See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28578913

The ethical benefits of trust-based partnering:

The example of the construction industry

Article in Business Ethics A European Review · January 2002

DOI: 10.1111/1467-8608.00254 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

56 256

3 authors, including:

Peter Mcdermott Will Swan

University of Salford University of Salford
35 PUBLICATIONS 321 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 256 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Will Swan on 05 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Volume 11 Number 1 January 2002
The ethical benefits of
trust-based partnering:
the example of the
construction industry1
Graham Wood, Peter McDermott and Will Swan
Introduction
In industries where inter-organisational relation-
ships are an increasingly important part of busi-
ness the ability to build sustainable relationships
is necessary. To achieve sustainable relationships
parties need to develop from a low trust/low ethics
base to a high trust/high ethics base in their relat-
ing. Rhetoric and action must shift from meta-
phors for business as competition, as in war or
sport, to metaphors for business as co-operation
and trust, as in a moral community. This is not to
suggest an absence of self-interest but to posit a
situation where interest to self is balanced against
interests of others. This need to build trust and
ethics together has already been remarked upon
by Brenkert (1998) and Flores and Solomon (1998).
This paper aims to synthesise the ethics and trust
literatures with data from an on-going study into
trust-based partnering in order to test the proposi-
tion that trust-based relationships improve and
reinforce ethical behaviour. Our argument is that
partnering in the construction industry is ethical
partnering, because in this particular industry
context, trusting demands high ethical standards.
Trust is thus an ethical construct.
For the UK construction industry improving
its ethical performance is recognised as important
(Latham 1994, Egan 1998). The industry has a
reputation for poor quality and service, a bad
safety record, and a history of broken promises
4 and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
and sharp practice. Its previous adversarial re-
lationships often produced zero sum games for
those involved, and delivered poorly on cost, time
and quality for its clients. The most frequently
discussed institutional form of co-operative be-
haviour in construction is partnering. The essence
of partnering is single-source, long-term relation-
ships (Wilson and Wilson 1994). Such relation-
ships are business-focused; directed at solving
problems, rather than simply selling products. The
partners move from a technology of selling to the
process of interaction (Nooteboom 1992). New
relationships must be forged as the industry moves
from competitive, adversarial to co-operative re-
lations based on reciprocity and solidarity (Wood
and McDermott 1999). Trust is a key component
of any such new architecture of networks, rela-
tionships and communication (Anderson and
Narus 1991, Morgan and Hunt 1994). However,
much apparent trust may be illusory, the result of
compliance by the less powerful in the relationship
(Hardy et al. 1998).
Our data suggests that engaging in trust-based
partnering encourages parties to adopt higher
ethical standards, and achieve improved ethical
performance in all their business dealings. Trust-
based partnering has the potential to produce an
improvement in the ethical climate of the con-
struction industry. This study answers Noorder-
haven’s (1999) appeal for more empirical data and
less theory on trust.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
 Business Ethics: A European Review
In the rest of the paper we seek to explain what
we call ‘ethical partnering’, to establish how this
concept is supported by our data and to suggest
that improvements in ethical standards of be-
haviour, that is ethical partnering, have the poten-
tial to end the dysfunctional inter-organisational
relations in the construction industry.
Trust
Traditionally organisations have looked to the in-
stitutions of property rights, contracts and com-
mercial law as a mechanism for sealing-in the
benefits from relationships. However, Williamson
(1975) observed that because of bounded ration-
ality, and the cost of negotiating, writing and
implementing a contract, no totally comprehen-
sive contract is possible. If confidence between
partners is to develop they need to build trust in
each other. Fukuyama (1995) argues that trans-
action costs can be lowered by social capital and
trust. But it is not always possible to achieve this:
in titling his interim report ‘‘Trust and Money’’
Latham was signaling the importance he attached
to the lack of trust in the UK construction
industry (Latham 1993).
Trust is recognised as an essential component of
increased inter-organisational relating (Mayer et al.
1995, Kramer and Tyler 1996, Rousseau et al.
1998). There is an increasing consensus that any
definition of trust has to involve recognition of
a willingness to be vulnerable (Mayer et al. 1995,
Mishra 1996). Rousseau et al. (1998: 365) offered
the following definition: ‘‘Trust is a psychological
state comprising the intention to accept vulner-
ability based upon positive expectations of the
intentions or behaviour of another.’’ Amongst the
dimensions of trust Mishra (1996) included con-
cern, indicating clearly that parties building trust
accept at least partial responsibility for the welfare
of the other. Trust always involves an element of
risk that a partner will abuse the trust placed in
them. Where there is no vulnerability, there is no
