (26%), 8 used the psycho-social employability framework (21%), 2 used non-specific frameworks (5%), 3% used perceived employability and finally 3% used the self-perceived framework. In addition, our results indicated a strong alignment in most studies between the theoretical frameworks adopted and the instruments used to assess employability. Only one study within the competence-based approach relied on a measure that did not correspond to its conceptual grounding, and all studies using psychosocial or non-specific frameworks demonstrated full coherence between theoretical assumptions and measurement tools. In contrast, studies drawing on the sustainable employability framework showed notable inconsistencies. This misalignment may reflect the relatively recent development of this conceptualization, the coexistence of multiple definitions, and the absence of a standardized operationalization (Alcover et al., 2021). As a result, measurement inconsistency remains a methodological challenge within this line of research and should be addressed in future work.

Furthermore, the results of this review showed that most of the reviewed studies were conducted in a Dutch context (28: 74,7%), followed by different European countries (e.g., Italy, Germany). These findings limit the generalizability of the results. From a methodological perspective, we found that only 5 studies out of a total of 39 reviewed studies used a longitudinal design (10.5%), and only one used an experimental method, which severely limits the conclusions regarding the nature and direction of the causality of the relationships found between different determinants and employability (Rohrer & Murayama, 2023).

## 6.1. Determinants of older workers' employability

Our review has illuminated numerous determinants to enhance and foster the employability of older workers. Studies included in this review, has considered the role of individual and contextual factors which increase older workers' employability.

we were able to identify four sub-categories of factors influencing the employability of workers over 45 and thus to address our RQ. These sub-categories were demographic, individual, job, and organizational factors.

In terms of demographic variables, the findings from our review revealed that health and age are important predictors of employability. The relationships between calendar age and employability dominate followed by the relationship between self-perceived health and employability. Our review demonstrated an imbalance between the studies that examined the relationship between calendar age and employability and self-perceived health and employability. We identified 24 studies that examined the relationship between age and employability, but only 4 studies focused on the link between health and employability. Thanks to our findings, we can conclude that age is a main determinant of employability for workers over 45 and more precisely that an increase in calendar age is related to a loss of employability. The perception of health is also positively related to employability. These results have been drawn from different conceptual framework and our findings suggest a consistency across the various conceptual framework. Besides, these results come from a majority of cross-sectional studies, and merely one used longitudinal design. Due to the number of studies as well as some used a longitudinal design, we can conclude that calendar age is a robust determinant of employability. And, as stated in the introduction, one of the most important determinants of the employability is the calendar age besides health and age are closely related (Tables 3-5).

Our review also revealed that individual variables such individual
orientation or personality factors play a tremendous role as determinants of employability. To account for these positive findings, the included studies used different theoretical frameworks (e.g., protean career, proactive personality). It can be reasonably inferred that individuals who assume responsibility for their career development are more employable (Hall, Yip, & Doiron, 2018). Drawing on the theoretical framework of Hall et al. (2018), protean career orientation reflects an attitude that represents a person taking responsibility and accepting personal agency for their career decisions and actions which influence motivation and adaptability which subsequently lead to employability. Wiernik and Kostal (2019) demonstrated the proximity between the concept of proactive personality and protean career orientation. Based on this, our review underlines the fact that agentic orientation is strongly related to employability. In addition, our review underlines the fact that individual characteristics such as future time perspective are important determinants of employability (De Lange, Pak, et al., 2020; Fasbender & Froidevaux, 2025; Froehlich et al., 2016; Oostrom et al., 2016). These results emphasize the fact that an individual who perceives many opportunities in the remainder of their professional life (e.g., projects, promotions, career advancement) demonstrates greater employability. As for the demographics results, these results appear to be consistent across the different conceptualization of employability. These questions have been conducted with the competence-based model and employability as psycho-social construct. In terms of evidence of robustness, relatively few studies have studied the individual characteristics in shaping employability. As a result, the current evidence base offers only limited insight into how individuals' differences such as personality, orientation might interact with employability.

Drawing on the theoretical framework of Bakker and Demerouti (2017), JD-R is based on a human resource management approach, which suggests that job resources, defined as “physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job are functional in achieving work goals” (p. 274), influence employees' work motivation, especially under challenging work conditions, our results suggest that job resources providing by organization and colleagues are critical to enhance and maintain the older workers employability. Job resources, such as performance feedback, LMX, and opportunities for growth, help employees cope with job demands, which subsequently enhances employability. Our findings also suggest that job resources help attenuate the negative effect of age on employability. In addition, research based on the JD-R has shown that job resources increase the health, motivation and functioning of workers, thus providing greater job resources at work is essential to maintain older workers' motivation and employability. However, despite the relevance of these studies, the level of evidence should be interpreted with caution, as only small number of studies have examined this question and most of them rely on cross-sectional designs. Furthermore, the consistency across the different of frameworks is also arduous to establish due to the limited of number of included studies exploring this question. Moreover, consistent with the

