Content uploaded by Kam Phung
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kam Phung on Jan 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Phung, K. & Crane, A. (2018). 'The business of modern slavery: Management and organizational
perspectives'. In J. Clark & S. Poucki (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of human trafficking and
modern day slavery: 177-197, London, UK: SAGE.
9
The Business of Modern Slavery: Management and
Organizational Perspectives
Kam Phung and Andrew Crane
INTRODUCTION
Despite modern slavery’s ties to global supply chains and the context of business (Allain,
Crane, LeBaron, & Behbahani, 2013; Crane, 2013, 2017; Crane, LeBaron, Allain, &
Behbahani, 2017; Crane, LeBaron, Phung, Behbahani, & Allain, 2018; Gold, Trautrims, &
Trodd, 2015; New, 2015; Phung, 2018), the extant literature provides little insight from
management and organizational perspectives. This chapter offers a review of the current
literature that addresses the business side of modern slavery (‘the business of modern slavery’),
and identifies avenues for future research on modern slavery within management and
organizational studies. We begin by reviewing how scholars define modern slavery as a
construct when it is studied in the context of business. We then review the key findings,
arguments and contributions of past work related to the business of modern slavery. From there,
we discuss avenues for advancing research on the business of modern slavery, first discussing
empirical and theoretical approaches to research, then offering suggested avenues for future
research that can contribute to our empirical and theoretical understanding of the business of
modern slavery, as well as how modern slavery can be situated within and used to contribute
to broader business and management theory.
2
MODERN SLAVERY IN THE CONTEXT OF
BUSINESS
While the basic idea of slavery as a phenomenon is understood in society, it is ‘typically viewed
as an obsolete form of premodern labor practice that has been superseded by more legitimate
and humane practices’ (Crane, 2013: 49) and is ‘routinely dismissed as an historical artifact’
(Quirk, 2006: 565). Further, the dominant reference to slavery as a practice based on cultural,
socioeconomic, and legal frameworks from historic times (Bales, 2005), and the ambiguous
nature of slavery today (Quirk, 2006) has made defining modern slavery as a scholarly construct
difficult and controversial (Crane, 2013; Gold et al., 2015). In turn, slavery as a contemporary
phenomenon has struggled to gain conceptual and definitional clarity, as well as recognition as
a current issue in the public domain. As Bales, Trodd and Williamson (2011: vii) note:
‘[b]ecause slavery is illegal in all countries and banned by international conventions, it has
become a hidden crime’. Similarly, Crane (2013: 50) notes that ‘slavery has gradually
transformed from an officially approved practice based on legal title and ethnic distinction to
one that has been criminalized and relocated to the informal economy’.
Increasingly, the concept of modern slavery in popular discourse is framed in terms of
poor working conditions in developing countries. Thus, the challenge in discussing modern
slavery, as New (2015: 698) highlights, may exist because it is often rolled ‘together with
general concerns about working conditions, or indeed with the idea of all workers in industrial
capitalism as being “wage slaves”’. Likewise, ‘followers of the anti-slavery movement have in
many instances misrepresented the definition of slavery, having picked up on a vein of
interpretation that has channeled the understanding of slavery away from its legal definition
towards one which, unintentionally, has done a disservice to their cause’ (Allain, 2009: 241).
Several definitions of modern slavery have been put forth, especially to differentiate it
from terms that are often used in tangent or interchangeably such as, slavery, contemporary
slavery, forced labor, human trafficking, unfree labor, bonded labor, and child labor. We focus
on how scholars have defined modern slavery in the context of business – that is, commercial
3
activity, and contributed to its conceptualization. First, the League of Nations Slavery
Convention 1926 and the International Labor Organization (ILO) Forced Labour Convention
1930 have been widely recognized as contributing to important modern conceptualizations and
definitions of slavery, with many scholars using them as starting points. These early definitions
emphasize the exercising of power in the form of right of ownership over a human being;
however, as some scholars (Allain, 2009; Crane, 2013; Gold et al., 2015, Kara, 2011) point out,
circumstances have now changed. For instance, Kara (2011: 67) notes that ‘[o]ver the decades,
international conventions and jurisprudence relating to slavery shifted away from targeting
actual rights of ownership toward the nature of the exploitation, particularly as it involves
coercion (physical or other), nominal or no compensation, and the absence of freedom of
employment or movement’. Similarly, Crane (2013: 50) notes that, ‘slavery based on legal
ownership (or chattel slavery) is, given the illegality of slavery almost everywhere, relatively
rare among modern forms of slavery’.
On the most basic level, as Bales (2000: 6) states, modern slavery consists of ‘the total
control of one person by another for the purpose of economic exploitation’ and ‘hides behind
different masks, using clever lawyers and legal smoke screens, but when we strip away the lies,
we find someone controlled by violence and denied all of their personal freedom to make money
for someone else’. Importantly, fundamental to all definitions is the element of control over a
person by an ‘employer’ (Crane, 2013) via the menace of penalty and coercion to extract work
or services. Such forms of illegal control and menaces of penalty and means of coercion may
include threats, violence, sexual assault, physical abuse, withholding wages, and excessive
wage reductions, as well as other means of ‘sanction through coercion’ (Simmons & Stringer,
2014: 75) such as stealing identity documents.
Crucial to distinguishing modern slavery in business from other types of slavery such as
forced marriages, child soldiers and domestic servitude is the element of economic exploitation
(Bales, 2000, Crane, 2013) ‘for the purpose of service provision or production’ (Gold et al.,
2015: 487). Yet, this does not mean that slavery only exists when a person works without wages.
As several scholars note, while it may be that no compensation is provided, it is not as
4
straightforward as unpaid labor, as ‘[s]lavery might accommodate limited
financial/nonfinancial remuneration’ (Crane, 2013: 51) or ‘nominal’ compensation (Kara,
2011: 67). However, it is commonly subject to withholding, arbitrary or excessive reductions,
or might entail debt bondage in which a person pays off a loan or debt to their employer through
labor and is either not paid or faces such exorbitant interest rates, terms and/or false accounting
that their debt is never paid off (Crane, 2013; Gold et al., 2015; New, 2015).
