10 Countries Most Afflicted By Modern Slavery Video Discussion need to watch this video https://youtu.be/d2FSPdgEguk I upload all requirement in the pdf f

10 Countries Most Afflicted By Modern Slavery Video Discussion need to watch this video https://youtu.be/d2FSPdgEguk

I upload all requirement in the pdf folder.

Total of 2000 words including all tables, figures, references, etc

Need go through turnitin, so no PLAGIARISM,all your own words. “Modern slavery”
Research assignment:
Modern slavery is a rather new research field in the
international business studies. Since there is no legal
definition of the term, forced labor, bonded labor,
involuntary servitude, human trafficking, and other forms
of exploitation are synonyms to describe the term. When
we speak about modern slavery, we speak about people
who are forced to work under the threat of violence.
Usually they receive very little salary or no salary at all.
Employers treat them as a commodity and often restrict
their freedom to move. Though most people may believe
that there is nothing like economic slavery in the world
anymore, recent reports suggest otherwise. Since
multinational corporations (MNCs) can be directly or
indirectly, it becomes important to understand this
phenomenon better.
Task:
(1) Watch the YouTube clip below entitled “10 Countries
Most Afflicted By Modern Slavery”
(2) In your essay discuss the following questions:
What is understood under the term ‘modern
slavery’, how can it be defined? Why is modern
slavery relevant for multinational corporations
(MNCs)? [You may present and discuss a case of your
choice]. According to your opinion, what could or
should companies do in order not to support but prohibit
modern slavery?
Further information and instructions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scope of the essay: 2000words including all tables,
figures, references, etc.
In principle you are free to cite any sources you like, as
long as they are reliable, quality sources. The number of
sources you cite MUST consist of no less than
10 academic references, i.e. journals, books, book
chapter, etc.
In order to support you with the literature research, I
provide a selection of relevant sources that I uploaded to
the folder below. Please feel free using the sources if you
find them appropriate for your essay.
The essay should be submitted via the turnitin link that
you find below.
Preferred essay format and style:
Cover page: The first page has to show your name, date,
course title
Text: Preferred format: Times New Roman or Arial, 12pt,
line spacing 1.5 or 2pt, text alignment: left
References: References have to be listed in alphabetical
order at the end of the text.
Following reference style is recommended:
In the text, a reference indentified by means of an
author’s name should be followed by the date of the
reference in parentheses and page number(s) where
appropriate. When there are more than two authors, only
the first author’s name should be mentioned, followed by
“et al”. In the event that an author cited has had two or
more works published during the same year, the
reference, both in the text and in the reference list, should
be identified by a lower case letter like “a” and “b” after
the date to distinguish the works.
Examples:
Winograd (1986, p. 204)
(Winograd, 1986a, 1986b)
(Flores et al., 1988; Winograd, 1986)
(Bullen and Bennett, 1990)
References to books should include the author’s name;
year of publication; title; page numbers where
appropriate; publisher; place of publication, in the order
given in the example below.
Kotler, P. (1980). Marketing management: Analysis,
planning and control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 5-11.
References to articles in an edited collection should
include the author’s name; year of publication; article
title; editor’s name; title of collection; first and last page
numbers; publisher; place of publication, in the order
given in the example below.
Newton, L. (1988). The hostile takeover: An opposition
view. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical theory
and business, 3rd edition, (pp. 501-510). Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
References to articles in journals should include the
author’s name; year of publication; article title; full title
of periodical; volume number (issue number where
appropriate); first and last page number, in the order given
in the example below.
Sims, R. R. (1992). The challenge of ethical behaviour in
organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 11(7), 505-513.