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Inclusion criteria</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Empirical studies on the determinants of employability of workers</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Peer-reviewed journals</td><td>Explicitly identify validated knowledge</td></tr><tr><td>Content types</td><td>Quantitative data</td></tr><tr><td>Subjects</td><td>Employability and workers and job seekers over 45</td></tr><tr><td>Publication data</td><td>No restriction</td></tr><tr><td>Language</td><td>English or French</td></tr><tr><td>Exclusion criteria</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Language</td><td>Lack of knowledge for clear motivation</td></tr><tr><td>Content types</td><td>Articles such as reviews, opinion articles, conference articles, books, and book chapters</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4**
Overview of countries in which data were collected.</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>Number of articles</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The Netherlands</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Italy, Belgium</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Austria</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Korea, Germany, Chile, UK</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 5**
Recommendations and research agenda.</caption><thead><tr><td>Recommendation</td><td>Specific examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1 Examining whether and how older workers' employability might change during the last part of their career.</td><td>Using more longitudinal approach to ascertain changes in employability during the late-career development. Consider the dynamics between employability and its antecedents over time and up to retirement.</td></tr><tr><td>2 Investigating employability as dynamic and developmental process in late-career development.</td><td>Exploring the effects of previous experience (e.g., layoff, disease) on older workers' employability. Examining how employability might develop and shift with the consideration of upcoming retirement and its close relationship with antecedents.</td></tr><tr><td>3 Examining the role of cultural context, HR practices, laws and legislation, and country context on employability.</td><td>Examining the impact of different career programs, HR practices, organizational and team climate.</td></tr><tr><td>4 Identifying the discrepancies between older workers' different career trajectories.</td><td>Using more person-centered approach in order to capture the diversity of older workers and the specific determinants for each subsample of older workers.</td></tr><tr><td>5 Examining the nomological network and construct validity of the different employability constructs.</td><td>Ascertaining the relationships between different conceptualization of employability and their antecedents.</td></tr></tbody></table>

JD-R model, our review also concluded that job demands such as workload, physical and psychological demands are related to a loss of employability.

Finally, our review emphasized the fact that organizational factors are associated with employability. HR practices (Boon et al., 2019) appear to be suitable for developing the employability of workers over the age of 45. As stipulated by Boon et al. (2019), the literature on HRM has been studied in very different ways through multiple conceptualizations and many different measures and often without a solid theoretical framework. The current study showed that the measure of HR practices was different for each study included in the review. Overall, our findings demonstrate that HR practices are related to an improvement in the employability of workers over 45. In a more integrative perspective, our findings suggest that HR practices can counteract the negative effect of age. Fasbender and Froidevaux (2025) and Dello Russo et al. (2020) both showed that HR practices not only mitigate the impact of age on employability but also interact with individual factors such as future time perspective.

However, our review also suggests that not all HR practices are related with an increase of employability. For instance, training did not show any effect on employability and this result may be explained by the fact that training without transfer of training leads to a loss of the skills developed (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). In addition, a reduction in work hours is also associated with a loss of employability which can be explained by the fact that an employee who spends less time at work has fewer opportunities to practice and master his/her skills, leading to a loss of skills, although several HRM practices such as performance appraisal, career counselling, assessment centers, mentoring and/or networking have shown positive links with employability. Finally,
leadership, a supportive climate and organizational support demonstrate their importance in the development of employability. These results underline the importance of support from the organization for the development of older workers' employability. Grounded into JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), these variables play as resource for individuals increasing their agencies and motivation to improve their employability. Finally, these results stem from various conceptual frameworks, our findings suggest a notable degree of consistency across these frameworks.

By addressing RQ, this study provides valuable insights. Our results underline that the literature has primarily focused on two elements: understanding the factors that enhance the skills and competencies of older workers and promoting the sustainable employability of older workers in order to support their health, well-being and willingness to work. Therefore, some determinants as calendar age or health have demonstrated a strong robustness as determinants of employability, nonetheless literature strived to understand what factors could mitigate these results but also facilitate the development of skills in response to the well-established challenge of skill loss associated with aging. For instance, HR practices, climate and work design have shown that how limit the negative impact of calendar age and health on employability. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate a consistency of the results identified over the conceptual frameworks.

In addition, the conceptual frameworks used in the included studies reflect different assumptions about employability. Most studies adopting traditional employability frameworks approached the construct from an individual-capital perspective, focusing on strengthening older workers' skills and competencies to remain employable and perform effectively in the short term. Our findings also show that sustainable employability was the second most frequently used conceptualization, indicating growing attention to how employability can be maintained over time. Unlike traditional models, sustainable employability frameworks rest on the assumption that employability depends on a dynamic interplay between individual resources and contextual conditions—such as health, work environment, and organizational support. This perspective emphasizes the long-term preservation of functional capacity, well-being, and motivation across the lifespan, which is particularly relevant in later career stages. It therefore shifts the focus from solely enhancing workers' competencies to creating conditions that enable older employees to remain healthy, continue developing their skills, and stay motivated to work. This approach helps explain not only how older workers manage health-related risks over time, but also why motivation may decline when the work environment does not support long-term well-being and development.

# 7. Research agenda

The following section highlights gaps in the existing literature; thanks to the outcomes of our systematic review, we were produced one of the first comprehensive syntheses of the factors influencing the employability of workers over the age of 45. This provides a robust evidence base for our conclusions, which we will translate into recommendations for future research to ascertain in a greater way the antecedents of older workers' employability.

## 7.1. Recommendation 1: examining whether and how older workers employability might change over time

From a methodological perspective, our findings suggest the need for more longitudinal complete panel research on employability and older workers. The current review is dominated by cross-sectional designs, raising concerns about validity, such as common method bias and causal inference (Rindfleisch, Malter, Ganesan, & Moorman, 2008). Our review reported that longitudinal research has largely been neglected and future studies should pay more attention to the role of time. It is important to further examine the role of “time” as a factor, not merely as

a discrete variable or distal variable but as a critical factor shaping employability but also molding the relation between determinants and employability. In addition, we advocate for new longitudinal complete panel studies with multiple time-points across time that would permit to better understand the trajectories of employability and their links with a set of connected variables which influence employability.