Modern slavery also entails the dehumanization and the deprivation or restriction of
freedom of movement. Scholars note that workers are ‘dehumanized and treated as a
commodity’ (Crane, 2013: 51), controlled in a way that a ‘person might control a thing’ (Gold
et al., 2015: 487), or ‘treated as personal property’ (Thomas & Purvis, 2016: 56). Meanwhile,
to constitute modern slavery, many scholars emphasize that a person must experience an
‘absence’, ‘constraint’, ‘denial’, ‘deprivation’, ‘loss’, or ‘restriction’ of their human liberty and
freedom, especially their freedom of movement through physical constraints or confinements
(Bales, 2000; Crane, 2013; Gold et al., 2015; Kara, 2011; New, 2015; Simmons & Stringer,
2014).
While scholars do not embrace a single definition of modern slavery in the context of
business, they continue to turn to international organizations and conventions, including the
ILO (New, 2015; Simmons & Stringer, 2014; Thomas & Purvis, 2016; Yea, 2017), Anti-
Slavery International (Crane, 2013), and the Bellagio-Harvard Guidelines (Gold et al., 2015;
Phung, 2018), which have significant similarities in their conceptualizations. Based on our
review of the commonalities amongst the conceptualizations of modern slavery in the context
of business, including the ‘workplace’ (Crane, 2013), ‘organizational settings’ (Phung, 2018),
‘global economy’ (Bales, 2000; Kara, 2011), and ‘supply chain’ (Crane et al., 2017; Gold et al.,
2015; New, 2015), we embrace an omnibus definition that embodies the criteria that Crane
(2013: 51) sets for ‘modern slavery as a management practice’ and that we described above:
Modern slavery in the context of business exists when an individual or organization
exercises (1) control over a human being via (2) coercion and menace of penalty to
extract work or services for the purpose of (3) economic exploitation and results in
5
(4) the dehumanization of said human being and (5) the deprivation or restriction of
their freedom.
Critical to this definition is that all five conditions must be present to be considered as modern
slavery. This is not to imply that situations that do not meet all conditions do not deserve
attention, but such cases would be considered as human exploitation rather than modern slavery
specifically. Thus, modern slavery can be conceptualized as one end of the human exploitation
spectrum, representative of the most extreme cases. Nonetheless, distinguishing between what
is and is not modern slavery is not a simple task as the conditions ‘involve degrees of variability
(i.e., they are not strictly categorical)’ (Crane, 2013: 51) and modern slavery is ‘a multifaceted
continuum’ on a ‘diverse spectrum’ of human exploitation (Quirk, 2006: 577, 594).
Business Perspectives on Modern Slavery
In this section, we review the literature related to the business of modern slavery from
management perspectives, as well as the broader social sciences and humanities, to offer a
snapshot of the state of research, which reveals that the business side of modern slavery remains
relatively unexplored. Not only does the field lack a deep theoretical understanding on modern
slavery, but it also suffers from deficiencies in terms of its empirical understanding at the
organizational level and of the overall business side. Despite scant attention on slavery,
traditional and modern, in the management literature (Cooke, 2003; Crane, 2013), scholars have
advanced knowledge on modern slavery from human resource management, organizational and
strategic management, and supply chain management perspectives.
Human Resource Management Perspectives
Slave laborers
Given the nature of slavery and the focus of civil society organizations to rescue and protect
slave laborers, the bulk of ‘extant research on modern slavery has primarily focused on victims’
6
(Crane, 2013: 49). Empirical research indicates that slave laborers include both migrant workers
(documented and undocumented) and local workers that meet the physical requirements for a
job task, but are often inexperienced and vulnerable (Chantavanich, Laodumrongchai, &
Stringer, 2016; Stringer, Whittaker, & Simmons, 2016). For example, it has been well-
documented that those enslaved in industries such as mining, fishing, forestry, construction,
and brick-laying in both developed and developing countries are often young and physically fit
males (e.g., Bales, 2000; 2016), and that women of all ages are targeted for forced sex
trafficking (e.g., Kara, 2011). Thus, as Chantavanich et al. (2016) found in their study on
Thailand’s fishery industry, slavery affects people of all ages, including children. However,
Kara (2011: 67) notes that ‘poor or marginally subsistent individuals are the ones more
vulnerable to exploitation because of their economic desperation’. Whereas Marschke and
Vandergeest (2016) found that in Thailand, a lack of the necessary language skills to ask for
help, a lack of education, and gender-specific characteristics can serve as vulnerabilities, others
(Allain et al., 2013; Crane et al., 2017) highlight in examinations of the UK’s agriculture,
construction, and cannabis industries, that migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to
enslavement. The ILO also (Andrees, 2008; Plant, 2007) reports that low levels of education
and low awareness of slavery practices increases the vulnerability of potential slaves.
While these findings offer details into who slaves are, they are mainly descriptive. Crane
(2013: 55–6) begins to ‘redress this disregard [of theoretical attention] by developing a new
theory of modern slavery as a management practice’, in which he argues that ‘socioeconomic
contexts’ are one of the many ‘conditions enabling slavery’. As Crane notes, a lack of education
and awareness, and unemployment are critical characteristics of slaves; yet, ‘[p]overty is
probably the most critical “push” factor since it creates a fertile context for the worst kinds of
labor exploitation’. Meanwhile, a ‘lack of appropriate skills among workers and limited job
opportunities in the region may accentuate the push of poverty’ because it can create a situation
where any work is ‘a family’s best hope for economic survival’. Crane proposes that these
causal relationships between poverty, education, and unemployment and slavery are moderated
by the availability of affordable credit (e.g., micro loans).
7
Slavery perpetrators
While little empirical research on slavery perpetrators exists, due to methodological challenges
(Crane & LeBaron, 2018), there is growing evidence that slavery perpetrators are economically
motivated individuals that deploy slavery for financial gains (e.g., Allain et al., 2013; Bales,
2000; Crane, 2013; Crane et al., 2017). In fact, the ILO (2014) estimates that US$150.2 billion
in illegal profits are generated annually from the use of slavery. While these figures are
estimates, deep ethnographic and field research in countries such as India, Pakistan, Thailand,
New Zealand, and the UK (Allain et al., 2013; Choi-Fitzpatrick, 2017; Kara, 2010; Simmons
& Stringer, 2014; Stringer & Simmons, 2015; Stringer et al., 2016) have documented financial
and profit-oriented practices amongst slavery perpetrators. Scholars have also noted that, in
some cases, some perpetrators subscribe to broader social and cultural systems that influence
their deployment of slavery (e.g., Bales, 2000). Nonetheless, it has been well-documented that
slavery occurs within and across cultures and countries (e.g., Crane et al., 2017; Stringer et al.,
2016).