Source: Journal of Business Ethics (2015)
? Academy of Management Review
2013, Vol. 38, No. 1, 49–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0145
MODERN SLAVERY AS A MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE: EXPLORING THE CONDITIONS AND
CAPABILITIES FOR HUMAN EXPLOITATION
ANDREW CRANE
York University
Scant attention has been paid to the phenomenon of modern slavery in the management literature. This article redresses this by identifying modern slavery as a management practice comprising exploiting/insulating capabilities and sustaining/
shaping capabilities. I present a model specifying how these microorganization-level
capabilities enable enterprises that deploy slavery to take advantage of the macroinstitutional conditions that permit the practice to flourish in the face of widespread
illegality and illegitimacy. I then advance potential implications for management
theory and suggestions for further theoretical and empirical research.
The use of slaves is typically viewed as an
obsolete form of premodern labor practice that
has been superseded by more legitimate and
humane practices. However, slavery is not simply a feature of economic history; it persists in
various forms and contexts in modern business,
including traditional slavery, bonded labor, human trafficking, and forced labor (Quirk, 2006).
Although hard empirical data are lacking,
widely cited estimates suggest that anywhere
up to thirty million slaves participate in today’s
global workforce (Bales, 2004; Kara, 2009), with
the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimating a minimum of around twelve million
(Belser, Cock, & Mehra, 2005). Well-known cases
include recent exposés of slave labor in the
West African cocoa industry (BBC, 2010; Mistrati
& Romano, 2010), the Uzbek cotton industry (Ansett, 2009), and agriculture in Spain (Lawrence,
2011). Yet modern slavery has been identified on
every continent. It is most prevalent in subcontinental Asia, West Africa, East Asia, the Middle
East, and Latin America but has been uncovered
in one guise or another in many developed
countries. For example, the U.S. Department of
Labor (2009) recently identified some fifty products involving significant use of forced labor
across twenty-nine countries. In the United
States itself, estimates suggest that somewhere
between 50,000 and 150,000 people are currently
enslaved (Bales & Soodalter, 2009; Schauer &
Wheaton, 2006). Moreover, human trafficking, a
common stage in the slavery business, has been
said by the United Nations to be the fastest
growing form of organized crime (United Nations, 2001). Slavery thus remains a viable management practice for many enterprises, despite
being universally condemned as unethical and
indeed criminalized in most jurisdictions and
under international law.
Extant research on modern slavery has primarily focused on victims, while the organizations involved in the trafficking and exploitation
of slaves have received scant attention (Laczko,
2005). This lack of attention to modern slavery
perpetuates what Cooke calls the “denial of
slavery in management studies” (2003: 1895).
This is problematic because it ignores the role of
companies and managers in one of the most
acute abuses of human rights in contemporary
business practice. As the United Nations (2003)
has declared, “Slavery and slavery-like practices continue to be among the greatest human
rights challenges facing the international community.”
Management research can, however, play an
important part in explaining the persistence of
slavery in the face of rules, norms, and practices
to the contrary. In this article I focus on enterprises directly practicing slavery as part of their
routine business. My aim is to explain how these
organizations manage to (1) exploit particular
competitive and institutional conditions that
can give rise to slavery, (2) insulate themselves
from institutional pressures against slavery,
I thank Daniela Defazio, Bryan Husted, Paul Lovejoy,
Dirk Matten, Joel Quirk, former associate editor David Lepak,
and three anonymous AMR reviewers for their insightful and
constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
49
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
50
Academy of Management Review
and (3) sustain or shape those conditions that
enable slavery to flourish or prevent it from
flourishing. I call this a “theory of modern slavery as a management practice.” This theory,
which involves the elucidation of both the macrolevel conditions necessary for slavery to persist and the microlevel capabilities necessary to
prosper in these conditions, represents the first
attempt to develop a substantive theory of modern slavery applicable at the enterprise level. In
order to build this theory, I develop a theoretical
framework that draws on institutional theory
and the strategic capabilities literature and
then provide detailed theoretical propositions
based on insights from a wide range of relevant
literature, including the economics of crime
(e.g., Dick, 1995), informal enterprise (e.g., Webb,
Tihanyi, Ireland, & Sirmon, 2009), human trafficking and migration (e.g., Salt & Stein, 1997),
and legal and empirical analyses of modern
slavery (e.g., Azmy, 2002; Bales, 2004). The ultimate purpose is to fashion a novel theoretical
contribution to management theory that creates
a new conversation about extreme human exploitation—to create theory that is not only robust but also engaged with “problems in the
world” (Kilduff, 2006: 252) and “deep-seated
problems of human misery” (Margolis & Walsh,
2003: 268).