This lack of longitudinal studies limits our understanding of the effect of various determinants in both the short and long term. For instance, we have no clue about whether factors such as social support or organizational training have a long-term effects or merely short-term effects on employability. Beyond of that, our knowledge is limited about the variability of employability in the late career development and its association with determinants. Therefore, the dynamic interaction between employability and its antecedents must be explored in-depth through longitudinal research design using design intensive longitudinal data repeated measures (e.g., ESM) but also with different timeframes (e.g., one week, one month, one year).

## 7.2. Recommendation 2: investigating employability as dynamic and developmental process in the late career development

Our review has highlighted that most of the included studies used cross-sectional design with a variance-based approach. Therefore, these studies aimed at determining how a set of antecedents could explain the variance in employability. However, while these previous researches have enlightened important issues, it has not taken into account prior life events and how these events may mold the current employability. For instance, Schmillen & Umkehrer, 2017 have emphasized that early-career unemployment could harm career advancement and increase the likelihood of further unemployment. This is why, in contrast to a variance approach, we point out the necessity to consider employability as a developmental process shaped by different career events or shocks. To support this recommendation, literature on adult development has displayed that development is a dynamic process involving both gains and loss in skills and competencies, self-efficacy (Costa, McCrae, & Löckenhoff, 2019) and we thus can postulate and recommend to put more attention on this matter, that employability is not stable over time and critical career events or career shocks as lay-off, return to the school, disease would mold older workers employability.

From a methodological standpoint, we recommend considering such methods allowing to disentangle the intra-individual and inter-individual levels in order to ascertain which factors influence employability overtime.

## 7.3. Recommendation 3: examining the role of cultural context, HR practices, the law or legislation and country context on employability

Our review did not report any research using a multilevel design, even though several studies have studied the influence of organizational factors, as for instance, Dello Russo et al. (2020) who investigated the effect of country unemployment rate on employability or again the study of Le Blanc et al. (2019) which focused on the role of organizational management practices on employability. However, as portrayed by González-Romá and Hernández (2017), single-level analysis cannot adequately capture the complexities of most organizational or contextual phenomena. Consequently, future research should use multisource and multilevel data (e.g., two-level data structures; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) in order to better understand the influence of organizational and contextual factors on employability.

In addition, we can denote an imbalance between the determinants explored. Our review emphasized the fact that around 28 studies focused on demographic determinants while only around 4 studies explored psychological determinants, 4 studies investigated job characteristics and 4 studies focused on organizational determinants. These findings highlight the necessity of carry out more research on organizational and contextual determinants of employability among workers over 45.
Consequently, we call for further research in order to deepen our un-
derstanding of this subject matter. Determinants such as inclusive
leadership (Randel et al., 2018), work design (Morgeson & Humphrey,
2006), and specific laws (e.g., protean, proactive) warrant further
investigation. Still from a theoretical perspective, most of the anteced-
ents studied to date have focused on the relative stable factors whereby
the policymakers, organizations and practitioners have a marginal in-
fluence (e.g., age, physical health). Therefore, we advocate for greater
attention to determinants that can be influenced through policymakers
and organizations, such as leadership, HR practices or again local labor
laws.

Moreover, our review revealed a marked overrepresentation of
Dutch and other European samples, accompanied by potential language
and publication biases due to the context in which this review was
conducted. These limitations raise concerns regarding the extent to
which the findings can be generalized beyond Western settings. As
highlighted by Mayrhofer et al. (2020), future research should therefore
be conducted in regions outside Europe and other Western countries to
determine whether the findings of this review are consistent across
diverse economic and cultural environments, such as Asia or Africa.
Expanding research in these settings is essential to address the current
geographical imbalance and to strengthen the evidence base on the
employability of older workers globally.

7.4. *Recommendation 4*

Identifying the discrepancy between older workers and different
trajectories.

Our findings have highlighted the lack of studies using a person-
centered approach to understand the determinants of older workers'
employability. All studies included in this literature review relied on
variable-centered quantitative approaches which makes it difficult to
fully understand the antecedents of employability. Variable-centered
approach assume insidiously that a given variable has the same effect
for each individual. However, among a given sample it may exist
important interindividual differences and this is why it is important to
consider a person-centered approach to fully understand in depth a
phenomenon in work and organizational psychology (Morin, Bujacz, &
Gagné, 2018). As demonstrated by Thrasher, Zabel, Bramble, and Baltes
(2018), person-centered approaches are essential to better capture
complex processes such as successful aging, and our review suggests that
such approaches are largely missing in employability research. More-
over, previous studies have indicated that distinct employability profiles
exist (Mäkikangas, De Cuyper, Mauno, & Kinnunen, 2013). Therefore,
we suggest that future research pay closer attention to the possible ex-
istence of subpopulations of older workers and examine the de-
terminants and antecedents of their employability. Such an approach
would provide a more nuanced portrayal of how different antecedents
shape employability across diverse groups of older workers.

7.5. *Recommendation* 5

Examining the nomological network and construct validity of the
different employability construct

An inherent issue related to employability is the diverse conceptu-
alizations used to identify its antecedents of employability among the
workers over 45. Through this review, we have highlighted the different
conceptualizations used to ascertain the determinants of older worker
employability. Different theoretical frameworks studied in isolation
raises the question of whether the determinants and process identified
within one conceptualization are merely coherent for this framework or
whether they extend to others. In spite of our findings tend to demon-
strate that exists a lack of comparative data across approaches poses a
significant limitation for the literature, as it hinders not only a
comprehensive understanding of the determinants of employability but
also the design of effective interventions aimed at improving older

workers' employability.