Meanwhile, based on field research in India, Choi-Fitzpatrick (2017) argues that some
slaveholders rationalize their actions by taking on a paternalistic or care-taker view. As Choi-
Fitzpatrick notes, for some slaveholders, ‘the happiness of the worker is paramount’ because
they are a source of income (2). Yet more generally, ‘[w]hile they understand that they are
exploiting workers’ vulnerabilities. Slaveholders also feel they are doing workers a favor, often
taking pride in this relationship’. Overall, while research on slavery perpetrators in business
contexts remains limited, scholars are starting to piece together a picture of who perpetrators
are.
Recruitment process in modern slavery
Empirical research has also contributed to our understanding of how people become enslaved.
Importantly, while human trafficking has links to slavery and is largely viewed as today’s slave
trade, human trafficking does not necessarily lead to slave labor (Kara, 2011). Nonetheless,
8
empirics suggest that people can become enslaved in several ways. For example, research on
fisheries has found that people enter slavery via: (1) brokers that charge upfront fees to victims
or deduct a fee from wages, (2) brokers that are paid by employers, and (3) social networks,
such as friends and family (Chantavanich et al., 2016; Marschke & Vandergeest, 2016;
Simmons & Stringer, 2014; Stringer et al., 2016). Meanwhile, research on sex trafficking has
found that the ‘[a]cquisition of trafficked slaves primarily occurs in one of five ways: deceit,
sales by family, abduction, seduction or romance (with sex trafficking), or recruitment by
former slaves’ (Kara, 2010; 2011: 67). Overall, an array of research has found that the use of
brokers in the enslavement process is relatively common (e.g., Allain et al., 2013; Crane et al.,
2017), though it is not always the case. Generally, as the growing body of theoretical and
empirical research suggests, regardless of the presence of brokers, the process of becoming
enslaved tends to include force, coercion, deception, and fraud, and specific practices such as
using fraudulent contracts (Bales, 2005; Stringer et al., 2016) and wage fraud (Chantavanich et
al., 2016).
Working conditions of modern slavery
A crucial component of the research on slavery is that it offers empirical evidence of all five of
the criteria (control, forced work, economic exploitation, dehumanization, and restricted
freedom) that constitute slavery. Such evidence is important for scholars and practitioners who
are interested in studying the phenomenon, as slavery is ‘routinely dismissed as an historical
artifact’ (Quirk, 2006: 565). While it would be beneficial to offer a rich description of the
evidence supporting each criterion, practices vary considerably around the world, and many of
these practices satisfy multiple criteria, which makes it difficult to disentangle the evidence into
scholarly constructs. Thus, we offer a synopsis of the variations that fall within each criterion.
First, evidence indicates that control over slaves is distinct from control in a typical
employment relationship since it does not rely on consent. Workers are engaged in involuntary
work and will engage in forms of work and working practices that they otherwise would reject
9
given the (lack of) remuneration on offer. Second, coercion and menace of penalty is exercised
in some cases via the use of armed guards (Allain et al., 2013; Stringer & Simmons, 2015;
Stringer et al., 2016); however, it is more common that slave owners engage in other practices
to instill fear and exploit vulnerabilities, including: physical and mental abuse, sexual assault
and rape, verbal threats to slaves and their families, the confiscation of passports and legal
documents, threats to report them, withheld compensation, and fraudulent contracts (e.g.,
Chantavanich et al., 2016; Kara, 2011; Marschke & Vandergeest, 2016). Such practices have
been documented in formal and informal industries such as mining, fishing, shrimping, forestry,
agriculture, construction, brick-laying, sex trafficking, and cannabis in a wide array of
developing and developed countries (e.g., Thailand, India, Pakistan, Mauritania, Brazil, New
Zealand, and the UK). Third, economic exploitation has been found to manifest through
minimal to no wages, debt-bondage, involuntary and automatic deductions for expenses, and
exorbitant interest rates. Fourth, addressing dehumanization, while the trading, selling, and
trafficking of humans (Kara, 2011), and treatment of slaves as a commodity that you can simply
kill or get rid of and repurchase for a low price (Bales, 2000) certainly indicates
dehumanization, as scholars more generally acknowledge, slaves are treated as things and
personal property (Gold et al., 2015; Thomas & Purvis, 2016). Lastly, for restricted freedom,
although cases are more obvious with geographically remote sites (Crane, 2013), such as
Indonesians being confined to a South Korean offshore fishing vessel off the coast of New
Zealand (Stringer et al., 2016) or Vietnamese workers being guarded by gun-carrying security
guards (Allain et al., 2013), it is critical to recognize that restricted freedom often emerges
because of the controlling, coercion, economic exploitation, and dehumanization practices.
Organizational and Strategic Management Perspectives
Modern slavery as a management practice
According to Crane (2013; 2017), a particularly beneficial way to understanding how slavery
unfolds within organizations and as a management practice is to understand the role of the
10
external conditions and internal capabilities of the organizations that are perpetrators of slavery.
As Crane (2013) explains in his article that details and connects the external enabling conditions
(industry, socioeconomic, geographic, cultural, and regulatory) and internal organizational
capabilities (exploiting, insulating, sustaining, and shaping), as well as the various mediating
mechanisms, that may give rise to slavery as a management practice (see Crane, 2013: 53), to
understand slavery as a management practice, ‘we need to go beyond the economic rationality
in explaining the influence of industry context on the adoption of modern slavery practices’
(Crane, 2013: 54). Drawing on institutional theory and strategic capabilities (e.g., Oliver, 1991),
Crane (2013) theorizes that organizations that succeed in deploying the illegitimate practice of
slavery do so through a process he terms institutional deflection. As Crane argues, ‘since
institutional theory would suggest that, over time, such practices should disappear because of
the influence of prevailing regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive systems that drive
isomorphism (Scott, 2001), […] the institutional forces that render slavery illegitimate are
deflected in some way by external and internal contingencies’ (Crane, 2013: 51).
Business models of modern slavery
The extant literature on modern slavery holds the assumption that organizations engage in
slavery because it offers economic advantages in the form of lower operating costs and
increased profits (e.g., Bales, 2000; Kara, 2010; 2011), particularly in industries that are labor-
intensive and in small-scale businesses with limited potential for capturing value (Crane, 2013).
Some, such as Kara (2010: 17), go much further to state that ‘[t]he acquisition, movement, and
exploitation of sex slaves form an industry that generates billions of dollars in profits each year,
at a profit margin greater than almost any industry in the world, illicit or otherwise’. However,
the level of profitability tied to modern slavery has been called into question (Crane & LeBaron,
2018) and some scholars have begun to examine how such organizations might generate profits
to sustain their businesses beyond the basic explanation of reduced labor costs. This research
11
largely covers the business models – that is, ‘formal conceptual representations/descriptions of
how an organization functions’ (Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017: 76), of modern slavery.
