CfP: Debating black slavery in Management and Organizational studies from decolonial and Afro-Diasporic perspectives

Em Portugues

Guest Editors

Prof. Cintia Cristina Silva de Araujo

Fundação Instituto de Pesquisas Contábeis, Atuariais
e Financeiras – FIPECAFI (Brazil)

Prof. Alexandre Faria
Fundação Getulio Vargas – FGV EBAPE (Brazil)

Prof. Jair N. Santos
Universidade Salvador – UNIFACS (Brazil)
Universidade do Estado da Bahia – UNEB (Brazil)

Prof. Nidhi Srinivas
The New School (United States)
Western institutions report that over 30 million people in the contemporary world system can be reasonably described as enslaved (International Labour Organisation [ILO], 2012), and this number has risen dramatically with the COVID-19 pandemic and the consolidation of ‘modern slavery’ from a managerialist perspective – it “has been, is, and will likely continue to be a business” involving victims, exploiters, large corporations and consumers (Michaloiva, 2020). A contested umbrella term that includes slavery, human trafficking, forced labor, bonded labor and other forms of exploitation (Kara, 2017), modern slavery has been institutionalized in the global North as an emerging issue of contemporary capitalism (Bales, 2005) and hence transformed into a ‘global topic’ by a US-led management and organizations literature (Crane, 2013; Phung & Crane, 2018).

The US-led field of management and organizational studies (MOS) reaffirms the lasting dominant idea in the US and other countries in the West (Baptist, 2016) that black slavery is a matter of the past with remaining traces in the backward South. In contrast, decolonial and Afro-Diasporic perspectives from both the South and North embodying black slavery epistemes and cosmologies frame ‘modern’ slavery as a changing continuation of the longue durée of colonial/racial/patriarchal slavery capitalism inaugurated in the XVI century with the ‘discovery’ of the Americas by Eurocentric conquerors/discoverers (Marable, 2015; Mignolo, 2011). Modern slavery as a ‘managerial problem’ emerges in the North in tandem with the resurgence of dewesternization, decolonization and deracialization movements on a global scale accompanied by renewed backlashes and alternatives, as well as increasingly radical dynamics of expropriation against the ‘invasive others’ in both the North and South (Stoler, 2017). The denial of slavery/enslavement as constitutive of modern management and organizations, from an increasingly heterogeneous, discriminatory and unequal Global North (Boatca, 2015), is cited by critical authors (Cooke, 2004), Afro-Diasporic voices in general (Nkomo, 1992) and, in particular, decolonial authors from the South who reframed racism and coloniality as constitutive dimensions of capitalism and predominantly Eurocentric managerial/organizational knowledge (Faria & Abdalla, 2017; Ibarra-Colado, 2006).

A growing ‘global’ Northern MOS literature on modern slavery denies these contributions by embracing a renewed ‘managerial’ agenda of sustainable development and human rights (Voss et al., 2019), which frames modern slavery as a contingent managerial problem for organizations and supply chains, which is triggered by the globalization of modern capitalism in crisis (Gold, Trautrims & Trodd, 2015; New, 2015). This managerial agenda embodying contested claims of civilizational superiority of the West/North in relation to the ‘rest of the world’ (Davis, 2011; Gonzalez, 2020; Wynter, 2003) has been put forward by North Atlantic research institutions shaping rewesternizing re-articulations of universalist debates, agendas, narratives and policies (Bales, 2005). In our view, the ‘globalization’ of modern slavery puts at risk a growing, heterogeneous and unequal population of the enslaved and the planet by denying the constitutive relationship between capitalism and black slavery highlighted by decolonial and Afro-Diasporic literature. After all, is it mere coincidence that in Latin America “the people who descend, partially or totally, from the populations colonized by the Europeans are, in their vast majority, dominated and discriminated against wherever they live?” (Quijano, 1993, p. 205).

In spite of and in response to the radicalization of Occidentalist geopolitics of knowledge and the dominance of the myth of racial democracy in Brazil, studies in several areas such as Anthropology, Sociology, History (Fernandes, 2008; Ferraro, 2019; Nascimento, 1978; Ribeiro, 1995), Architecture and Urbanism (Gomes, 1990; Santos, 2013, 2016) show how and why Brazilian capitalism continues to both challenge and reproduce discriminatory traits and structures of the colonial-slavery period/system (Baptist, 2016; Gonzalez, 2020; Sousa, 2017). These enduring dynamics embody everyday situations of racial, class and gender oppression and discrimination as well as struggles against unequal distribution of opportunities (Fernandes, 2008) within and outside higher education institutions and organizations (Bento, 2002; Jaime, Barreto & Oliveira, 2018; Silva, Vasconcelos & Lira, 2021).

These remnants of black slavery have been shaped by the confusing classification and perception of race in Brazilian society, which varies according to social context and such factors as affective ties and social class (Sansone, 1996). The intricate process of miscegenation called morenização1 (Ribeiro, 1995) implied favoring some black individuals while marginalizing others due to tone of their skin.