need for trust. Trust is built up over a series of
interpersonal encounters (Moorman et al. 1993),
in which the parties establish reciprocal obliga-
tions (Nooteboom 1992).
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
Brenkert (1998) noted the growing importance
of trust within and between business organisa-
tions. ‘‘Trust is said not only to reduce transaction
costs, make possible the sharing of sensitive
information, permit joint projects of various
kinds, but also to provide a basis for expanded
moral relations in business’’ (Brenkert 1998: 195).
The managers reported on in this paper are moral
managers, though they might reject that label. In
their daily business practice they engage with
values, principles and moral precepts as they seek
to establish relationships, built on trust rather
than contract, with those with whom they do
business, though they would see this approach as
being pragmatic. Working this way is better in the
sense that the returns, both short- and long-term,
are higher.
Trust is a multidimensional (Sako 1992, Ganesan
1994, McAllister 1995), multifaceted social phen-
omenon (Fukuyama 1995, Misztal 1996), which is
regarded by some as an attitude (Luhmann 1988,
Flores and Solomon 1998), and by yet others as a
vital social lubricant (Gambetta 1988, Fukuyama
1995). In spite of the large literature on the
subject, Gambetta (1988) still saw trust as an
elusive concept, and ten years later Misztal (1996)
noted the continuing conceptual confusion that
surrounded this social phenomenon. It is not
within the scope of this paper to review the whole
of this literature, but there are good reviews in
Misztal (1996), Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau
et al. (1998). Rather, we wish to focus on those
particular sections germane to our interest in part-
nering approaches to construction procurement.
Ethical partnering
Our argument is that partnering in the construc-
tion industry is ethical partnering, because in this
industry context trusting demands high ethical
standards. Trust is an ethical construct. Among
the qualities of trust identified in the literature
are integrity, honesty, truthfulness, reliability,
dependability, openness, and respect for the
other’s autonomy and fairness. Ethical partnering
places trust at the centre, but it involves other
features that need at least to be identified. Any
5
 Volume 11 Number 1 January 2002
ethical partnership will be entered into freely, with
no coercion involved on any of the partners to join
or stay within the relationship. All ethical partner-
ships are voluntary arrangements, but given the
economic imperative that drives most business
organisations the freedom to choose business
partners is sometimes relative. What remains true
is that any ethical relationship needs to establish
an equitable basis on which to share any surplus
(Nooteboom 1992). However, as Husted (1998)
and Watson (1998) argue, developing trust is not a
guarantee that ethical purposes are being pursued.
Many criminal groups, such as the Mafia, develop
high levels of trust, but they are not ethical, since
criminal behaviour is regarded as unethical as well
as illegal. Ends are important.
The potential for abuse and vulnerability is
greater the closer the relationship that develops,
which is why trust and ethical conduct are so
critical. Engaging in partnering has highlighted
the need for open and honest communications,
which have the potential to develop into an ethical
dialogue. Thus the operative conception of ‘com-
munication’ is critical. Each partner must come
openly and genuinely into a relationship based
upon reciprocity and the gaining of mutual ad-
vantage. This is not to argue for the absence of
self-interest from these relationships; they are
commercial relationships, if they did not remain
so the relationship would end, but to argue that
self-interest will be balanced against the interests
of the other parties. If parties do not gain satis-
faction from the relationship they will withdraw.
At a prima facie level we would anticipate that
the notion of virtue ethics would appear especially
pertinent to partnering relationships. Partners in a
relationship usually go beyond the cost-benefit
calculation associated with consequences-oriented
ethical approaches. Even the best of intentions
and sense of honour of the partners (duty based
theories) are sometimes not enough to make a
relationship endure over long periods of time. A
set of good habits, or virtues is essential for those
involved in partnering relationships (Laczniak and
Murphy 1993, Williams and Murphy 1990). Mishra
(1996) suggested concern as one of four dimensions
of trust, which is expressed in a willingness to take
some responsibility for the welfare of the other
6 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
party as the only way to build enduring and
sustainable relationships.
A number of virtues associated with partnering
relationships have already been identified above:
honesty, fairness, benevolence, integrity, reliabil-
ity, reputation, commitment and trust. Organisa-
tions, then, are seeking honest, fair, reliable,
benevolent partners who will commit themselves
to the relationship and prove trustworthy. In
other words, they seek ethical partners.
Research methodology
The fieldwork for the project was conducted over
an eighteen-month period that covered the prep-
aration for and the initial phase of the present
study. Twenty-one semi-structured interviews
were collected, focused around questions about
the respondent’s conception of trust, and the
behaviours they associate with trust. Four of the
interviewees helped with the initial conceptualisa-
tion and framing of the study but have taken no
further part in the funded phases of the project.
The other seventeen were all employees of con-
struction organisations which are joint sponsors
of the research project. Of these seventeen, eight
were interacting with each other on one partnered
project and four on another, with both of these
construction projects forming the initial phase
of the research study. Members of the group of
twenty-one represented a number of construction-
related professions or disciplines, including archi-
tects/designers, quantity surveyors, development
managers or directors, builders, project managers:
there was one HR director and one contracts con-
sultant. Their experience in the industry ranged
from less than five years to over thirty years, and
their experience ranged from junior managers
up to main board directors. No interviews were
conducted with people below junior managerial
level. No other personal details were collected be-
cause within the objectives of the study there was
no intention to relate the data to individuals.
Each interview was conducted around a short
questionnaire of six open-ended questions (see
Appendix 1), with all interviews recorded to allow
for the verification of the contemporaneous notes
 Business Ethics: A European Review
taken at each interview. All interviews were
conducted face to face on the interviewee’s own
premises. The length of interview ranged from
forty-five minutes to one and a half-hours, with a
mean length of one hour five minutes. None of the
six questions directly addresses the issue of ethical
standards or behaviour. We adopted the position
of ‘active and reflexive’ interviewers (Mason 1996)
by taking the opportunity to pursue clarification
where necessary. This has enabled us to explore
more deeply issues of particular concern to re-
spondents, or interesting observations they made.
As already reported above, eight of the inter-
viewees were interacting on one construction project,
and a further four on another. In answering the
questions in the questionnaire respondents were
told to base their answers on their experience:
many of the twelve interpreted this to mean
experience largely, but not exclusively, on the
current project. This provided us with a useful way
of validating respondents’ narratives on trust
building and ethics. The construction industry is
currently so suffused with the rhetoric of partner-
ing that it is difficult to assess reliably whether or
not respondents are offering interviewers what
they want to hear rather than the reality of their
experience. The common membership of construc-
tion projects within our study enabled us to intro-
duce a useful verification mechanism. Stories and
narratives tally amongst the respondents engaged
on the same projects, adding reliability to the find-
ings reported below. It is also useful to remember
that no questions were asked specifically on ethics
topics; indeed the suggestion that trust and ethics
were closely intertwined came, without prompting,
from one of the interviewees not associated with
the current research study.
Analysis
We used the SphinxLexica software package to
analyse the data, which consisted of the twenty-
one interview transcripts. Using a lexical analysis
option to analyse the content of the transcripts,
the programme scans the whole text and generates
a lexicon of all words used in the twenty-one
transcripts, in our case this was 1597 words. To
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
reduce this to manageable proportions it is
possible to eliminate from the lexicon any words
which carry no obvious relevant content, either
because they are commonly used words such as,
‘the’, ‘and’, ‘also’ and so on, or because the word
did not carry any relevant content connection.
Where there was any doubt it is possible to read
the fragment of text within which the word
appears to eliminate any doubt or ambiguity. This
allowed us to reduce the lexicon to 152 words.
This is a systematic and efficient way of examining
a large volume of data.
At the second stage of analysis each fragment of
text containing one of the 152 words in the lexicon
was examined to determine the meaning within
which the word was being used and its context.
From this content analysis we were able to
generate fourteen groups of words, with words
in each group reflecting instances when respon-
dents were discussing the same dimension of trust.
For example, whether the word we isolated was,
trust, trusted, trustworthiness or mistrust the
respondents would be discussing their concept of
what it is to trust. Or where the word used was
promise, promise-keeping, delivery or reliability
respondents were talking about their own or other
parties’ ability to keep promises. The results of
this coding of the content analysis in terms of the
fourteen groups with their relative emphasis
(determined by number of mentions) is given in
Table 1.
Further examination of the fragments of text
extracted by the software allowed the identifica-
tion of those instances where the ethical content or
meaning was strongest and reduced the fourteen
groups to eight: promise-keeping, fairness/reason-
ableness, mutuality/reciprocity, honesty/integrity,
openness/communications, values/ethics, repu-
tation, and blame culture. These interviews were
focussed on respondents’ conceptions and experi-
ence of the construct trust, but, for instance, there
are 94 instances where respondents discuss the
issue of honesty and integrity, and similarly with
the values and ethics category, where there are
72 instances when respondents raise the issue. This
suggests that in their minds they perceive that
ethics is inextricably entwined with trust and trust
building.
7
 Volume 11 Number 1 January 2002

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Table 1: An initial coding of categories of ethical dimensions in trust

Coding category Example vocabulary

Trust (654) Trust/trusted/trustworthiness (577), mistrust/untrustworthy (24), betray trust (17)
Relationships (124) Partnering/relating/friendship (57), support/co-operation (26)
Value (76) Value (76)
Confidence (51) Confidence (33), faith (18)
Competence (28) Competence (28)
Professional (21) Professional (20), unprofessional (1)
Promise-keeping (149) Promise/promise-keeping (42), delivery (74), reliability (27)
Fairness/reasonableness (110) Fairness (58), unfairness (16), reasonable (28)
Mutuality/reciprocity (97) Mutuality (39), reciprocity (14), expectations/obligations/duty (32)
Honesty/integrity (94) Honesty (51), integrity (13), truth (16)
Openness/communications (82) Communications (42), openness/frankness (40)
Values/ethics (72) Values (39), ethics/morals (19)
Reputation (70) Reputations (44), respect/valued (26)
Blame culture (21) Blame culture (21)
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

In a study focused on trust-based partnering we as with trust. By incorporating the openness/

are inevitably going to see the word trust and its communications into our observations on honest/
derivatives appear frequently. It was evident that integrity and the observations on blame culture
it was often discussed in the context of our other into the fairness/reasonableness category, these
categories, such as promise-keeping, honesty and eight were reduced to a final six ethical dimensions
fairness, so the same observations are being cap- of trust (see Table 2).
tured twice. Further, we would not be surprised to
discover that our respondents wanted to develop
relationships, and to do so with those who were Discussion
competent and professional who could add value
to their organisations. These are necessary pre- We have six dimensions in Table 2, all of which
requisites for having the confidence to engage in are very much dimensions defined around ethics.
business relationships with other organisations. Openness of communications and honesty receives
Again after further investigation we were able to the most mentions at 176, followed reasonably
eliminate these categories, because either there closely by promise-keeping with 149 mentions
were no ethical aspects to the observations or they and fairness/reasonableness with 131. This closely
were being captured in another of the categories, matches the results in other studies into trust

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Table 2: A refined coding of categories of ethical dimensions in trust

Coding category Example vocabulary

Honesty/openness in communications (176) Honesty (51), integrity (13), openness/frankness (40),
Promise-keeping (149) Promise/promise- keeping (42), delivery (74), reliability (27)
Fairness/reasonableness (131) Fairness (58), reasonable (28), blame culture (21)
Mutuality/reciprocity (97) Mutuality (39), reciprocity (14), expectations/obligations/duty (32)
Values/ethics (72) Values (39), ethics/morals (19)
Reputation (70) Reputation(s) (44), respect/valued (26)
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

8 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

 Business Ethics: A European Review
(Mayer et al. 1995, Mishra 1996) which find that
there are three or four major dimensions to the
construct trust. In this paper we wish to stress that
in building trust, the respondents build ethics as
well so that the term ‘ethical partnering’ is a
reality. Each of these dimensions will be discussed
and illustrated by direct quotations from the
interview transcripts.
1 Honesty/openness in communications
Many respondents highlighted the need for constant
trading of information and open communications.
Indeed just more than half of the observations in
the openness/communications category refer to
this need. The other half are very much focused on
the need to be open and frank,
communicating honestly – HM
as one respondent put it. Central to open com-
munications, to operating with overt not covert
agendas was a requirement that the partner was
honest, a person of integrity,
integrity is the most important quality – EW
which is why these two categories have been
collapsed together. Probably the most important
characteristic an individual needs to possess if they
are to be trusted is honesty.
You have to have integrity in what you say – EW
Partners are judged on their honesty, and the out-
come of that judgement determines the willingness
to trust. Many previous studies have reported on
the importance of honesty, integrity and openness
to the development of trust in another (Anderson
and Narus 1991, Mayer et al. 1995, Kumar 1996,
Clark and Payne 1997). Indeed Beccera and
Huemer (2000) argue that integrity appears to be
a fundamental dimension of trust. Where the
other is revealed as deceitful or lying is one of the
few instances where trust is immediately and
irrevocably withdrawn. A lack of openly shared
information leads to distrust (see Gambetta 1988).
Telling lies is a reason to mistrust – IW.
2 Promise-keeping
Promise-keeping is seen as vital for the develop-
ment of any trusting partnership or relationship
(Swan et al. 1985). Two partners who cannot rely
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
on each other to keep promises are unlikely to be
able to develop trust in each other, and thus go on
to develop a sustainable relationship, which is a
vital component of the partnering philosophy.
You should never promise what you cannot
deliver – do not mislead with false promises – DB.
Not surprisingly we recorded more observations
for promise-keeping than any other of the ethically
related categories amongst our respondents. This
appears to be the key test of a partner’s reliability,
their ability to deliver what they promise. This
manifested itself in many guises within the inter-
view data, whether respondents were lamenting
the problems of people not delivering on time –
HM
or that companies need to be able to rely on
others,
you have to rely on people because you haven’t
got the time, resources or knowledge to do
everything yourself – SP.
To our respondents,
trust is about being reliable– DF,
and being reliable is about delivering what you
promise. Even the most trivial of promises, agree-
ing to return a telephone call, must be delivered to
gain trust as a promise-keeper.
Reliability is the key factor in my willingness to
trust – DG
For these respondents failure to keep to what was
promised is a breach of trust or betrayal. This is a
particularly acute issue in construction, which can
be likened to a process of constant re-negotiation
of the contract or specification. Ganesan’s (1994)
results suggest that the decision to trust is based on
objective evidence of reliability. Promise-keeping,
then, is one test of reliability.
3 Fairness/reasonableness
Respondents wanted to partner with those they
perceived as fair and reasonable in their approach
to business dealing. Respondents had a strong
desire for equity in their partnerships.
People have to be fair and reasonable – AJ.
By fair they may mean
being willing to share benefits coming out of the
situation – EF,
and again,
9
 Volume 11 Number 1 January 2002
I am looking more seriously at doing more gain
sharing – IW.
Or they mean that their views and attitudes should
be
fairly represented – NE,
and that each party’s interests should be advanced
in a reasonable way:
you really have to commit yourself to what is
reasonable – JN.
The concern for fairness particularly manifested
itself in respondent’s comments on the need for
problem solving on projects. This is not surprising
if we recognise that most construction projects,
even the smallest, are a series of problems to be
solved if the building is ever to be constructed or
reconstructed. Many respondents saw the part-
ners’ approach to problem solving as indicative of
their willingness to be open and honest and to
share information (see below), but particularly
that it should be one which produces joint
satisfaction and benefit.
The important point is to solve the problem with
everybody’s agreement and thus move the ground
for everybody – AJ.
This is a good illustration of the desire not to
engage in a blame culture, but rather to show
reasonableness in not singling out any one person,
but
if something goes wrong or happens do not blame
one but blame all parties – NEl.
4 Mutuality/reciprocity
A willingness to work for reciprocal and mutually
advantageous arrangements was another import-
ant ethical aspect that respondents looked for in
relationships as they sought to build trust with
their partners. Partners who work to mutual
advantage and seek to ensure that the relationship
produces benefits for all parties are preferred. This
again is a reference to the desire for fairness.
However, here the concept is extended to incor-
porate the principle that partners work to assist
each other.
Showing reciprocity to each other goes beyond
contract – RL.
This requires parties to not only fulfil their duty,
but to go beyond mere contractual obligations to
10
meet the expectations of their partners, which in-
volves not only co-operative behaviour but also that
parties respond to each other, again, without
being asked – RL.
The benefits do not have to be equal, but they do
have to be equitable.
People have to be fair and reasonable – AJ.
The relationship has to benefit all parties, not just
one or two, otherwise the commitment of some
parties cannot be guaranteed. The relationships
remain business relationships even though some of
them develop social aspects or elements; thus the
desire for mutuality is not about altruism, but
about fair exchange. Nooteboom (1992) discussed
how the new approaches in procurement and
marketing were relations of reciprocity, which are
typified by competence, trustworthiness, reputa-
tion and working to mutual advantage.
5 Values/ethics
The seventy-two observations including ethics or
values across the twenty-one respondents is a good
indicator of the importance of ethical standards
and behaviour for those engaging in trust-based
partnering. Some respondents actively sought
evidence that potential partners had high ethical
standards, and that this was central to the decision
to trust.
In construction you have to ask how they deal
with safety, training and ethics – DF.
If a company were bad, in a moral as well as a
commercial sense, I wouldn’t trade with them at
any price – IW.
There is good evidence, then, that a move to trust-
based partnering in construction will lead to an
improvement in the ethical standards of the
industry, which in view of its public reputation
will be welcome.
To me business ethics is a big part of it [trust] –
CRd’E.
6 Reputation
Reputation is the key to being trusted and our
willingness to trust. Gambetta (1988) reported that
a favourable reputation influences the decision to
trust, because building a reputation takes time and
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
 Business Ethics: A European Review
resources, so people can be trusted because they
do not want to lose this valuable asset. Our re-
spondents agreed in wanting to build a reputation
for fairness and honesty, for a willingness to work
for their partner’s advantage as well as their own,
and for a willingness to protect the interests of
their partners.
The reputation of my business is very important
to me. The reputation has been gained because
this practice is able, honest and truthful – AJ.
Reputation of any organisation is important –
EW.
Certainly it is critical in the initial selection of
contractors and sub-contractors to work with;
reputation is very important to the client – JN.
Conclusions
In drawing conclusions from the work presented
here we need to enter a caveat that the sample size
remains small at twenty-one respondents, though
the small sample size enabled us to explore more
completely the meanings that respondents attached
to their conception of trust. Our sample covers
a range of organisations, professional or trade
groups, a number of geographical locations, and a
group of respondents who vary in experience and
seniority in their organisations.
We have demonstrated how the organisations
represented in this study are developing ‘ethical
partnering’ by embedding the development of high
ethical standards into the process of building trust.
A spreading of this practice across the construc-
tion industry, or indeed any other industry be-
deviled by adversarial inter-organisational relations,
will do much to end the present dysfunctional
system of business-to-business relations. It holds
the promise of ridding the industry of its reputa-
tion for poor quality and time-keeping, broken
promises, sharp practice, and even from some
quarters allegations of deception and corruption.
Movement towards more co-operative relations in
the industry through the adoption of trust-based
partnering will lead to higher ethical standards.
Phase two of the research study aims to measure
the benefits of trust-based partnering in terms of
time, cost and quality.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
Partners who seek to develop trust-based relation-
ships are required to demonstrate their honesty
and integrity, willingness to forsake all forms of
deception as they communicate openly and with
frankness. Companies that demonstrate their reli-
ability as partners by keeping their promises,
however small and trivial they may seem, are more
likely to be trusted than those who do not. No one
wants to partner with others who do not wish to
share fairly the benefits or gains of the partnership
or who wish to impose unreasonable demands
upon their partners. Many respondents talk of the
need for respect, and of their concern to respect
their partners in all their actions and statements.
Trust-based partnering is characterised by
honest/open communications, promise-keeping,
an absence of deception, fair sharing of benefits
and respect and reciprocity. All this is best seen in
the need for relationships characterised by reci-
procity. Trust-based relations are marked by the
mutuality of objectives and outcomes. This is how
reputation for fair dealing, honesty and openness
in communications and information sharing is
gained and leads others to offer their trust.
If it should be countered that trust-based part-
nering is attractive only to those who already have
high ethical standards of behaviour, we would
reply that that in itself would be a benefit worth
gaining. But we would also want to argue that as
those engaged in trust-based partnering are able to
demonstrate the benefits in terms of time, cost and
quality (Barlow et al. 1997, Bennett and Jayes
1995, 1998), this will encourage others to adopt
this approach, making the necessary improve-
ments to their ethical standards as they do.
Further work continues on the study reported
here with the development of an instrument to
measure trust. This should in time yield more
evidence to support the proposition that trust-
based partnering leads to improvements in ethical
standards and behaviour, and that there is a real
prospect of developing ‘ethical partnering’.
Note
1. We thank Chris Cowton, Laura Spence and
Richard Varey for their helpful comments on an
11
 Volume 11 Number 1 January 2002
earlier draft of this paper. This research project is
funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council under grant number GRN33942/
01 and by the nine participating construction
companies.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. 1991. ‘Partnering as a
focused market strategy.’ California Management
Review, 33:3, 95–113.
Barlow, J. et al. 1997. Towards Positive Partnering.
Bristol: Polity Press.
Beccera, M. and Huemer, L. 2000. ‘Moral Character
and Relationship Effectiveness: An Empirical In-
vestigation of Trust Within Organizations.’ Proceed-
ings of 2nd ISBEE World Congress, Business,
Economics and Ethics, Sao Paulo, July 19–23.
Bennett, J. and Jayes, S. 1995. Trusting the Team.
Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, Uni-
versity of Reading.
Bennett, J. and Jayes, S. 1998. The Seven Pillars of
Partnering. London: Thomas Telford.
Brenkert, G. 1998. ‘Trust, Business and Business
Ethics: An Introduction.’ Business Ethics Quarterly,
8:2, 195–203.
Clark, M. C. and Payne, R. L. 1997. ‘The Nature
and Structure of Workers’ Trust in Management.’
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 8:3, 205–224.
Egan, J. 1998. Rethinking Construction: Report of the
Construction Task Force. www.detr.gov.uk
Flores, F. and Solomon, R. C. 1998. ‘Creating Trust.’
Business Ethics Quarterly, 8:2, 205–232.
Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the
Creation of Prosperity. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Gambetta, D. (Ed.) 1988. Trust: Making and Breaking
Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ganesan, S. 1994. ‘Determinants of long-term orienta-
tion in buyer-seller relationships.’ Journal of Market-
ing, 58, 1–19.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N. and Lawrence, T. 1998. ‘Dis-
tinguishing trust and power in interorganizational
relations: forms and facades of trust. In Lane, C. and
Bachmann, R. (Eds.), Trust Within and Between
Organizations, 64–87. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Husted, B.W. 1998. ‘The ethical limits of trust in
business relations’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8:2,
233–249.
12
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds.) 1996. Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research.
London: Sage Publications.
Kumar, N. 1996. ‘The power of trust in manufacturer-
retailer relationships.’ Harvard Business Review,
74:6, 92–106.
Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. 1993. Ethical
Marketing Decisions: The Higher Road. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Latham, M. 1993. Trust and Money: Interim Report of
the Joint Government/Industry Review of Procure-
ment and Contractual Arrangements in the United
Kingdom Construction Industry. London: HMSO.
Latham, M. 1994. Constructing the Team, Final Report
of the Joint Government/Industry Review of Procure-
ment and Contractual Arrangements in the United
Kingdom Construction Industry. London: HMSO.
Luhmann, N. 1988. ‘Familiarity, confidence, trust:
problems and alternatives’. In Gambetta, D. (Ed.),
Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations,
94–108. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
McAllister, D.J. 1995. ‘Affect and cognition based
trust as a foundation for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations.’ Academy of Management Review,
38:1, 24–59.
Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative Researching. London: Sage
Publications.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. 1995.
‘An integrative model of organizational trust.’
Academy of Management Review, 20:3, 709–734.
Mishra, A.K. 1996. ‘Organizational responses to crises:
the centrality of trust. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler,
T.R. (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory
and Research, 261–287. London: Sage Publications.
Misztal, Barbara A. 1996. Trust in Modern Societies.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moorman, C., Deshandé, R. and Zaltman, G. 1993.
‘Factors affecting trust in market research relation-
ships.’ Journal of Marketing, 57, 81–101.
Morgan, Robert M. and Hunt, Shelby D. 1994. ‘The
commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.’
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.
Noorderhaven, N. 1999. ‘National culture and the
development of trust: the need for more data and less
theory.’ Academy of Management Review, 24:1, 9–10.
Nooteboom, Bart 1992. ‘Marketing, reciprocity and
ethics.’ Business Ethics: A European Review, 1:2,
110–116.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C.
1998. ‘Not so different after all: a cross-discipline
view of trust.’ Academy of Management Review, 23:3,
393–404.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
 Business Ethics: A European Review
Sako, M. 1992. Prices, Quality and Trust: Interfirm
Relations in Britain and Japan. Cambridge, Cam-
bridge University Press.
Swan, J. E., Trawick, I.F. and Silva, D.W. 1985. ‘How
industrial salespeople gain customer trust.’ Industrial
Marketing Management, 14, 203–211.
Watson, T.J. 1998. ‘Ethical codes and moral commu-
nities: the gunlaw temptation, the Simon solution
and the David dilemma’. In Parker, M. 1998 (Ed.),
Ethics and Organization, 253–269. London: Sage.
Williams, O. and Murphy, P.E. 1990. ‘The ethics of
virtue: a moral theory for marketing.’ Journal of
Macromarketing, Spring, 19–29.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies:
Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: The
Free Press.
Wilson, L. and Wilson, H. 1994. Stop Selling, Start
Partnering: the New Thinking About Finding and
Keeping Customers. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Wood, G. and McDermott, P. 1999. ‘Searching for
trust in the UK construction industry: an interim
view.’ CIB W92 International Procurement Systems
Conference, Thailand.
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002
Appendix 1
Questions for semi-structured interviews on
trust
1. What do you understand by trust? Words/
phrases, thoughts/ideas that come to mind?
2. What characteristics do you look for in others,
in terms of behaviours, attitudes, to assess
whether you can trust them?
3. What characteristics lead you to distrust some-
one?
4. How do you begin to build/increase trust in
others?
5. What behaviour leads you to lose trust in
others?
6. How do you communicate your own trust-
worthiness to others?
7. Can you give an example of when trust was an
issue on the project you are currently working
on?
13