IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v28y2010i5p481-493.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The discourse of 'Respect for People' in UK construction

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Ness

Abstract

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is mobilized to investigate some of the assumptions that lie behind the text of the Respect for People reports (2000, 2004), part of the 'Egan agenda' in the UK. The concept of respect is examined, contrasting the humanist view of people as ends in themselves with the instrumentalist view in which human beings are treated as means to an end. Conceptualizing people as an asset encourages this instrumental view. Similarly, the 'business case' argument for respecting people means that improvements to working conditions are judged purely in accordance with their contribution to efficiency and profitability rather than in terms of moral imperatives (not killing people) or fairness (not discriminating against them). Investigation of the structural, institutional and discursive context of the text reveals it to be a response to conditions at a particular historical moment: labour shortages; the desire to avoid or pre-empt regulation; changes in the wider prevailing discourse; and the need to give the impression that 'something is being done'. In conclusion it is suggested that, while the Respect for People discourse may be seen as a way of containing and defusing potential critique, it could also be drawn on by those seeking to improve working conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Ness, 2010. "The discourse of 'Respect for People' in UK construction," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 481-493.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:28:y:2010:i:5:p:481-493
    DOI: 10.1080/01446191003674501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01446191003674501
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446191003674501?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:taf:conmgt:v:28:y:2010:i:5:p:481-493. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    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.