Thus, we recommend that future research investigate whether the
antecedents and processes are consistent across frameworks and to what
extent they share relative importance in shaping older workers'
employability. In addition, it is essential to examine how factors such as
lifelong learning, organizational practices, age-related stereotypes, and
proactivity interact to shape employability outcomes. Furthermore,
more integrated frameworks should be developed to provide a clearer
and more comprehensive picture of employability dynamics in late
career development. Such approaches would not only enhance theo-
retical clarity but also guide practitioners and policymakers in designing
targeted strategies to support older workers' employability.

7.6. *Limitations*

The current methodology applied in this review which follows the PRISMA guidelines established by Page et al. (2021) offers a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the scientific research (Snyder, 2019). Nonetheless, there is important to acknowledge that this methodology is not without some limitations. Our review may be influenced by several types of reporting biases, such as publication, location, and language biases (Higgins et al., 2019). Higgins et al. (2019) posited that publication bias, regardless of the expertise of the researcher, is contingent upon whether articles are published. We were unable to review research findings in unpublished articles, which might influence results. Regarding location bias, we were constrained to utilizing the university's interface. Thus, when identifying articles that met the inclusion criteria, we were restricted by access to the limited number of databases that are connected to the university's interface. Such restrictions determine access to articles that might influence findings. Language biases also affected results. Our inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed journal articles, conference articles, books, and book chapters published in English and French. Due to a lack of resources for translating languages unfamiliar to the researchers, findings were restricted to both languages, which might have influenced findings. A further limitation is the absence of preregistration. Although the procedures were defined in advance and applied consistently, the lack of preregistration may introduce potential bias and reduces the transparency of the review process. To mitigate this risk, the review followed predefined eligibility criteria, a structured screening procedure, and independent verification of data extraction. Future systematic reviews in this area would benefit from preregistration to further strengthen methodological rigor.

Moreover, in spite of the included studies were carried out in various
countries (e.g., Europe, Korea), most of them studies were based on
Dutch and European data only. Furthermore, the majority of the studies
were conducted by a limited number of researchers who work closely.
Thereby, this restricts the generalizability of our results across countries
and makes it possible for us to further address differences among these
countries.

When conducting a systematic review, the number of authors affects
the review's quality. Two of the three authors independently identified,
selected, and reviewed the articles used during the review, but a greater
number of authors might have enhanced its quality. Finally, we did not
specifically review the potential differences in results depending on the
framework used which is a restriction and thus a limitation of this paper.
The current review's final limitation is its exclusive focus on de-
terminants, with minimal attention paid to the process or moderating
effect, which could be crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the
factors influencing employability development among workers over 45.

8. Conclusion

To conclude, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic
review examining the antecedents of employability of employees over
45. This review serves to highlight the necessity for further research in
the field. In particular, it is evident that most of the studies were per-
formed with a cross-sectional design. Consequently, there is a clear need
for further studies with a longitudinal design, multilevel design, or
studies with a person-centered approach. This limits the conclusions that
we can draw from these studies' results. In addition, more research is
necessary to expand the determinants examined. Our review has high-
lighted a disparity between the type of determinants, with a greater
prevalence of studies focusing on demographic determinants. To
conclude, future studies are necessary because the question of main-
taining, developing and increasing older people's employability is a
major social issue today, especially in societies striving to achieve full
employment. It is also an important issue for organizations to find a
good balance between their skills' needs and the available skills of their
older employees. Finally, it is a crucial issue for older people trying to
optimize their late career. Addressing these issues is therefore central to
improving the policies and practices that help older workers thrive in the
workplace.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Nicolas Bazine:** Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **Anne Pignault:** Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **Jean-Luc Bernaud:** Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. **Eve Saint-Germes:** Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **Natacha Pijoan:** Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **Laure Guilbert:** Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:

The present study was financially supported by ANR (Agence
Nationale de la Recherche; France), project " Employability develop-
ment of French workers and job-seekers aged 45 and over".

Declaration of competing interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Abma, F. I., Brouwer, S., de Vries, H. J., Arends, I., Robroek, S. J., Cuijpers, M. P., ... van der Klink, J. J. (2016). The capability set for work: Development and validation of a new questionnaire. *Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 42*(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3532

Ahlstrom, L., Grimby-Ekman, A., Hagberg, M., & Dellve, L. (2010). The work ability index and single-item question: Associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health – A prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. *Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36*(5), 404–412. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967876.

