Green, S D (1999) Partnering: the propaganda of corporatism? Journal of Construction Procurement, 5(2), pp. 177-186. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
A critical perspective on partnering is developed with reference to current concerns regarding the increasingly corporatist nature of global capitalism. Many leading clients advocate partnering as a means of improving customer responsiveness and ensuring continuous improvement. The seductive rhetoric of partnering too often serves only to disguise the crude exercise of buying power. In the UK, the four largest supermarket chains are all leading advocates of partnering. Ironically, the grocery sector has attracted sustained public criticism regarding its exploitative supply chain management practices. Evidence suggests that the resultant savings are not automatically passed on to customers. Despite these concerns, the large supermarkets continue to preach 'customer responsiveness' to a seemingly gullible construction industry. It is argued that the doctrine of customer responsiveness ultimately owes more to corporatist propaganda than to progressive management policies. The buying power of the industry's major clients continually discourages dissent to the partnering ideal. Construction companies that are not similarly committed risk being denied access to a substantial proportion of the UK market. The increasing influence of industry on the construction research agenda also discourages academics from challenging the legitimacy of partnering discourse. There is an urgent need for research which is independent of commercial vested interests.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | continuous improvement, corporatism, critical theory, customer responsiveness, partnering, technocratic totalitarianism |
| Index terms: | research agenda, construction company, management practice, evidence, legitimacy, partnering, exercise, continuous improvement, savings, construction industry |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, sociology, partnership management, performance measurement, management, economic analysis, health behaviours and lifestyles, organization, evaluation and assessment methods, research management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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