The article is structured as follows. I begin by
defining modern slavery and then develop a
theoretical framework to embed modern slavery
as a management practice. I next account for the
persistence of slavery by identifying the external institutional conditions through which slavery is able to flourish, even in the face of near
universal illegality. Following this, I elaborate
on the internal capabilities necessary to sustain
slavery as a viable management practice in this
context. I conclude with suggestions for further
enriching our understanding of modern slavery
through management research and an elaboration of ways in which the theory might help in
the practical task of tackling modern slavery.
WHAT IS MODERN SLAVERY?
Slavery has existed for thousands of years
and has been present in various forms and in all
civilizations. Since its abolition in most developed nations in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, slavery has gradually transformed
from an officially approved practice based on
January
legal title and ethnic distinction to one that has
been criminalized and relocated to the informal
economy. This has made slavery considerably
more ambiguous and dynamic in the forms it
takes (Quirk, 2006).
Such developments pose difficulties for any
definition of modern slavery, since most scholarly examinations of slavery have focused on
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and
have framed their definitions of slavery within
the cultural, socioeconomic, and legal frameworks that existed during that time (Bales, 2005).
Indeed, the definition of slavery is itself controversial (Quirk, 2006). This is not only because of
differences in beliefs about which practices constitute slavery but also because the inclusion of
specific practices under the politically sensitive
rubric of “slavery” is often accompanied by obligations for states and other actors to carry out
remedial actions (Weissbrodt & Anti-Slavery International, 2002). Alternative labels include
forced labor and slavery-like practices (e.g.,
Belser et al., 2005; International Labour Office,
2009), but in this article I use the label modern
slavery since this is the most widely used
among researchers and campaigners.
An important first modern definition of slavery appeared in the 1926 League of Nations Slavery Convention, which defined slavery as “the
status or condition of a person over whom any or
all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised” (cited in Allain, 2009). This
acknowledgment that modern slavery is premised on the exercise of specific powers rather
than solely formal legal title has formed the
basis for most definitions of modern slavery and
is established in international law (Allain, 2009).
This is significant because slavery based on
legal ownership (or chattel slavery) is, given the
illegality of slavery almost everywhere, relatively rare among modern forms of slavery. Debates around modern slavery therefore encapsulate a range of practices involving the
exercise of “powers attaching to the right of
ownership.” This includes forms of forced,
bonded, and child labor, as well as human trafficking and forced marriage (e.g., Azmy, 2002;
Weissbrodt & Anti-Slavery International, 2002).
In this article I follow this conception of modern slavery but with some important caveats.
Specifically, I am concerned with slavery as a
management practice—that is, the use of slavery in the workplace. Hence, for my purposes, I
2013
Crane
exclude human trafficking from my definition of
slavery since it is concerned with the movement
of slaves from one place to another but not with
their use in economic activity. As such, I discuss
human trafficking only as part of the labor supply process for slavery—as part of the slavery
supply chain rather than slavery itself. Moreover, I do not include forced marriage (since it is
not workplace related) and am only concerned
with forms of child labor that specifically involve economic activity (e.g., I exclude child soldiers) and ownership-like relations (e.g., I exclude child participation in the “free”
workforce). Finally, I limit my analysis to slavery in private rather than public organizations,
since the former accounts for approximately
80 percent of all forced labor (Belser et al., 2005)
and the latter, such as forced labor in prisons,
represents a different organization of powers
attached to the right of ownership.