Alcover, C. M., Mazzetti, G., & Vignoli, M. (2021). Sustainable employability in the mid and late career: An integrative review. *Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 37*(3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a16

Alvarez-Gonzalez, P., Lopez-Miguens, M. J., & Caballero, G. (2017). Perceived employability in university students: Developing an integrated model. *Career Development International, 22*(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2016-0135

Bakker, A. B. (2001). Vragenlijst voor het meten van werkgerelateerde flow: De WOLF [Questionnaire for the assessment of work-related flow: The WOLF]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. *Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22*(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job Demands–Resources theory: Ten years later. *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10*(1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ergpsych-120920-053933

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and direction for future research. *Personnel Psychology, 41*(1), 63–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960111423532

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14*(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202

Beijer, S., Van De Voorde, K., & Tims, M. (2019). An interpersonal perspective on HR attributions: Examining the role of line managers, coworkers, and similarity in work-related motivations. *Frontiers in Psychology, 10*, 1509. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01509

Berntson, E., Näswall, K., & Sverke, M. (2008). Investigating the relationship between employability and self-efficacy: A cross-lagged analysis. *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17*(4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320801969699

Berntson, E., Sverke, M., & Marklund, S. (2006). Predicting perceived employability: Human capital or labour market opportunities? *Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27*(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X06063098

Blokker, R., Akkermans, J., Tims, M., Jansen, P., & Khapova, S. (2019). Building a sustainable start: The role of career competencies, career success, and career shocks in young professionals' employability. *Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112*, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvbb.2019.02.013

Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Lepak, D. P. (2019). A systematic review of human resource management systems and their measurement. *Journal of Management, 45* (6), 2498–2537. https://doi.org/10.1177/014926318818718

Böttcher, K., Albrecht, A. G., Venz, L., & Felfe, J. (2018). Protecting older workers' employability: A survey study of the role of transformational leadership. *German Journal of Human Resource Management, 32*(2), 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002218763001

Bozionelos, N., Kostopoulos, K., Van der Heijden, B., Rousseau, D. M., Bozionelos, G., Hoyland, T., ... Van der Heijde, C. (2016). Employability and job performance as links in the relationship between mentoring receipt and career success: A study in SMEs. *Group and Organization Management, 41*(2), 135–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115617086

Brouwers, L. A., Engels, J. A., Heerkens, Y. F., & van der Beek, A. J. (2015). Development of a vitality scan related to workers' sustainable employability: A study assessing its internal consistency and construct validity. *BMC Public Health, 15*, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1894-z

Cate, R. A., & John, O. P. (2007). Testing models of the structure and development of future time perspective: Maintaining a focus on opportunities in middle age. *Psychology and Aging, 22*, 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.1.186

Chun, J., & Jyung, C. Y. (2022). Perceived employability of Korean employees: A multi-dimensional approach. *International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 22*(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-021-09475-2

Cloostermans, L., Bekkers, M. B., Uiters, E., & Proper, K. I. (2015). The effectiveness of interventions for ageing workers on (early) retirement, work ability and productivity: A systematic review. *International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 88*(5), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-014-0969-y

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2019). Personality across the life span. *Annual Review of Psychology, 70*(1), 423–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103244

De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2008). Gepercipieerde kans op een baan versus een betere baan: relaties met arbeidstevredenheid en welzijn [Perceived chance of alternative employment versus better employment: Associations with job satisfaction and well-being]. *Gedrag Organ, 21*, 475–492. https://doi.org/10.5117/2008.021.004.008

De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). The management paradox: Self-rated employability and organizational commitment and performance. *Personnel Review, 40*(1/2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481111106057

De Cuyper, N., Sulea, C., Philippaers, K., Fischmann, G., Iliescu, D., & De Witte, H. (2014). Perceived employability and performance: Moderation by felt job insecurity. *Personnel Review, 43*(4), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2013-0050

De Lange, A. H., Pak, K., Osagie, E., van Dam, K., Christensen, M., Furunes, T., ... Detaille, S. (2020). An open time perspective and social support to sustain in healthcare work: Results of a two-wave complete panel study. *Frontiers in Psychology, 17*(11), 1308. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01308

De Lange, A. H., Van der Heijden, B., Van Vuuren, T., Furunes, T., De Lange, C., & Dikkers, J. (2020). Employable as we age? A systematic review of relationships between age conceptualizations and employability. *Frontiers in Psychology, 11*. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.605684
De Vos, A., De Hauw, S., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2011). Competency development and career success: The mediating role of employability. *Journal of Vocational Behavior*, 79(2), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.013

De Vos, A., Forrier, A., Van der Heijden, B., & De Cuyper, N. (2017). Keep the expert! Occupational expertise, perceived employability and job search: A study across age groups. *Career Development International*, 22(3), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2016-0229

De Vos, A., Jacobs, S., & Verbruggen, M. (2021). Career transitions and employability. *Journal of Vocational Behavior*, 126(10), 34–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103475

De Witte, H. (1992). *Tussen optimisten en teruggetrokkenen (Between optimism and resignation. In Dutch)*. Leuven: Hoger Instituut van de Arbeid.

Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, 39(4), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.5465/256718

Dello Russo, S., Parry, E., Bosak, J., Andresen, M., Apospori, E., Bagdadli, S., & Reichel, A. (2020). Still feeling employable with growing age? Exploring the moderating effects of developmental HR practices and country-level unemployment rates in the age-employability relationship. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 31(9), 1180–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1737833

Dinh N. T., Dinh Hai, L., & Pham, H.-H. (2023). A bibliometric review of research on employability: Dataset from Scopus between 1972 and 2019. *Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning*, 13(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-02-2022-0031

Dordoni, P., Van der Heijden, B., Peters, P., Kraus-Hoogeveen, S., & Argentero, P. (2017). Keep up the good work! Age-moderated mediation model on intention to retire. *Frontiers in Psychology, 8*, Article 290650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01717

Fasbender, U., & Froidevaux, A. (2025). Age-inclusive HR practices as resource passageways: Explaining retirement intentions through employability and job insecurity. *Human Resource Management*, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70036

Fleischmann, M., Koster, F., & Schippers, J. (2015). Nothing ventured, nothing gained! How and under which conditions employers provide employability-enhancing practices to their older workers. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 26(22), 2908–2925. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585195.2015.1004100

Fleuren, B., de Grip, A., Jansen, N., Kant, I., & Zijlstra, F. (2016). Critical reflections on the currently leading definition of sustainable employability. *Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health*, 42(6), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3585

Fleuren, B. P., van Amelsvoort, L. G., de Grip, A., Zijlstra, F. R., & Kant, I. (2018). Time takes us all? A two-wave observational study of age and time effects on sustainable employability. *Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health*, 44(5), 475–484. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26567031.

