Cui, L (2025) Incentive contract design and selection for inhibiting unethical collusion in construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(2), pp. 870-892. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The construction industry has long been criticized for unethical conduct. The owner usually manages the contractor's opportunistic behaviors by employing a professional supervisor, but there is a risk of covert collusion between the supervisor and contractor. Based on the principal–agent theory and collusion theory, this paper aims to investigate optimal collusion-proof incentive contracts. Design/methodology/approach: This paper presents a game-theoretic framework comprising an owner, supervisor and contractor, who interact and pursue maximized self-profits. Built upon the fixed-price incentive contract, cost-reimbursement contract, and revenue-sharing contract, different collusion-proof incentive contracts are investigated. A real project case is used to validate the developed model and derived results. Findings: This paper shows that the presence of unethical collusion undermines the owner's interests. Especially, the possibility of agent collusion may induce the owner to abandon extracting quality information from the supervisor. Furthermore, information asymmetry significantly affects the construction contract selection, and the application conditions for different incentive contracts are provided. Research limitations/implications: This study still has some limitations that deserve further exploration. First, this study explores contractor–supervisor collusion but ignores the possibility of the supervisor abusing authority to extort the contractor. Second, to focus on collusion, this paper ignores the supervision costs. What's the optimal supervision effort that the owner should induce the supervisor to exert? Finally, this paper assumes that the colluders involved always keep their promises. However, what if the colluders may break their promises? Practical implications: Several collusion-proof incentive contracts are explored in a project management setting. The proposed incentive contracts can provide the project owner with effective and practical tools to inhibit covert collusion in construction management and thus safeguard construction project quality. Originality/value: This study expands the organization collusion theory to the field of construction management and investigates the optimal collusion-proof incentive contracts. In addition, this study is the first to investigate the effects of information asymmetry on contract selection.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction projects; contract design; contract selection; principal–agent theory; supervisor; unethical collusion |
| Index terms: | agent, methodology, exploration, construction project, collusion, revenue, profit, incentive contract, information asymmetry, project management, supervision, construction industry, supervisor, presence, opportunistic behaviour, construction contract, owner, unethical conduct |
| Subjects: | business, control systems, sociology, industry analysis, project management theory and practice, environmental resource management, contractual arrangements, environmental science, ethical practice, economic analysis, transaction economics, contract type, practitioner, tendering, research methods, production management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Sustainability, Procurement, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here