Alzoubi, Y; Locatelli, G and Sainati, T (2024) Turning a blind eye: Ignoring modern slavery in the race to construction project completion. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 150(10): 04024136, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Modern slavery is an illegal and unethical phenomenon affecting more than 40 million victims worldwide, with many of them employed in construction. This article aims to investigate why modern slavery continues to exist on construction sites managed by companies that have pledged to fight it. Primary data were collected using semistructured interviews with 22 experts working in construction companies in three organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) countries (UK, Australia, and Switzerland) and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The construction companies were the unit of analysis, and their managers were the primary source of information. The results present the mechanisms that explain the difference between the official antimodern slavery statements of construction companies and the empirical observations on construction sites. The primary mechanisms are a lack of awareness, training, response, and responsibility, as well as alternative priorities. The results further show the role and importance of reporting cases of modern slavery in addressing it. The risk areas of modern slavery in construction projects, which include the lower tiers of subcontracting and the supply chains of construction materials, are identified. Furthermore, the article discusses the reasons behind the trivialization of modern slavery in construction companies: the presence of alternative priorities, the fear of reputational damage, blame-shifting, and minimizing the problem. Finally, we propose recommendations for construction companies and managers to help address modern slavery and offer areas for future research. This article presents two key novel contributions. First, we discovered a disconnection between construction companies' official antimodern slavery statements and the reality on construction sites. Second, we identified the reasons behind this disconnection.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | dark side; ethics; health and safety; labor and personnel issues; labor exploitation; organizational issues; social sustainability |
| Index terms: | organizational issue, presence, social sustainability, construction material, Australia, exploitation, subcontracting, ethics, thematic analysis, Switzerland, construction project, construction company, construction site, health and safety, manager, personnel, interview |
| Subjects: | business, data collection methods, work location, building materials, methods and analysis, management, practitioner, organization, environmental science, ethical practice, health safety and environment, Geography, production management, communities and social development |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Supply Chain Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Site Management, Organizational Design, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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