Fleuren, B. P. I., de Grip, A., Jansen, N. W. H., Kant, I., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2020). Unshrouding the sphere from the clouds: Towards a comprehensive conceptual framework for sustainable employability. *Sustainability*, 12(16), 6366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166366

Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, S., & Segers, M. (2016). Aging and the motivation to stay employable. *Journal of Managerial Psychology*, 31(3), 756–770. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2014-0224

Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, S., Segers, M., & Gerken, M. (2014). Learning to stay employable. *Career Development International*, 19(5), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2013-0139

Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, S. A., & Segers, M. S. (2015). Great expectations: The relationship between future time perspective, learning from others, and employability. *Vocations and Learning*, 8, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-015-9131-6

Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology*, 81(3), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X241579

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions and applications. *Journal of Vocational Behavior*, 65, 14–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005

Fugate, M., Van der Heijden, B., De Vos, A., Forrier, A., & De Cuyper, N. (2021). Is what's past prologue? A review and agenda for contemporary employability research. *The Academy of Management Annals*, 15(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0171

Gazier, B. (1998). Employability—Definitions and trends. In B. Gazier (Ed.), *Employability: Concepts and policies* (pp. 37–71). Berlin: European Employment Observatory.

Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Dikkers, J. S. E., Van Hooft, M. L. M., & Kinnunen, U. M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. *Work and Stress*, 19(4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500410208

González-Romá, V., & Hernández, A. (2017). Multilevel modeling: Research-based lessons for substantive researchers. *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior*, 4, 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062407

Hall, D. T., Yip, J., & Doiron, K. (2018). Protein careers at work: Self-direction and values orientation in psychological success. *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior*, 5, 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych032117-104631

Harari, M. B., McCombs, K., & Wiernik, B. M. (2021). Movement capital, RAW model, or circumstances? A meta-analysis of perceived employability predictors. *Journal of Vocational Behavior*, 131(2), Article 103657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103657

Hazelzet, E., Picco, E., Houkes, I., Bosma, H., & de Rijk, A. (2019). Effectiveness of interventions to promote sustainable employability: A systematic review. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 16(11), 1985. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16111985

Heijde, C. M. V. D., & Van Der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. *Human Resource Management*, 45, 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20119

Hennekam, S. (2016). Employability and performance: A comparison of baby boomers and veterans in the Netherlands. *Employee Relations*, 38(6), 927–945. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2015-0186

Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., (eds.), et al. (2019). *Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions* (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604

Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). *Employability: Developing a framework for policy analysis (research brief 85)*. UK: Department for Education and Employment.

Hoedemakers, J., Vanderstukken, A., & Stoffers, J. (2023). The influence of leadership on employees' employability: A bibliometric analysis, systematic literature review, and research agenda. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 14, Article 1092865. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1092865

Houkes, I., Miglioretti, M., Picco, E., & De Rijk, A. E. (2020). Tapping the employee perspective on the improvement of sustainable employability (SE): Validation of the MAaSTricht instrument for SE (MAISE-NL). *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 17(7), 2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072211

Ilmarinen, J. (2007). The work ability index (WAI). *Occupational Medicine-Oxford*, 57(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.1093/ocmed/kqm008

Ilmarinen, J. E. (2001). Aging workers. *Occupational and Environmental Medicine*, 58(8), 546. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.58.8.546

Janssens, M., Sels, L., & Van Den Brande, I. (2003). Multiple types of psychological contracts: A six-cluster solution. *Human Relations*, 56(11), 1349–1378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035611004

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). *Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions*. Jossey Bass.

Kooij, D. T. A. M., Kanfer, R., Betts, M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2018). Future time perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 103(8), 867–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000306

Kovalenko, M., & Mortelmans, D. (2016). Contextualizing employability: Do boundaries of self-directedness vary in different labor market groups? *Career Development International*, 21(5), 498–517. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0012

Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 96(3), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021452

Kroon, A. C., van Selm, M., ter Hoeven, C. L., & Vliegenthart, R. (2016). Poles apart: The processing and consequences of mixed media stereotypes of older workers. *Journal of Communication*, 66(5), 811–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12249

Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (2002). Time counts: Future time perspective, goals, and social relationships. *Psychology and Aging*, 17, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.125

Le Blanc, P. M., Peeters, M. C., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Van Zyl, L. E. (2019). To leave or not to leave? A multi-sample study on individual, job-related, and organizational antecedents of employability and retirement intentions. *Frontiers in Psychology, 10*, Article 474977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.020507

Le Blanc, P. M., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Van Vuuren, T. (2017). “I will survive” A construct validation study on the measurement of sustainable employability using different age conceptualizations. *Frontiers in Psychology, 8*, Article 277686. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01690

Lo Presti, A., & Nonnis, M. (2008). Moderated effects of job insecurity on work engagement and distress. *TPM*, 19(2), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM19.2.3

Mäkikangas, A., De Cuyper, N., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2013). A longitudinal person-centred view on perceived employability: The role of job insecurity. *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology*, 22(4), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.665230