Sadly, organizations and management education institutions have reinforced these problems, repeating stereotypes harmful to minority groups (Paim & Pereira, 2018), ignoring and even trivializing the racialization of relationships and the differences of privileges between white professionals and individuals belonging to minority groups (Bento, 2002).

Despite the ethical commitment to the creation of scientific knowledge of quality, in both research and education, we observe an enduring disengagement with the extraordinary contributions historically produced by the ‘enslaved’ and diasporas engaged with decolonial and anti-racist struggles within and outside organizations and academia (Bernardino-Costa, Maldonado-Torres & Grosfoguel 2018; Robinson, 2000). Thus, by denying both the long duration of black slavery and the crucial contributions from decolonial and Afro-Diasporic praxis and epistemes to social justice at large, academia tends to perpetuate racist, colonialist and patriarchal MOS and business schools which are in need of decolonial and Afro-Diasporic perspectives in both the South and North (Dar et al., 2020; Faria & Abdalla, 2017; Jaime et al., 2018; Rosa, 2014).

Due to this colonialist and frankly racist denial of the legacy of black slavery (Cooke, 2003; Godfrey, Hassard, O’Connor, Rowlinson & Ruef, 2016), Northern agendas on ‘modern slavery’ gain traction. In this scenario, the process of reconstructing and reporting the memories of the slavery period/system is usually done by privileged individuals who do not identify with the events and consequences of the colonial-slavery system, which reaffirms the dynamics of epistemic-material expropriation (Santos, 2008).

In tandem with the radicalization of coloniality and Eurocentric mechanisms of appropriation of liberating knowledge triggered by the globalization of US-led counter-revolutionary neoliberalism, a resurging decolonial and Afro-Diasporic praxis has challenged this epistemic-material brutality of more than five centuries of slave capitalism (Bernardino-Costa et al., 2018). Together with researchers from other parts of the Global South in general, Brazilian researchers have resisted, re-existed and recognized other voices, bodies, and epistemes in their search for transformative knowledge engaged with the oppressed majority that personify such an ambivalent legacy.

Organizations, universities, individuals, communities and society both challenge and reproduce the ambivalent legacy of black slavery, which is underpinned by anti-racist intersectional struggles accompanied by the radicalization of recolonizing dynamics. This call for papers aims therefore to engage a growing population struggling against the radicalization of slavery capitalism in both the North and South by fostering transformative engagement with black slavery in MOS from decolonial and Afro-Diasporic perspectives (Mignolo, 2020; Quijano, 2000), by recognizing the remnants of black slavery in management and organizations and recovering decolonial and Afro-Diasporic epistemes.

We thus welcome diverse theories, cosmologies, methodologies and ideas in order to answer a variety of questions such as:

• In what ways can decolonial and Afro-Diasporic perspectives help the field of Management and Organizational Studies (MOS) to fight against modern slavery, structural racism and abyssal social inequality?

• ‘Slavery’, ‘enslavement’, or ‘a proslavery system’ How do these concepts allow (or not) the radical analysis of the colonial/slave period in MOS and in the geo-historical evolution of theories and practices in the field?

• To what extent do predominantly Eurocentric MOS contribute to global capitalism in general and large companies in particular benefitting from different forms of slavery, racism and prejudice against blacks and other minorities and from the ‘democratization’ of injustice-social inequality in the South and in the North?

• What decolonial and Afro-Diasporic voices and perspectives have been denied and appropriated by predominantly Eurocentric MOS? How can MOS researchers change these dynamics?

• What decolonial and Afro-Diasporic initiatives in MOS, in education and in research, have been helping to transform the contradictory realities of peripheral societies in the Global South?

• How do large companies, governmental organizations, and third sector organizations respond to criticism of the involvement and complicity of ‘organizations’ of global capitalism in the dynamics of recolonization via slavery, forced labor or human trafficking?

• What is the role of the different actors of heritage tourism in the dynamics of the dismantling and rearticulation of the dominant narratives about the colonial period in historical tourist developments? (Buzinde, 2010).

• What are the biggest challenges to combat slave labor in countries of the South and North marked by the continuous rearticulation of the hegemony of slave capitalism?

• What are the remnants of black slavery in corporate changes and resistance practices linked to the concepts of diversity and inclusion in organizations, universities and business schools?

• To what extent does the continuation of the period of slavery in modern capitalism influence and challenge contemporary labor relations in organizations?

• What is the role of predominantly Eurocentric Critical Accounting in the analysis of the processes of legitimization of black slavery from decolonial and Afro-diasporic perspectives? (Silva, 2014).

• What is the role of the large companies and economic sectors that benefit most from the black slavery regime and in the maintenance of systems of domination and patriarchal and racial stratification inside and outside academic organizations and institutions? (Nkomo, 1992).

We hope that this call for papers promotes dialogues with other movements, inside and outside the Management and Organizational Studies, engaged with transformations of decolonial and Afro-Diasporic perspectives in and for a pluriversal world in which different worlds coexist. We expect the participation of academics, professionals and ‘general public’ to recover and co-construct possibilities that continue to be denied and appropriated-contained by systems that reaffirm coloniality via black slavery.

