Structuration of precarious employment in economically constrained firms: the case of Dutch agriculture

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12024
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• Date: 01 January 2014

Structuration of precarious employment in

economically constrained firms: the case of Dutch

agriculture

Brigitte Kroon and Jaap Paauwe, Human Resource Studies, Faculty of Social and

Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 24, no 1, 2014, pages 19–37

Precarious employment practices such as short-term contracts, low pay and lack of voice have undesired

outcomes for workers, because these impede employees in their ethical rights to freedom, well-being and

equality. Still, precarious employment practice is common in sectors with restrained economic conditions,

such as Dutch agriculture. However, in every restrained industry, examples of more socially responsible

employment management are reported. The question why some firms develop more socially responsible

employment systems when economic conditions predict the use of low cost, precarious employment

systems is central in this article. Structuration theory provides a lens to understand how employers

position their employment practice in the wider (institutionalised) social context. Insight in the

reproduction circuits that link employers’ actions with their social context (product, market, institutions

and policies, demographics) can reveal where, at a sector level, change to avoid unethical employment

practice could start.

Contact: Brigitte Kroon, Human Resource Studies, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, Tilburg,

5000 LE, The Netherlands. Email: b.kroon@uvt.nl

INTRODUCTION

Ongoing globalisation and labour offshoring have not led to low-skilled work

completely vanishing from high-income countries. In particular, the hotel and

restaurant industry, the personal services sector, food manufacturing and agricultural

businesses still host large numbers of low-paid and generally low-skilled jobs (Gauthié and

Schmitt, 2010). Precarious employment practices such as uncertainty about employment

continuity, arbitrary discipline, lack of employee voice and low wages are expected to fit with

the marginal economic position of firms in these sectors (Appelbaum and Schmitt, 2009; Pena,

2010; ILO, 2011). However, not all firms in these sectors automatically use precarious practices

that violate ethical rights of employees (Edwards and Ram, 2006; Simmons, 2008). Idiosyncratic

examples of organisations in which investments in employees prevail over low-cost

employment practice exist in each sector (e.g. Hoque, 1999; Knox and Walsh, 2005; Edwards

et al., 2009). An integrative theoretical framework is offered that incorporates institutionalist

insights on sector structure as well as human agency processes to explain heterogeneity in

employment systems when economic conditions predict the use of low-cost, precarious

employment systems (Barret and Rainnie, 2002; Edwards and Ram, 2006). As structuration

theory (Giddens, 1984) integrates the actions of agents in the wider social (institutionalised)

structure (Barley and Tolbert, 1997), it is more effective in explaining processes that sustain both

within sector conformity like heterogeneity than other integrative approaches such as

institutionalism (Heracleous and Hendry, 2000). The research draws on interview data obtained

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12024

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 1, 2014 19

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Kroon, B. and Paauwe, J. (2014) ‘Structuration of precarious employment in economically constrained firms: the

case of Dutch agriculture’. Human Resource Management Journal 24: 1, 19–37.

from employers and experts in one highly competitive industry in a wealthy country:

agriculture in the Netherlands. But first, the theoretical foundations will be explained in more

detail in the next sections.

PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT

Employment management systems are organisational routines concerned with how

management aligns the behaviour of employees to the goals of the organisation (Feldman and

Pentland, 2003; Boxall and Purcell, 2008). Although most literature is concerned with the

economic linkage between employment management systems and organisation performance,

evidently there is an ethical component to employment that becomes apparent in the discourse

about precarious employment (Greenwood, 2002). The distinction between precarious – and

socially responsible employment exemplifies the economic and ethical perspectives on

employment.

In a strictly economic view, labour is a commodity for company performance. In exchange

for some return, employees allow employers to exercise authority over how their behaviour is

aligned. Under cost-reduction strategies, precarious work systems characterised by adverse

contractual arrangements and unfavourable work conditions for employees provide the least

expensive way to employ human resources (Schuler and Jackson, 1987). However, from an

ethical point of view, labour is not just another commodity. Following Kantian ethics, the way

in which authority is exercised over employees should be an end in itself, meaning that

employers should not undermine the autonomy of others (employees), and that employees

should be treated with respect (Greenwood, 2002). Hence, ethical principles put some

restrictions on the economic considerations in managing labour.

In practice, ethical considerations of employment management show in social discourse

about ‘good employership’ (Van Dalen, 2006), decent work (ILO, 2011) and socially responsible

HRM (an employee stakeholder view as part of corporate social responsibility) (Simmons,

2008). The shared understanding is that all employees have the right to freedom, well-being

and equality (Rowan, 2000). The right to freedom touches upon managerial control over

workers and on providing employees with sufficient income to live as an independent person,

that is, for example, by having job security and a fair wage. The right to well-being points at

the rights of individuals to pursue their own interests or goals, such as that all employees have

the freedom of association and collective bargaining. It also emphasises a safe work

environment, both physically and socially. Finally, the right to equality refers to due processes

in the workplace (equity, equal opportunity, justice) (Greenwood, 2002). From here, it follows

that absence of these rights indicate unethical management of human resources. The ILO (2011)

in particular labelled this ‘precarious work’, defined by the presence of adverse contractual

arrangements and work conditions that violate employee ethical rights and that withhold

individuals to make an independent living. Table 1 summarises typical employment

management practices under precarious and socially responsible employment (Gallie, 2007;

ILO, 2011).

In industries where labour costs are the largest component of the total production costs,

margins on products or services are low due to fierce price competition, and labour is a

commodity factor in production in the sense that one employee can easily be replaced by

another, precarious work systems will more likely be present (Rainnie, 1991; Michie and

Sheehan-Quinn, 2001; Gittel and Bamber, 2010; Thompson et al., 2012). Labour-intensive

agriculture is an industry that fits many of these characteristics (Pena, 2010). Previous research

in other economically restrained industries, such as the hotel and restaurant industry has

Structuration of precarious employment

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 1, 201420

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.