Nijhof, A. and Graafland, J.J. and Kuijer de, O. (2009): Exploration of an agenda for transparency in the construction industry. Published in: Construction Innovation , Vol. 3, No. 9 (2009): pp. 250-267.
Download (120kB) | Preview
Purpose In enhancing the market operation of the building sector, transparency is of great importance. The objective of this article is to propose an inventory of aspects of the relationships between public clients and executing parties that have the most urgent need for greater transparency.
Methodology / approach The main methods used include a conceptual analysis and twenty interviews with managers of various organisations in the construction industry.
Findings Based on this study, four essential points for transparency have been determined: openness about risks and costs, measuring of quality-price ratios, reasons for award or rejection and enhancement of the reputation mechanism.
Research limitations / implications This study takes the Dutch context as a reference point for the analysis. When the findings are used also in other settings, it is necessary to address the differences in characteristics of the building sector.
Practical implications The essential points for transparency addressed in this paper have consequences for especially the interaction between public clients and executing parties. Furthermore, conditions for transparency - like possibilities to judge quality in a more robust and transparent manner and methods for enhancing the reputation mechanism - point at necessary future research for improving transparency in the construction industry.
Originality / value of the paper The Dutch construction industry is working through a transition process focused on improving its market operation, integral processes and societal added value. In this transition, transparency between clients and executing parties is of great importance.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Exploration of an agenda for transparency in the construction industry|
|Keywords:||Transparency; construction sector; trust; reputation; integrity|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D86 - Economics of Contract: Theory
D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D23 - Organizational Behavior ; Transaction Costs ; Property Rights
L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L14 - Transactional Relationships ; Contracts and Reputation ; Networks
M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M14 - Corporate Culture ; Diversity ; Social Responsibility
L - Industrial Organization > L7 - Industry Studies: Primary Products and Construction > L74 - Construction
|Depositing User:||Johan Graafland|
|Date Deposited:||27. Jan 2010 16:26|
|Last Modified:||21. May 2015 10:03|
Blok, M. and Graafland, J. 2004: Subsidiariteit, soevereiniteit in eigen kring en de bouwfraude [“Subsidiarity, sovereignty within own circle and the construction fraud”], Philosophia Reformatica 69, 2-13.
Bovenberg, A.L. 2002: Norms, values and technological change, The Economists 150, 521-553.
Browning, E.K. and Zupan, M.A. 1996: Microeconomic Theory and Applications, HarpinCollins College Publishers, New York.
Byggeriets Evaluering Center (the Benchmark Centre for the Danish Construction Sector), Presentation, available at: hppt://www.byggeevaluering.dk/
Chan A. P. C. and Chan, D. W. M. 2004: Developing a benchmark model for project construction time performance in Hong Kong, Building and Environment 39 (3), 339-349.
Council for the Annual Reports 2003: Annual Report Guideline 400, Kluwer, Deventer.
Egan, J. 1998: Rethinking construction: the report of the construction task force on the scope for improvingthe quality and efficiency of UK construction. Department of the Environment, Transport and the regions, HMSO, London, www.strategicprojectsolutions.com/docs/Rethinking_Construction_Report.pdf -
FD 2005: Publiek associeert imago bouwsector nog altijd met fraude [Public still associates the image of the construction sector with fraud] , Financieel Dagblad, 10th May 2005, p. 13
Fung, A., Graham, M. and Weil, D. 2002: The political economy of transparency: What makes disclosure policies sustainable? Harvard University, Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Working paper OPS-02-03.
Graafland, J.J. 2002: Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: the case of C&A, Business Ethics: A European Review 11, 282-94.
Graafland, J.J. 2004: Collusion, reputation damage and interest in code of conduct: The case of a Dutch construction company, Business Ethics: A European Review 13, 127-42.
Graafland, J.J. and Smid, H. 2004: Reputation, Corporate Social Responsibility and Market Regulation, Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management XLIX, 271-308.
Graafland, J.J. 2006: De bouwfraude [The construction fraud], in: W. Dubbink and H. van Luijk (eds.), Bedrijfsgevallen. Morele beslissingen van ondernemingen, Van Gorkum, Assen, 160-72.
Graafland, J., Nijhof, A. 2007: Transparancy, Market Operation and Trust in the Dutch Construction Industry; An explorative Study, Construction Management and Economics 25, 195-205.
Hummels, H. and Karssing, E. 2000: Ethiek organiseren” [Organizing Ethics], in Jeurissen, R. (ed.), Bedrijfsethiek een goede zaak [Business Ethics, a good cause], Van Gorcum, Assen, 196-224.
Khalfan, M.M.A. and McDermott, P. 2006: Innovating for supply chain integration within construction, Construction Innovation 6, 143-57. Kaptein, M. 1998: Ethics Management: Auditing and developing the ethics content of organisations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Kaptein, M. 2003: De open onderneming: een bedrijfsethisch vraagstuk, [The open enterprise: a business ethics issue], in: Kaptein, M. and Wempe, J., De Open Onderneming, [The Open Enterprise] ERIM, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Klein Woolthuis, R.J.A. 1999: Sleeping with the Enemy: Trust, Dependence and Contracts in Interorganisational Relationships, Twente University.
Klundert, T. van de 1999: Economic efficiency and ethics, De Economist 147, 127-49.
Lau, H. C.W., Lau, P.K.H., Fung, R.Y.K., Chan, F.T.S., Ip, R.W.L. 2005: A virtual case benchmarking scheme for vendors' performance assessment, Benchmarking An International Journal 12:1, 61-80.
Macneil, I.R. 1974: The many futures of contract, Southern California Law Review 47, 691-738.
Macneil, I.R. 1980: The new social contract: An inquiry into modern contractual relations, Yale University Press Ministry of Economic Affairs 2004: Transparantiebenchmark 2004 [Transparency benchmark 2004], The Hague.
North, D.C. 1990: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Price Waterhouse Coopers 2003: Global Economic Crime Survey, www.pwc.com/crimesurvey.
Regieraad 2005: Het jaar van de fundamenten [Management Council, 2005, The year of the foundations].
Priemus, H. 2002: Opgaven voor de parlementaire enquête bouwfraude [Tasks for the parliamentary survey into construction fraud], Economisch Statische Berichten 87 (4345), 84-87.
QS (Quintessens of Holland Railconsult) 2005: jaargang 15 (3).
Stewart R.A. and Waroonkun, T. 2007: Benchmarking construction technology transfer in Thailand, Construction Innovation Information Process Management 7(3), 218-39.
Waarden, F. van 2003: Bouwenquête beperkt bestek” [Building Enquiry limited specifications], Economic Static Messages 88(4393), 36-39.
Wardani, M. A. El, Messner, J. I. and Horman, M. J. 2006: Comparing Procurement Methods for Design-Build Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132 (3), 230-38.
Williamson, O.E. 1985: The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, The Free Press, New York. Zadek, S., Prudan, P. and Evans, R. 1997: Building Corporate Accountability, Earthscan Publications, London.