To understand the business models of slavery perpetrators, rather than human trafficking
(see Shelley, 2003), as Allain et al. (2013: 26-29) emphasize, it is key to understand who
employs slave laborers and how organizations make money from slave labor. Importantly, they
distinguish between the two main different types of perpetrators of modern slavery: producers
and intermediaries (see also Crane et al., 2018). Here, a producer ‘is engaged in the production
of a specific product and provides direct employment to workers in this activity’. On the other
hand, intermediaries ‘mediate between individual workers and the organisations that need work
done’ and ‘are not directly engaged in production, but provide labour and labour-related
services to producers’.
As for making money, there is a growing evidence that slave operators primarily make
money by minimizing costs in the form of reduced labor costs (e.g., Bales, 2000; Crane, 2013;
Kara, 2010; 2011). However, Allain et al. (2013: 28) find that slave labor may also be used to
minimize risks, in that ‘employers that have control over workers through forced labour can
leverage this control to reduce the risks of detection of their informal or illegal practices’. They
note that slave operators may also generate revenue by charging slaves for services such as
accommodation, food, transport, and immigration service, as well as by forcing slaves that are
legally entitled to benefits such as welfare to transfer such benefits to the operator. As scholars
note (e.g., Chantavanich et al., 2016; Kara, 2010; 2011), slave laborers often have no choice
but to purchase services from their employers and are often charged exorbitant interest rates.
Supply Chain Management Perspectives
Modern slavery in the supply chain
Scholars taking on a supply chain management perspective have started to shine light on the
issue as it pertains to organizations downstream from direct perpetrators of slavery (Gold et al.,
2015; Phung, 2018). As LeBaron (2014: 237) states, ‘[t]he risk of slavery and forced labor in
12
global supply chains is now significant’ as ‘[a]t least 80 percent of forced labor occurs in the
private economy and involves business in some way […f]rom shrimp processed by debt-
bonded workers in Bangladesh to cotton picked by children and forced workers in Uzbekistan’.
LeBaron further notes that the agency of corporations and their shift to subcontracting and
arm’s-length contracts with suppliers to cut costs has given rise to highly exploitative labor
practices, including slavery. More specifically, it is highlighted that ‘companies’ scale and
market power allows them to impose slim profit margins and quick turnaround times onto their
overseas suppliers’, which can be especially problematic because ‘the further down the supply
chain, the lower the supplier profit margins’ (LeBaron, 2014: 240–1). Notably, LeBaron argues
that the emergence of supply chains that may give rise to slavery is ‘not an automatic or
spontaneous process, but rather a business strategy to facilitate economic success – at least in
part by distancing lead firms from risk’ (2014: 242).
As Allain et al. (2013: 40) note, slave labor tends to be associated with ‘activities towards
the beginning of these supply chains’, thus ‘[t]hinking about forced labour in the context of
supply chains enable us to consider the connection between these primary activities and the
activities of companies and consumers further along the chain’. Specifically, their data suggest
that complexity in supply chains through subcontracting that can lead to modern slavery tends
to occur with activities in the supply chain that have ‘low-value adding’ potential – that is,
activities that generally require low skills, and subsequently attract vulnerable workforces.
However, a key characteristic of slavery in the supply chain is that it often occurs amongst
subcontractors that are distanced from lead firms through multiple layers of subcontracting
comprising small producers and intermediaries enforced by ‘informal and untraceable
subcontracting’ (Allain et al., 2013: 43). Thus, a key issue of modern slavery in supply chains
is its ‘potential invisibility and the difficulty of detection’ (New, 2015: 699).
To further complicate things, the use of these informal and subcontracted labor providers
deploying slavery is not static and is constantly in flux in response to reconfigurations to drive
down costs (Allain et al., 2013). As Allain et al. point out, the types of organizations supplying
slave labor may be doing so temporarily or permanently, involving permanent informal agents,
13
temporary informal agency, permanent informal organizations or temporary informal
organizations. For example, as LeBaron (2014) points out, in the garment industry,
subcontracted work is often assigned to ‘shadow factories’ who base their entire businesses on
the provision of exploitative labor practices. However, Allain et al. note that other organizations
embrace slave labor only opportunistically. Overall, scholars generally agree that in response
to pressures to cut costs and maximize profits, the landscape of supply chains today has evolved
from a basic chain to a complex network arrangement in which slavery can thrive.
Detecting and responding to modern slavery in the supply
chain
Scholars have started to focus on how society can detect and respond to modern slavery and
forced labor in business (see Crane et al., 2017). Here, regulation has tended to be the first
potential solution that scholars explore, since places such as the UK and California have
introduced legislation to tackle slavery in supply chains. For instance, as New (2015: 700)
summarizes, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, requires large firms in retail
and manufacturing ‘to make public declaration of their efforts towards eradicating human
trafficking and slavery from its supply chain, and to publish this information on their websites’.
New highlights that the ‘logic is that consumers can use the information to exercise ethical
shopping – preferring those with better policies – and the NGOs and politicians can use “shame”
to street organisations to better practice’ (New, 2015: 700), yet he also notes that ‘the notion of
exactly which suppliers should be covered by firms’ policies and actions is not at all clear’.
Meanwhile, Allain et al. (2013) highlight licensing labor intermediaries, an approach that
commenced for UK-based food supply chains in 2005, as a mechanism. However, they note
that while this approach has been effective in increasing labor standards, its restriction to the
food industry has (until recently) served as a key limitation.
As Allain et al. (2013: 56) note, regulation also transpires through self-regulation and
social audits, which brings in the topic of corporate social responsibility and efforts by
14
corporations to address the issue. Perhaps the most talked-about practice is the creation of
corporate policies by corporations that include supply chain auditing and inspection programs
to detect slave labor. A key issue that Gold et al. (2015: 488) have observed is that within
corporations ‘indicators are currently absent or inadequate’ and there is a need for ‘new
indicators for slave labour in [supply chain management] practices and tools for making supply
chains slavery-free’. Nonetheless, New (2015) notes that organizations have yet to identify
effective practices for conducting audits. As LeBaron (2014: 245) points out, a key issue that
surfaced during an interview with a social auditor is that ‘the vast majority of social or ethical
retail audits are “not trying to find things out, they’re trying to prove that something is not
there.”’