Maurer, T. J. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for development. *Journal of Management*, 27(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00092-1

Mayhofer, W., Smale, A., Briscoe, J., Dickmann, M., & Parry, E. (2020). Laying the foundations of international careers research. *Human Resource Management Journal*, 30, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12295

McCarthy, J., Heraty, N., Cross, C., & Cleveland, J. N. (2014). Who is considered an ‘older worker’? Extending our conceptualisation of ‘older’ from an organisational decision maker perspective. *Human Resource Management Journal*, 24(4), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12041

McMullin, J. A., & Dryburgh, H. (2011). Gender, age and work in the new economy. In J. A. McMullin (Ed.), *Age, gender, and work: Small information technology firms in the new economy* (pp. 3–17). Vancouver, CA: UBC Press.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

Morin, A. J. S., Bujacz, A., & Gagné, M. (2018). Person-centered methodologies in the organizational sciences: Introduction to the feature topic. *Organizational Research Methods*, 21(4), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118773856
Nelissen, J., Forrier, A., & Verbruggen, M. (2017). Employee development and voluntary turnover: Testing the employability paradox. *Human Resource Management Journal*, 27(1), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12136

Nielsen, J. (1999). Employability and workability among Danish employee. *Experimental Aging Research*, 25(4), 393-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/036107399243850

OECD. (2023). Pensions at a glance 2023: OECD and G20 indicators. *OECD Publishing, Paris*. https://doi.org/10.1787/678055dd-en

Oostrom, J. K., Pennings, M., & Bal, P. M. (2016). How do idiosyncratic deals contribute to the employability of older workers? *Career Development International*, 21(2), 176-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2015-0112

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. *BMJ*, 372(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Peng, P., Wang, T., Wang, C., & Lin, X. (2019). A meta-analysis on the relation between fluid intelligence and reading/mathematics: Effects of tasks, age, and social economics status. *Psychological Bulletin*, 145(2), 189-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000182

Peters, P., Van der Heijden, B. I., Spurk, D., De Vos, A., & Klaassen, R. (2019). Please don't look at me that way. An empirical study into the effects of age-based (meta-) stereotyping on employability enhancement among older supermarket workers. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 10, Article 432156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsg.2019.00249

Peters, V., Engels, J. A., de Rijk, A. E., & Nijhuis, F. J. (2015). Sustainable employability in shiftwork: Related to types of work schedule rather than age. *International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health*, 88, 881-893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-014-1015-9

Picco, E., Houkes, I., De Rijk, A., & Miglioretti, M. (2012). The Maastricht instrument for sustainable employability—Italian version (MAISE-IT): A validation study. *BMC Public Health*, 22(1), 541. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12872-z

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. *Strategic Management Journal*, 26, 473-488. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.454

Quiñones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. *Personnel Psychology*, 48(4), 887-910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01785.x

Ramaci, T., Faraci, P., Santisi, G., & Valenti, G. D. (2021). Employability and job insecurity: The role of personal resources on work-related stress. Europe's *Journal of Psychology*, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.1904

Randel, A., Galvin, B., Shore, L. M., Chung, B., Ehrhart, K. H., Dean, M., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through a focus on belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. *Human Resource Management Review*, 28(2), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002

Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. *Journal of Marketing Research*, 45(3), 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261

Rohrer, J. M., & Murayama, K. (2023). These are not the effects you are looking for: Causality and the within-/between person distinction in longitudinal data analysis. *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science*, 6(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/215152459221140824

Rothwell, A., & Arnold, J. (2007). Self-perceived employability: Development and validation of a scale. *Personnel Review*, 36(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710716704

Rothwell, A., Herbert, I., & Rothwell, F. (2008). Self-perceived employability: Construction and initial validation of a scale for university students. *Journal of Vocational Behavior*, 73(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.12.001

Sanders, J., & De Grip, A. (2004). Training, task flexibility and the employability of low-skilled workers. *International Journal of Manpower*, 25(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720410525009

Schaufel, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. *Educational and Psychological Measurement*, 66, 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Schmillen, A., & Umkehrer, M. (2017). The scars of youth: Effects of early-career unemployment on future unemployment experience. *International Labour Review*, 156, 465-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/irl.12079

Schneider, B. (1983). Work climates: An interactionist-perspective. In N. W. Feimer, & E. S. Geller (Eds.), *Environment psychology* (pp. 106-128). New York, NY: Praiger.

Scholarios, D., & Van der Heijden, B. (2021). Supervisor-subordinate age dissimilarity and its impact on supervisory ratings of employability: Does supportive learning context make a difference? *Frontiers in Psychology*, 12, Article 763746. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763746

Schriemer, A. G., Roelen, C. A., Abma, F. I., Van Rhenen, W., Van Der Klink, J. J., & Bültmann, U. (2022). Sustainable employability of teachers with hearing loss. *International Journal of Audiology*, 61(12), 1027-1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2021.2000650

Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 87(3), 542-548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.542

Smetts, E. M. A., Garssen, B., Bonke, B., & De Haes, J. C. M. (1995). The multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. *Journal of Psychosomatic Research*, 39(3), 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)00125-0

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. *Journal of Business Research*, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Thrasher, R. G., Zabel, K. L., Bramble, R. J., & Baltes, B. B. (2018). Who is aging successfully at work? A latent profile analysis of successful agers and their work motives. *Work, Aging and Retirement, 4*(2), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax026

van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation. *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology*, 13(1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000237

van Dam, K., Van Vuuren, T., & Kemps, S. (2017). Sustainable employment: The importance of intrinsically valuable work and an age-supportive climate. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 28(17), 2449-2472. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137607