Having established these boundaries, I am
still left with the task of distinguishing modern
slavery—the exercise of “powers attaching to
the right of ownership”—from other types of labor abuse in the workplace. According to the
nongovernmental organization Anti-Slavery International, four features need to be considered—namely, that under modern slavery people are (1) forced to work through threat; (2)
owned or controlled by an “employer,” typically
through mental, physical, or threatened abuse;
(3) dehumanized and treated as a commodity;
and (4) physically constrained or restricted in
freedom of movement. All of these conditions
must be present for an arrangement to be considered representative of modern slavery, but
they involve degrees of variability (i.e., they are
not strictly categorical). Indeed, in the absence
of a hard legal definition, modern slavery is
effectively a “multi-faceted continuum” (Quirk,
2006: 577) along these dimensions. In the workplace we also need to consider an additional
dimension that must be present to constitute
slavery—namely, economic exploitation. For instance, it has been estimated that the financial
costs of slavery to forced laborers in terms of the
underpayment of wages amounts to something
like $19.6 billion (International Labour Office,
2009). Slavery might accommodate limited financial/nonfinancial remuneration, but only
where this is discretionary, below a “living
wage,” and subject to withholding and/or arbitrary deductions (see Andrees, 2008: 25). Thus,
51
rather than unpaid labor, it is more accurate to
specify the fifth dimension of slavery as being
(5) subject to economic exploitation through
underpayment.
Research on modern slavery to date has been
limited and has largely taken place outside of
the management literature—for example, in
law, geography, international development, and
gender studies. As a result, most studies have
focused on the victims rather than the organizations perpetrating slavery (Laczko, 2005). Considerable research attention has been afforded
to organizations in the literature on organized
crime and the management of illegal and illegitimate enterprises, but this has focused almost exclusively on voluntary participation in
crime rather than forced labor. Therefore, in the
following analysis I seek to develop a substantially new theory on slavery as a management
practice.
MODERN SLAVERY AS A
MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Slavery can take a range of forms and may be
deployed in a number of different business models (Shelley, 2003). Essentially, though, slavery is
an attempt to underprice a key resource (labor)
through illegitimate means. Hence, the key to
understanding modern slavery as a management practice is to determine how enterprises
deploy illegitimate practices to achieve underpricing and, when they do, how they succeed in
surviving. I term this institutional deflection,
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). However, the
emergence and persistence of pockets of slavery
practices suggest that in certain niches structural inertia withstands broader shifts in the
population and its environment (Hannan &
Freeman, 1984). That is, the institutional forces
that render slavery illegitimate are deflected
in some way by external and internal contingencies.
A number of factors might explain this deflection, including specificities of the niche economic environment that prompt nonconformity
to external labor norms perceived as economically threatening; the presence of alternative or
competing organizational fields with different
52
Academy of Management Review
norms and prohibitions (such as local cultures
or networks of organized crime); or the lack of
structuration of the prevailing organizational
field owing to isolation, limited professionalization, and low interorganizational dependencies
(see DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Drawing on these
explanations, I propose that it is possible to
identify a unique set of institutional and industry conditions that are, all things being equal,
more likely to lead to the emergence and persistence of slavery at the organization level.
Organizations are not, however, simply passive with regard to institutional and other external forces (DiMaggio, 1988; Greenwood &
Suddaby, 2006; Oliver, 1991). Institutional processes are “profoundly political” and reflect “the
relative power of organized interests and the
actors who mobilize around them” (DiMaggio,
1988: 13). Thus, slavery enterprises can potentially play an important role in influencing
whether the institutional environment will constrain these enterprises or enable them to deploy slavery as an ongoing labor practice. For
instance, it has long been recognized that organizations can develop nonmarket strategies that
shape the market environment and the broader
institutional context in which the organizations
operate (Baron, 1995). Similarly, Oliver (1991)
demonstrated that organizations can adopt a
range of strategic postures toward institutional
processes. That is, organizations might either be
able to avoid institutional pressures to conform
to more legitimate labor practices or manipulate
those pressures to help bolster the perceived
legitimacy of their own practices. In order for
such deflection strategies to be successful, however, organizations need to develop and deploy
internal resources (or combinations of resources) that enable them to exploit opportunities or neutralize threats in…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment