Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > How do firms manage ethically-contested organis...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

How do firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes? Insights from two historical case studies of modern slavery

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

How do firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes? Insights from two historical case studies of modern slavery. / Wong, Nicholas D.; Smith, Andrew; Cruz, Allan Discua et al.
In: Business History, Vol. 67, No. 2, 31.03.2025, p. 629-657.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Wong ND, Smith A, Cruz AD, Burton N, Charalambous E. How do firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes? Insights from two historical case studies of modern slavery. Business History. 2025 Mar 31;67(2):629-657. Epub 2025 Jan 10. doi: 10.1080/00076791.2024.2442337

Author

Wong, Nicholas D. ; Smith, Andrew ; Cruz, Allan Discua et al. / How do firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes? Insights from two historical case studies of modern slavery. In: Business History. 2025 ; Vol. 67, No. 2. pp. 629-657.

Bibtex

@article{17e0886b0e784bcfbbd58d96a685e42b,
title = "How do firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes? Insights from two historical case studies of modern slavery",
abstract = "Management researchers, particularly those focused on socially important issues such as worker exploitation, are increasingly interested in what this study terms ethically-contested organisational paradoxes. Such paradoxes occur when there is an incongruity between the ethical dimensions of a firm{\textquoteright}s action in one area, geographical or functional, and another. To understand how firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes, this study conducts historical research on two twentieth century firms, Cadbury and Rowntree, who were lauded by contemporaries for their enlightened treatment of domestic workforces whilst simultaneously being engaged in labour practices overseas that were controversial and exploitative. This study examines how two multigenerational family firms managed the paradox inherent in the significant difference in how they treated their workers at home and abroad. This study identifies three types of strategies that firm leaders used to manage the existence of ethically-contested organisational paradoxes: disinforming, subordinating, and self-doubting.",
keywords = "Organisational paradox, business ethics, family business, modern slavery, worker exploitation",
author = "Wong, {Nicholas D.} and Andrew Smith and Cruz, {Allan Discua} and Nicholas Burton and Elenia Charalambous",
year = "2025",
month = mar,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1080/00076791.2024.2442337",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "629--657",
journal = "Business History",
issn = "0007-6791",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - How do firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes? Insights from two historical case studies of modern slavery

AU - Wong, Nicholas D.

AU - Smith, Andrew

AU - Cruz, Allan Discua

AU - Burton, Nicholas

AU - Charalambous, Elenia

PY - 2025/3/31

Y1 - 2025/3/31

N2 - Management researchers, particularly those focused on socially important issues such as worker exploitation, are increasingly interested in what this study terms ethically-contested organisational paradoxes. Such paradoxes occur when there is an incongruity between the ethical dimensions of a firm’s action in one area, geographical or functional, and another. To understand how firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes, this study conducts historical research on two twentieth century firms, Cadbury and Rowntree, who were lauded by contemporaries for their enlightened treatment of domestic workforces whilst simultaneously being engaged in labour practices overseas that were controversial and exploitative. This study examines how two multigenerational family firms managed the paradox inherent in the significant difference in how they treated their workers at home and abroad. This study identifies three types of strategies that firm leaders used to manage the existence of ethically-contested organisational paradoxes: disinforming, subordinating, and self-doubting.

AB - Management researchers, particularly those focused on socially important issues such as worker exploitation, are increasingly interested in what this study terms ethically-contested organisational paradoxes. Such paradoxes occur when there is an incongruity between the ethical dimensions of a firm’s action in one area, geographical or functional, and another. To understand how firms manage ethically-contested organisational paradoxes, this study conducts historical research on two twentieth century firms, Cadbury and Rowntree, who were lauded by contemporaries for their enlightened treatment of domestic workforces whilst simultaneously being engaged in labour practices overseas that were controversial and exploitative. This study examines how two multigenerational family firms managed the paradox inherent in the significant difference in how they treated their workers at home and abroad. This study identifies three types of strategies that firm leaders used to manage the existence of ethically-contested organisational paradoxes: disinforming, subordinating, and self-doubting.

KW - Organisational paradox

KW - business ethics

KW - family business

KW - modern slavery

KW - worker exploitation

U2 - 10.1080/00076791.2024.2442337

DO - 10.1080/00076791.2024.2442337

M3 - Journal article

VL - 67

SP - 629

EP - 657

JO - Business History

JF - Business History

SN - 0007-6791

IS - 2

ER -