Humanizing Research on Working Conditions in Supply Chains: Building a Path to Decent Work

Abstract

Research on managing working conditions in the supply chain is currently conducted under the umbrella of “social” sustainability. In this introduction to the 2021 Emerging Discourse Incubator, “Managing Working Conditions in Supply Chains: Towards Decent Work,” we argue that the trajectory of this research may be insufficient for addressing decent work. This is due to four characteristics of the extant literature—buyer‐centrism, product‐centrism, techno‐centrism, and social‐centrism. As an alternative, we offer ways to ‘humanize’ research on working conditions in supply chains across four dimensions: actors, issues, contexts, and methods. Through humanization, supply chain research has the potential to make a significant scholarly impact as well as to contribute to the realization of decent work in supply chains. We use our proposed path forward as a lens to elaborate on the core contributions of the four invited papers in the Emerging Discourse Incubator.

The role of psychological distance in organizational responses to modern slavery risk in supply chains

“…More scholarship is needed to identify effective methods for improving working conditions in supply chains, or at least improved organizational awareness of its role in exploitation (New, 2015; Caruana et al, 2020; Soundararajan et al, 2021). Future studies could look to event‐based responses to incidences of labor abuse in supply chains, or how shared perspectives (e.g., between groups of organizational members, top management teams, or working with non‐profits) might help to reduce psychological distance.…”

“…(Weisenfeld et al, 2017), such as a focus on regional or local drivers of risk, or reference to humanizing factors such as the supplier's or worker's circumstances (Carton, 2018; Soundararajan et al, 2021). Using this approach organizations could be categorized into one of four groups: (1) de‐contextualized intention without actions (abstract‐contracting); or (2) de‐contextualized intention with actions (concrete‐contracting); (3) contextualized intention without contextualized actions (abstract‐conditions); or (4) contextualized intention with contextualized actions (concrete‐conditions).…”

“…Poor awareness in particular, of the context in which labor exploitation arises and thrives in supply chains is potentially a key reason behind the failure of firms' efforts to manage such risks. Firms are often oblivious to the social and economic structures that encourage labor exploitation in supply chains or their role in the conditions that encourage risk (Alamgir & Alakavuklar, 2018; Anner, 2020; Hasan, Moore & Handfield, 2020; Soundararajan, 2021; LeBaron et al, 2021). This is demonstrated by their reliance on simplistic methods to assess risk (e.g.…”

“…Recent surveys, for example, suggest that only 6% of firms audit their suppliers' labor practices beyond tier one and that only 10% of Boards appreciate how limited their monitoring of modern slavery risk actually is (BHRRC, 2021; Fair Supply, 2021). Firms have also relied heavily on formal reporting by suppliers to manage modern slavery risk which is out of touch with the ways in which labor exploitation occurs (LeBaron et al, 2017; Morris, Jenkins & Donaghey, 2020; Soundararajan, Wilhelm & Crane, 2021).…”

Buyer abusive behavior and supplier welfare: An empirical study of truck owner–operators

“…Decent work in the supply chain has recently received a great deal of attention from practitioners (e.g., Crane, 2013;Reinecke & Donaghey, 2021;Soundararajan et al, 2018Soundararajan et al, , 2021 in relation to the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).…”