On the other hand, Gold et al. (2015: 489) examine potential responses to the detection
of slave labor in the supply chain, shining light on three potential remedial practices: multi-
stakeholder initiatives, community-centred approaches, and supplier development and
capacity-building. As Crane et al. (2017: 1) note, issues such as forced labor and slavery are
intricately linked to governance gaps in and around global value chains, and solutions will
require ‘scholars and policymakers to carefully refine their thinking about how we might design
operative governance that effectively engages with local variation’.
ADVANCING RESEARCH ON THE BUSINESS OF
MODERN SLAVERY
Our aim so far has been to review the literature that has advanced knowledge on modern slavery
in the context of business, to provide researchers with a starting point to conducting research in
the area. We found that while there is a deficit of research on modern slavery in management
research, literature from the greater social sciences and humanities has contributed to our
understanding of modern slavery in the context of business. Thus, we now discuss avenues for
future research on the business of modern slavery for both management and broader social
15
science and humanities scholars. We begin with methodological issues, then highlight several
areas that we consider promising avenues of research.
Approaches to Conducting Research
Conducting empirical research
The business of modern slavery remains an underexamined phenomenon that awaits rigorous
empirical research to address the void of reliable data, validate assumptions, contribute to
testing and building theory, and advance our understanding of how it emerges and can be
prevented. Given the nature of modern slavery, challenges in accessing and collecting data have
hindered past efforts to conduct empirical research and are expected to continue moving
forward (see Crane & LeBaron, 2018). However, scholars have shown that these challenges
can be overcome.
Sources of data
To access data, scholars have mainly relied on interviews with stakeholders, including former
and current slaves, employees of perpetrators, civil society organizations, policy-makers, law
enforcers and social auditors. As scholars (e.g., Simmons and colleagues) have shown in studies
of the fisheries industry, slaves are rich sources of data. However, given the use of deception,
deceit and fraudulent documents, as well as the vulnerabilities of victims, limitations exist in
their abilities to serve as reliable informants on slave operators’ practices and characteristics.
Yet, this is not to say that gaining organizational-level data on slave operators via slave laborers
is not possible, especially in cases when they have been promoted to recruit other slaves (e.g.,
Kara, 2010; Simmons & Stringer, 2014).
At the same time, slaves and slave perpetrators are not the only sources of data. Scholars
have shown that different stakeholders can shine light on different aspects of the phenomenon
(e.g. Allain et al., 2013; Crane et al., 2017). While lead firms are a needed source of data for
16
studies that wish to examine slavery from a supply chain management or corporate social
responsibility perspective, their abilities to provide information directly on slavery perpetrators
may be limited because they are physically and contractually at a distance. Other stakeholders,
however, can serve as valuable sources of data on the conditions that make up their operating
environments. For instance, legitimate intermediaries can be informants of the practices of
intermediaries that deploy slavery. As seen in Allain et al.’s study, they may know of the
practices that their competitors use, and can serve as a source to compare the potential
profitability.
Accessing slave laborers and perpetrators
Going direct to the source for data has its advantages but poses challenges. First, of the few
studies that have collected data from slave laborers and slave perpetrators, two dominant
approaches to recruiting informants have been deployed: direct cold approaches, and
introductions through civil society organizations. Scholars have had varying degrees of success
with direct cold approaches (e.g., Chantavanich et al., 2016; Kara, 2010). For example, in
Chantavanich et al.’s study, they managed to interview 596 fishers from Myanmar, Cambodia
and Thailand, of which some were and some were not slave laborers, by recruiting them directly
at or near to fishing docks. However, they had difficulties finding workers of long-haul vessels
due to their distance and time away from land. Thus, locating slave laborers in legitimate
businesses may pose substantial difficulties. Meanwhile, Kara (2010: xiii) found that entering
sex trafficking establishments in India and ‘search[ing] out individuals who appeared to speak
English and might be willing to converse’ to conduct interviews was ‘extremely hit or miss’.
He also had to be cautious so as not to put himself or any potential informants at risk. Further,
victims of sex trafficking were often skeptical of his role as a researcher, as ‘[b]rothel owners
and pimps often devised ways to test the loyalties of their slaves, who in turn received positive
treatment if they passed or severe punishment if they failed’. According to Kara, tactics such
as ‘planting a fake human-rights worker promising freedom for information, created
17
overwhelming distrust in the victims’. Overall, while a direct cold approach can provide rich
details, issues of time, safety, and access to a desired population pose challenges.
Next, in addition to Kara (2010), scholars such as Simmons and Stringer (2014) have had
relatively more success accessing slave laborers through introductions via civil society
organizations. As Kara notes about his experience working with a shelter for victims of sex
trafficking, ‘[c]onditions were more favorable in shelters and I was able to record and transcribe
most of my interviews’ (2010: xii). Meanwhile, Simmons and Stringer accessed Indonesian
slave laborers and other crew members of a Korean fishing vessel operating in New Zealand
through the Indonesia Society. Further, they demonstrated that although their number of
interviews was lower than other studies, the rigour in methods and time spent cultivating
relationships led to rich and important data, including documents such as pay slips, bank
statements and photos, and follow-up interviews. Simmons and Stringer were also able to
collect data from regular employees in and around slavery, which can offer insight into broader
aspects of organizations.
Scholars may also want to interview convicted or retired slavery perpetrators, as studies
have shown that those who are not still active may be willing to divulge information. For
instance, Antonopoulos (2008) noted in his reflection on interviewing retired cigarette
smugglers that ‘old-timers’ (Adler & Adler, 2003) offered large amounts of information
because they had no stakes in the business anymore. Finally, while risks exist and it may require
substantial resources, ethnography is another avenue. Despite challenges, studies on organized
crime (Ferrell & Hamm, 1998) have shown that it can be an effective way to understand hard-
to-access populations. However, scholars need to recognize that any approach that is interpreted
as covert may limit their potential outlets for publication (Roulet et al., 2017).
Acknowledging the risks of fieldwork
Although a detailed review of the methodological challenges is beyond the scope of this
chapter (see, however, Crane & LeBaron, 2018), the risks of fieldwork should be
18
acknowledged. We highlight the key risks that scholars should be aware of, but we recommend
that readers refer to Stringer and Simmons’ (2015) article in which they reflect on the challenges
of researching modern slavery. By summarizing the experience of Stringer and Simmons, we
join their call on scholars to remember that ‘[e]ven though a research design meets institutional
ethical requirements, it should also include a wider assessment of risk’ (2015: 261).
As Stringer and Simmons (2015) highlight, fieldwork can involve issues of intimidation,
risk and harm to participants and their families, translators, and the researchers. While they
vividly describe their experiences, illustrating the emotional, mental, and physical risks to
participants that can arise, they also note that risks to the researchers and translators are often
overlooked (e.g., Kara, 2010). For researchers, they note that the risks include threats and
attacks from participants that feel threatened, emotional attachment or distress that can lead to
a loss of objectivity, and jeopardizing their careers as their studies may be viewed to be on the
‘edges of respected academic circles’ (Jipson & Litton, 2000: 147). For example, Stringer and
Simmons state: ‘[p]rivate investigators were hired to investigate us to obtain information about
our research and identify our participants, [which] caused us to be extremely cautious in our
day-to-day activities and at times very anxious when we went to meet participants’ (2015: 257).
They also recalled that they were subjected to physical intimidation. Further, Stringer and
Simmons remind scholars that these risks also apply to support staff (e.g., translators).
CONTRIBUTING TO THEORY
As Crane (2013: 64–5) notes, ‘[d]ifficulties in collecting high-quality comparable data and the
absence of a comprehensive theoretical framework have meant that efforts, to date, have largely
been exploratory and piecemeal’. Because most studies are published in policy journals, they
tend to focus on offering descriptive research that can inform practice and policy. Meanwhile,
amongst those that aim to contribute to theory, the focus has been on contributing to broader
theory pertaining to unfree labor in global value chains (LeBaron, 2013; Stringer et al., 2016),
19
except for some work (e.g. Gold et al., 2015; New, 2015; Phung, 2018) that has used Crane’s
(2013) theory of modern slavery to start scholarly conversations.
Overall, Crane (2013) draws on institutional theory and the strategic capabilities
literature to illustrate that we can develop a theoretical understanding of modern slavery that
might not be attainable from purely descriptive studies, as well as contribute back to broader
theory. Scholars indicate that several promising theoretical lenses and bodies of literature exist.
For example, scholars studying supply chains have pointed out that theoretical lenses such as
the resource-based or relational view, resource-dependency theory and the dynamic capabilities
approach, as well as the literature on corporate social responsibility, have all been used to study
supply chains and are possible theories that can inform and be informed by modern slavery
(Gold et al., 2015; New, 2015). Meanwhile, Phung (2018) notes that modern slavery can
contribute to the emerging research on the dark side of organizational life (Linstead, Maréchal,
& Griffin, 2014). Our aim is to call on scholars to draw on and contribute to theory to develop
a broader and deeper understanding of modern slavery, which can lead to more insightful
implications for practice and policy, and help advance knowledge on broader issues.
As some scholars (Crane, 2013; Stringer & Simmons, 2015) note, the uniqueness of
modern slavery may naturally place scholars’ findings and contributions at the boundaries of
mainstream research. For instance, Crane (2013: 63) acknowledges that ‘we might be
cautiously optimistic that our enhanced understanding of slavery as a management practice
might have broader implications for other types of organizations’. However, as Stringer and
Simmons (2015: 261) suggest, ‘management and international business researchers ought to be
more concerned with the illicit aspect of businesses [and that] [n]eglecting illicit activities can
lead to findings being distorted’. For example, they note that while prior to studies on forced
labor, New Zealand’s fisheries industry was regarded as world-leading, studies have now
shown that over the past three decades, more than 45,000 migrant workers in the industry have
been subjected to inhumane labor practices, shining light on a seemingly rather different reality.
Over the past decade, an emerging body of research on the dark side of organizational
life (Linstead et al., 2014; Vaughan, 1999), corporate irresponsibility (e.g., Lange & Washburn,
20
2012; Matten & Moon, 2008), corporate illegality (Mishina et al., 2010), and the informal
economy (e.g., Webb et al., 2009) within management literature suggests that there is growing
room in management for research on modern slavery. Yet, to reiterate what Crane (2013: 66)
highlighted, ‘no attempt to address slavery can ignore the role played by slave operators’. Thus,
it is crucial for scholars to explore modern slavery at an organizational level. This appetite for
research on the dark side of business has the potential to stop the perpetuation of ‘what Cooke
calls the “denial of slavery in management studies” (2003: 1895)’ (Crane, 2013: 49).
AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In this final section, we focus on ideas from management literature that could inform a more
organization-focused analysis of modern slavery, instead of highlighting the need to validate
underlying assumptions and propositions in the field. However, we first highlight that, as a
field, we foresee the field of management focusing on modern slavery through four streams:
slavery perpetrators, lead firms, and anti-slavery organizations, as well as slave laborers and
workers. While these streams may overlap and the most interesting questions might not address
them in isolation, they can guide scholars with paths to study modern slavery. We now focus
on discussing two broad avenues for future research.
Organizational Deviance
A promising avenue for future research is the examination of modern slavery as a form of
organizational deviance, and the unpacking of the process of institutional deflection (Crane,
2013). While thinking in terms of deviance and institutions would keep the violation of human
rights at the forefront of a study, it would also remind us that non-conformity does not
necessarily lead to the demise of a practice or organization as institutional theory argues (Scott,
2001), and that organizations can enact strategic responses to institutional pressures (Oliver,
1991). It has long been recognized that organizations situated in niches can better withstand
pressures on organizational structures from a population of organizations (Hannan & Freeman,
21
1977; 1984). Researchers have more recently demonstrated that an organization’s decision-
makers’ cognitive resistance to a dominant logic and organization-level structures that are
conducive to deviating logic can enable organizations to develop symbolic and material
immunity to protect against institutional non-conformity and firm-level deviations from a
dominant logic (Lepoutre & Valente, 2012). It has also been illustrated that incongruences
between formal and informal institutions can lead to informal economies where illegal practices
are legitimate (Webb et al., 2009). Thus, as Crane (2013: 63) argues, slave operators can ‘be
regarded as a form of “liminal organization”, occupying a niche at the margins of institutional
fields (Lindsay, 2010)’ and that ‘institutional deflection may be a practice that has resonance
for other organizations at the margins’.
