IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v191y2024i1d10.1007_s10551-023-05455-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional Logics in the UK Construction Industry’s Response to Modern Slavery Risk: Complementarity and Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Pesterfield

    (University of Bristol)

  • Michael Rogerson

    (University Of Surrey)

Abstract

There is a growing understanding that modern slavery is a phenomenon ‘hidden in plain sight’ in the home countries of multinational firms. Yet, business scholarship on modern slavery has so far focussed on product supply chains. To address this, we direct attention to the various institutional pressures on the UK construction industry, and managers of firms within it, around modern slavery risk for on-site labour. Based on a unique data set of 30 in-depth interviews with construction firm managers and directors, we identify two institutional logics as being integral to explaining how these companies have responded to the Modern Slavery Act: a market logic and a state logic. While the institutional logics literature largely assumes that institutional complexity will lead to a conciliation of multiple logics, we find both complementarity and continued conflict in the logics in our study. Though we identify conciliation between aspects of the market logic and the state logic, conflict remains as engagement with actions which could potentially address modern slavery is limited by the trade-offs between the two logics.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Pesterfield & Michael Rogerson, 2024. "Institutional Logics in the UK Construction Industry’s Response to Modern Slavery Risk: Complementarity and Conflict," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 59-75, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:191:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-023-05455-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05455-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-023-05455-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-023-05455-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:191:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-023-05455-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.