Consuming Worker Exploitation? Accounts and Justifications for Consumer (In)action to Modern Slavery

Dados Bibliográficos

ID2374428
AutoresMichal Carrington (0000-0001-7495-6206, The University of Melbourne, autor correspondente), Andreas Chatzidakis (0000-0002-3151-881X, Royal Holloway University of London), Deirdre Shaw (0000-0002-7492-6290, University of Glasgow)
Ano2021
Volume35
Fascículo3
Páginas432-450
Data de publicação2021-06-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoWork Employment and Society (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0950-0170 • E-ISSN: 1469-8722
EditoraSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0950017020926372
OpenAlexW3042004205
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas9
Referências citadas44

While research has examined the plight of vulnerable workers, the role of consumers who drive demand for slave-based services and products has been largely neglected. This is an important gap given both historical evidence of the effectiveness of 18th and 19th century anti-slavery consumer activism and recent attempts to regulate slavery through harnessing consumer power, such as the UK's Modern Slavery Act 2015. This article draws on data from in-depth interviews with 40 consumers, to identify their understanding of modern slavery, before revealing the neutralising and legitimising techniques they use to justify their (in)action. Our findings contribute to, and extend, neutralisation theory by exploring its applicability in this unique context. We also position techniques of legitimisation as central to understanding how modern slavery is tolerated through a variety of discursive and institutional factors

Action (physics · Archaeology · Business · Context (archaeology · Environmental ethics · Political economy · Political science · Position (finance · Power (physics · Sociology · Variety (cybernetics · Digital Economy and Work Transformation · Global trade, sustainability, and social impact · History · Sex work and related issues · Marketing