Yet, as Crane notes, research is needed to understand the conditions that lead to the
deployment of deviant practices such as modern slavery, and the different organizational
capabilities that enable resistance to institutional pressures. Thus, a promising question is: what
conditions cause organizations to deploy modern slavery? Although Crane theorizes a set of
institutional conditions that create a conducive environment, our understanding of when the
practice is triggered remains underdeveloped. Further, Lepoutre and Valente (2012) suggest
that mutual cognitive resistance to dominant logic by decision-makers in an organization would
create a conducive environment for deviant behaviors, but an important question is: why and
how do decision-makers of organizations deploying deviant practices develop such mindsets in
the first place? Scholars have largely embraced the assumption that organizations deploy
modern slavery because it is immensely profitable; however, this has yet to be supported by
strong empirics. We must recognize that other motives exist (Choi-Fitzpatrick, 2017).
Research has shown that slavery may be deployed permanently or temporarily (e.g.,
Allain et al., 2013), and that slaves may co-exist with regular laborers (e.g., Simmons &
Stringer, 2014). This temporal aspect of slavery and the degree to which it is embraced raises
two important questions: what conditions affect the temporal focus and salience of a deviant
practice, and how do the conditions and capabilities differ amongst organizations that embrace
different temporal focuses and saliences of deviant practices? Addressing these questions will
22
deepen our understanding of the different ways slavery is deployed, as well as have the potential
to extend existing theory by exploring temporal aspects and salience as it pertains to deviance.
It is also important to recognize that while the use of slave labor may be viewed as a form
of institutional non-conformity from society’s view, extant literature highlights that in the
broader ecosystem of globalization and profit maximization, straying away from practices such
as subcontracting for cost effectiveness may be perceived as non-conformity and illegitimate
(see Suchman, 1995). This suggest that future research may want to draw on the growing body
of literature on institutional logics (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012), which ‘define the
norms, values, and beliefs that structure the cognition of actors in organizations and provide a
collective understanding of how strategic interests and decisions are formulated’ (Thornton,
2002: 82). Understanding the institutional logics of slavery perpetrators and other organizations
within their fields can advance our understanding of the extent to which slavery is perceived to
be deviant within its direct environment. Thus, future research may benefit from simultaneously
examining organizations in the same fields as slavery perpetrators that do so legitimately,
in order to understand the institutional logics that are embraced, and the interactions between
them. Such a comparative approach can also help identify what conditions cause slave operators
to deploy slavery, and how their capabilities differ from legitimate operators. Further,
researchers may want to explore the logics and interactions in supply chains, especially between
lead firms and slavery perpetrators.
Forces Against Slavery
We wish to highlight two avenues for future research that can advance our understanding of
how slave operators defend their positions or resist and deflect pressures to end slave labor.
First, as Marschke and Vandergeest (2016: 41) point out, the literature on modern slavery views
slave laborers as ‘victims in need of rescue, rather than as agents’. Yet, this paints a picture of
slaves as passive individuals, and naively assumes that they do not engage in efforts to resist
and escape slavery. Empirically, we need to answer the question: what do slave laborers do to
23
resist slavery conditions? As Martí and Fernández (2013) demonstrate in their examination of
oppression and resistance in the Holocaust, different settings allow for different degrees of
resistance from suppressed individuals. Scholars may want to examine the different
organizational settings of slavery and examine how they affect slaves’ abilities to resist the
practices internally.
Similarly, as Crane (2013: 65) points out, there has been ‘growing interest in the
management literature in the role of institutional entrepreneurs who can “leverage resources to
create new institutions or to transform existing ones” so as to address deep-seated social
problems (Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004: 657)’. Importantly, scholars note that research
on social movements moves us away from images of an isomorphic institutional world to one
where fields are sites of contestation (Schneiberg & Lounsbury, 2008). Social movements can
be sources of innovation in response to organizational and market failures (Rao, Morrill, &
Zald, 2000), mobilize or coopt stakeholders, including challenging incumbents (Van Wijk et
al., 2013) to change or create new political or organizational structures (McAdam, McCarthy,
& Zald., 1996), and delegitimize practices and attitudes to create room for new organizational
forms (Hiatt, Sine, & Tolbert., 2009). However, their effectiveness can be influenced by several
factors including, media attention (King, 2008; King & Haveman, 2008), the frames of social
movement collective actors (Benford & Snow, 2000) and the impression management strategies
(Elsbach & Sutton, 1992) of target organizations (McDonnell & King, 2013). Despite
recognizing that social pressures can be an antecedent to deinstitutionalization (Oliver, 1992)
and that institutional entrepreneurs can leverage resources to transform institutions to address
social issues (Maguire et al., 2004), we still know little about how organizations challenged by
social movements defend their standings and deviant behaviors (McDonnell & King, 2013).
Thus, by empirically studying the interactions between collective actions such as social
movements, and deviant organizations such as slave operators, we can deepen our
understanding of how such deviant organizations exist in the presence of organizations directly
attacking them and their practices.
24
REFERENCES
Adler, P., & Adler, P. 2003. The reluctant respondent. In J. Holstein & J. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside
interviewing: New lenses, new concerns: 153–73. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Allain, J. 2009. The definition of slavery in international law. Howard Law Journal, 52
(Winter): 239–76.
Allain, J., Crane, A., LeBaron, G., & Behbahani, L. 2013. Forced labour’s business models
and supply chains. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Andrees, B. 2008. Forced labour and trafficking in Europe: How people are trapped in, live
through and come out. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
Antonopoulos, G. 2008. Interviewing retired cigarette smugglers. Trends in Organized Crime,
11(1): 70–81.
Bales, K. 2016. Blood and earth: Modern slavery, ecocide, and the secret to saving the world.
New York: Spiegel & Grau.
Bales, K. 2005. Understanding global slavery: A reader. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
Bales, K. 2000. Disposable people: New slavery in the global economy (1st ed.). Berkeley and
Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Bales, K., Trodd, Z., & Williamson, A. 2011. Modern slavery: A beginner’s guide. Oxford,
UK: Oneworld Publications.
Benford, R., & Snow, D. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and
assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611–39.
Chantavanich, S., Laodumrongchai, S., & Stringer, C. 2016. Under the shadow: Forced labour
among sea fishers in Thailand. Marine Policy, 68: 1–7.
Choi-Fitzpatrick, A. (2017). What slaveholders think: How contemporary perpetrators
rationalize what they do. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cooke, B. 2003. The denial of slavery in management studies. Journal of Management Studies,
40(8): 1895–1918.
Crane, A. 2017. Modern slavery from a management perspective: The role of industry context
and organizational capabilities. In A. Bunting & J. Quirk (Eds.), Contemporary slavery:
Popular rhetoric and political practice: 229–54. Vancouver and Toronto, Canada:
University of British Columbia Press.
Crane, A. 2013. Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and
capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 38(1): 49–69.
Crane, A., & LeBaron, G. 2018. Methodological challenges in the study of business and forced
labour. In G. LeBaron (Ed.), Researching forced labour in the global economy:
Methodological challenges and advances. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(forthcoming).
Crane, A., LeBaron, G., Allain, J., & Behbahani, L. 2017. Governance gaps in eradicating
forced labor: From global to domestic supply chains. Regulation and Governance,
Online Early Access: 1–21
Crane, A., LeBaron, G., Phung, K., Behbahani, L. & Allain, J. 2018. Innovations in the business
models of modern slavery: The dark side of business model innovation. Academy of
Management Best Paper Proceedings, 1: 13381.
Elsbach, K., & Sutton, R. 1992. Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate
actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of
Management Journal, 35(4): 699–738.
Ferrell, J., & Hamm, M. 1998. Ethnography at the edge: Crime, deviance, and field research.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Gold, S., Trautrims, A., & Trodd, Z. 2015. Modern slavery challenges to supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(5): 485–94.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American
Sociological Review, 49(2): 149–64.
25
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal
of Sociology, 82(5): 929–64.
Hiatt, S., Sine, W., & Tolbert, P. 2009. From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization of social
practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 54: 635–67.
ILO. 2014. Profits and poverty: The economics of forced labour. Geneva: International Labour
Organization.
Jipson, A., & Litton, C. 2000. Body, career and community: The implications of researching
dangerous groups. In G. Lee-Treweek & S. Linkogle (Eds.), Danger in the field: Risk
and ethics in social research: 147–67. London, UK: Psychology Press.
Kara, S. 2011. Supply and demand. Harvard International Review, (Summer): 66–71.
Kara, S. 2010. Sex trafficking: Inside the business of modern slavery. New York: Columbia
University Press.
King, B. 2008. A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3): 395–421.
King, M., & Haveman, H. 2008. Antislavery in America: The press, the pulpit, and the rise of
antislavery societies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(1): 492–528.
Lange, D., & Washburn, N. 2012. Understanding attributions of corporate social
irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2): 300–26.
LeBaron, G. 2014. Subcontracting is not illegal, but is it unethical? Business ethics, forced
labor and economic success. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 20(II): 237–50.
LeBaron, G. 2013. Unfree labour beyond binaries: Insecurity, social hierarchy and labour
market restructuring. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17(1): 1–19.
Lepoutre, J., & Valente, M. 2012. Fools breaking out: The role of symbolic and material
immunity in explaining institutional nonconformity. Academy of Management Journal,
55(2): 285–313.
Lindsay, M. 2010. Organizational liminality and interstitial creativity: The fellowship of power.
Social Forces, 89(1): 163–84.
Linstead, S., Marechal, G., & Griffin, R. 2014. Theorizing and researching the dark side of
organization. Organization Studies, 35(2): 165–88.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields:
HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5):
657–79.
Marschke, M., & Vandergeest, P. 2016. Slavery scandals: Unpacking labour challenges and
policy responses within the off-shore fisheries sector. Marine Policy, 68: 39–46.
Martí, I., & Fernández, P. 2013. The institutional work of oppression and resistance: Learning
from the Holocaust. Organization Studies, 34(8): 1195–223.
Massa, L., Tucci, C., & Afuah, A. 2017. A critical assessment of business model research.
Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 73–104.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2008. ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 33(2): 404–24.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. 1996. Comparative perspectives on social movements:
Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
McDonnell, M., & King, B. 2013. Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression
management after social movement boycotts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3):
387–419.
Mishina, Y., Dykes, B., Block, E., & Pollock, T. 2010. Why ‘good’ firms do bad things: The
effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of
corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 701–22.
New, S. J. 2015. Modern slavery and the supply chain: The limits of corporate social
responsibility? Supply Chain Management, 20(6): 697–707.
Oliver, C. 1992. The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4): 563–
88.
26
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16(1): 145–79.
Phung, K. 2018. Slavery and its links to organizations. In R. Burke & C. Cooper (Eds.),
Violence and abuse in and around organisations: 273–91. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Plant, R. 2007. Forced labour, slavery and poverty reduction: Challenges for development
agencies. Presentation to UK high-level conference to examine the links between poverty,
slavery and social exclusion. London: International Labour Organization.
Quirk, J. 2006. The anti-slavery project: Linking the historical and contemporary. Human
Rights Quarterly, 28(3): 565–98.
Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. 2000. Power plays: How social movements and collective
action create new organizational forms. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22: 237–
81.
Roulet, T., Gill, M. J., Stenger, S., & Gill, D. 2017. Reconsidering the value of covert research:
The role of ambiguous consent in participant observation. Organizational Research
Methods, 20(3): 487–517.
Schneiberg, M., & Lounsbury, M. 2008. Social movements and institutional analysis. In R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), SAGE handbook of
organizational institutionalism: 648–70. London, UK and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Scott, W. 2001. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Shelley, L. 2003. Trafficking in women: The business model approach. Brown Journal of
World Affairs, 10(1): 119–32.
Simmons, G., & Stringer, C. 2014. New Zealand’s fisheries management system: Forced labour
an ignored or overlooked dimension? Marine Policy, 50: 74–80.
Stringer, C., & Simmons, G. 2015. Stepping through the looking glass: Researching slavery in
New Zealand’s fishing industry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3): 253.
Stringer, C., Whittaker, D., & Simmons, G. 2016. New Zealand’s turbulent waters: The use of
forced labour in the fishing industry. Global Networks, 16(1): 3–24.
Suchman, M. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.
Thomas, B., & Purvis, J. 2016. Corporate supply chain transparency: California’s seminal
attempt to discourage forced labour. International Journal of Human Rights, 20(1): 55–
77.
Thornton, P. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in
institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 81–101.
Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new
approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Van Wijk, J., Stam, W., Elfring, T., Zietsma, C., & Den Hond, F. 2013. Activists and
incumbents structuring change: The interplay of agency, culture, and networks in field
evolution. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2): 358–86.
Vaughan, D. 1999. The dark side of organizations: Mistakes, misconduct, and disaster. Annual
Review of Sociology, 25(1): 271–305.
Webb, J., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R., & Sirmon, D. 2009. You say illegal, I say legitimate:
Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review, 34(3):
492–510.
Yea, S. 2017. The art of not being caught: Temporal strategies for disciplining unfree labour in
Singapore’s contract migration. Geoforum, 78: 179–88.
