Reducing forced labour in supply chains: what could traditional companies learn from social enterprises?

Abstract

Purpose

Forced labour is one of the most exploitative practices in supply chains, generating serious human right abuses. The authors seek to understand how relationships for reducing forced labour are influenced by institutional logics. The emerging supply chain efforts of social enterprises offer particularly intriguing approaches, as their social mission can spur creative new approaches and reshape widely adopted management practices.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors study supplier relationships in the smartphone industry and compare the evolving practices of two cases: the first, a growing novel social enterprise; and the second, a high-profile commercial firm that has adopted a progressive role in combating forced labour.

Findings

The underlying institutional logic influenced each firm's willingness to act beyond its direct suppliers and to collaborate in flexible ways that create systematic change. Moreover, while both focal firms had clear, well-documented procedures related to forced labour, the integration, rather than decoupling, of forced labour and general supply chain policies provided a more effective way to reduce the risks of forced labour in social enterprises.

Research limitations/implications

As authors’ comparative case study approach may lack generalizability, future research is needed to broadly test their propositions.

Practical implications

The paper identifies preconditions in terms of institutional logics to successfully reduce the risk of forced labour in supply chains.

Originality/value

This paper discusses how social enterprises can provide a learning laboratory that enables commercial firms to identify options for supplier relationship improvement.

Citation

Vanpoucke, E. and Klassen, R.D. (2024), "Reducing forced labour in supply chains: what could traditional companies learn from social enterprises?", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 1803-1830. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2022-0596