Van der Heijde, C. M., Van der Heijden, B. I., Scholars, D., Boziolesons, N., Mikkelsen, A., Epitropaki, O., & Looise, J. C. (2018). Learning climate perceptions as a determinant of employability: An empirical study among European ICT professionals. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 9, Article 410875. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02471

Van der Heijden, B. (2002). Prerequisites to guarantee life-long employability. *Personnel Review*, 31(1), 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480210412418

Van der Heijden, B. I., de Lange, A. H., Demerouti, E., & Van der Heijde, C. M. (2009). Age effects on the employability-career success relationship. *Journal of Vocational Behavior*, 74(2), 156-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.009

Van der Heijden, B. I., Gorgievski, M. J., & De Lange, A. H. (2016). Learning at the workplace and sustainable employability: A multi-source model moderated by age. *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology*, 25(1), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1007130

Van der Heijden, B. I., Kruyen, P. M., & Notelaers, G. (2020). The importance of intra-organizational networking for younger versus older workers: Examining a multi-group mediation model of individual task performance enhancement. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 11, 63-83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.606383

Van der Heijden, B. I., Van Vuuren, T. C., Kooij, D. T., & de Lange, A. H. (2015). Tailoring professional development for teachers in primary education: The role of age and proactive personality. *Journal of Managerial Psychology*, 30(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2014-0211

Van der Klink, J. J., Bültmann, U., Burdorf, A., Schaufel, W. B., Zijlstra, F. R., Abma, F. I., ... Van der Wilt, G. J. (2016). Sustainable employability—Definition, conceptualization, and implications: A perspective based on the capability approach. *Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health*, 42(1), 71-79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43999197

van der Meer, L., Leijten, F. R., Heuvel, S. G., Ybema, J. F., de Wind, A., Burdorf, A., & Geuskens, G. A. (2016). Company policies on working hours and night work in relation to older workers' work ability and work engagement: Results from a dutch longitudinal study with 2 year follow-up. *Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation*, 26, 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9599-9

van Harten, J., Cuyper, N. D., Knies, E., & Forrier, A. (2022). Taking the temperature of employability research: A systematic review of interrelationships across and within conceptual strands. *European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology*, 31(1), 145-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1942847

van Scheppingen, A. R., de Vroome, E. M., Ten Have, K. C., Zwetsloot, G. I., Wiezer, N., & van Mechelen, W. (2015). Vitality at work and its associations with lifestyle, self-determination, organizational culture, and with employees' performance and sustainable employability. *Work*, 52(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-141947

van Vuuren, T., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Semeijn, J. H. (2023). With a little help from my friends: Adopting a PE fit perspective in understanding the value of organizational learning climate for sustainable employability. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 14, Article 1128535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128535

Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., & De Witte, H. (2014). Defining perceived employability: A psychological approach. *Personnel Review*, 43(4), 592-605. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2012-0110

Vargas, R., Sanchez-Queija, M. I., Rothwell, A., & Parra, Á. (2018). Self-perceived employability in Spain. *Journal of Education and Training*, 60(3), 226-237. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2017-0037

Verboon, F. C., De Feyter, M. G., & Smulders, P. G. W. (1999). *Arbeid en Zorg, Inzetbaarheid en Beloning: Het Werknemersperspectief [work and care, employability and reward: The employee perspective]*. Hoofddorp: TNO Arbeid.

Verbrugghe, M., Kuipers, Y., Vriesacker, B., Peeters, I., & Mortelmans, K. (2016). Sustainable employability for older workers: An explorative survey of belgian companies. *Archives of Public Health*, 74, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-016-0128-x

Veth, K. N., Korzilius, H. P., Van der Heijden, B. I., Emans, B. J., & De Lange, A. H. (2019). Which HRM practices enhance employee outcomes at work across the life-span? *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 30(19), 2777-2808. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1340322

Veth, K. N., Van der Heijden, B. I., Korzilius, H. P., & De Lange, A. H. (2018). Bridge over an aging population: Examining longitudinal relations among human resource management, social support, and employee outcomes among bridge workers. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 9, Article 293494. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.000574

von Humboldt, S., Miguel, I., Valentim, J. P., Costa, A., Low, G., & Leal, I. (2023). Is age an issue? Psychosocial differences in perceived older workers' work (un) adaptability, effectiveness, and workplace age discrimination. *Educational Gerontology*, 49(8), 687-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2022.2156657

Wang, Y., Kim, S., Rafferty, A., & Sanders, K. (2020). Employee perceptions of HR practices: A critical review and future directions. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 31(1), 128-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1674360
Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-Item short-form health survey (SF-36). *Medical Care, 30*, 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

Wiernik, B. M., & Kostal, J. W. (2019). Protean and boundaryless career orientations: A critical review and meta-analysis. *Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66*(3), 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2013-0139

Ybema, J. F., van Vuuren, T., & van Dam, K. (2020). HR practices for enhancing sustainable employability: Implementation, use, and outcomes. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 31(7), 886-907. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1387865

Yeves, J., Bargsted, M., Cortes, L., Merino, C., & Cavada, G. (2019). Age and perceived employability as moderators of job insecurity and job satisfaction: A moderated moderation model. *Frontiers in Psychology, 10*, 16–47. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00799