Keywords: Decoloniality. Afro-Diasporic perspective in Management and Organizational Studies. Remnants of black slavery in management practices and organizational environments. Contemporary slavery.

1 lightening of the skin (Ribeiro, 1995).

Em Portugues

Abdalla, M. M., & Faria, A. (2017). Em defesa da opção decolonial em administração/gestão. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 15(4), 914-929.

Bales, K. (2005). Understanding global slavery: A reader. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Baptist, E. E. (2016). The half has never been told: Slavery and the making of American capitalism. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bento, M. A. S. (2002). Pactos narcísicos no racismo: branquitude e poder nas organizações empresariais e no poder público (Doctoral Dissertation). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP. Retrieved from

Bernardino-Costa, J., Maldonado-Torres, N., & Grosfoguel, R. (2018). Decolonialidade e pensamento afrodiaspórico. Belo Horizonte, MG: Autêntica Editora.

Buzinde, C. N. (2010). Discursive constructions of the plantation past within a travel guidebook. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(3), 219-235.

Caruana, R., Crane, A., Gold, S., & LeBaron, G. (2020). Modern slavery in business: the sad and sorry state of a non-field. Business & Society.

Cooke, B. (2003). The denial of slavery in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1895-1918.

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Executive, 5(3), 45-56.

Crane, A. (2013). Modern Slavery as a Management Practice: Exploring the Conditions and Capabilities for Human Exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 49-69.

Davis, A. Y. (2011). Women, race, & class. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Fernandes, F. (2008). A Integração do Negro na Sociedade de Classes (volume 1) – O legado da raça branca (5a ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Globo.

Ferraro, M. R. (2019). Capitalism, slavery and the making of Brazilian slaveholding class: Debate on world-system perspective. Almanack, 23, 151-175.

Godfrey, P. C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E. S., Rowlinson, M., & Ruef, M. (2016). What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 590-608.

Gold, S., Trautrims, A., & Trodd, Z. (2015). Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(5), 485-494

Gomes, M. A. A. F. (1990). Escravismo e cidade: notas sobre a ocupação da periferia de Salvador no século XIX. RUA. Revista de Arquitetura e Urbanismo, 3(4/5), 9-19.

Gonzalez, L. (2020). Por um feminismo afro-latino-americano. São Paulo, SP: Editora Schwarcz-Companhia das Letras.

Ibarra-Colado, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: thinking otherness from the margins. Organization, 13(4), 463-488.

International Labour Organisation. (2012). ILO global estimate of forced labour: Results and methodology. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.

Jaime, P., Barreto, P., & Oliveira, C. (2018). Lest we forget! Presentation of the Special Issue “Racial dimensions in the corporate world”. Organizações & Sociedade, 25(87), 542-550.

Kara, S. (2017). Modern slavery: A global perspective. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Machado, C., Jr. Bazanini, R., & Mantovani, D. M. N. (2018). The myth of racial democracy in the labour market: a critical analysis of the participation of afro-descendants in brazilian companies. Organizações & Sociedade, 25(87), 632-655.

Marable, M. (2015). How capitalism underdeveloped Black America: Problems in race, political economy, and society. Chicago, Illinois: Haymarket Books.

Michailova, S. (2020). 21 Is Irresponsible Business Immune to COVID-19? The Case of Modern Slavery. In M. A. Marinov, & S. T. Marinova (Eds.), Covid-19 and International Business: Change of Era. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Mignolo, W. D. (2020). A Geopolítica do Conhecimento e a Diferença Colonial. Revista Lusófona de Educação, 48, 187-224.

Nascimento, A. (1978). O Genocidio do Negro Brasileiro: Processo de um Racismo Mascarado (Vol. 60). São Paulo, SP: Editora Paz e Terra.

New, S. J. (2015). Modern slavery and the supply chain: the limits of corporate social responsibility?. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(6), 697-707.

Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “race in organizations”. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 487-513.

Paim, A. S., & Pereira, M. E. (2018). Judging good appearance in personnel selection. Organizações & Sociedade, 25(87), 656-675.

Phung, K. & Crane, A. (2018). ‘The business of modern slavery: Management and organizational perspectives’. In J. Clark, & S. Poucki (Eds.), The Sage handbook of human trafficking and modern day slavery (pp. 177-197). London, UK: Sage.

Quijano, A. (1993). América Latina en la coyuntura mundial. Problemas Del Desarrollo, 95, 43-59.

Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215-232.

Ribeiro, D. (1995). O povo brasileiro – A formação e o sentido do Brasil. São Paulo, SP: Global Editora.

Robinson, C. (2000). Black Marxism: The making of the Black radical tradition. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.

Rosa, A. R. (2014). Relações raciais e estudos organizacionais no Brasil. RAC, 18(3), 240-260.

Sansone, L. (1996). Nem somente preto ou negro: O sistema de classificação racial no Brasil que muda. Afro-Ásia, 8, 165-187.

Santos, M. S. (2008). The repressed memory of Brazilian slavery. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2), 157-175.

Santos, Y. L. (2013). Tornar-se corte: Trabalho escravo e espaço urbano no Rio de Janeiro. Revista de História Comparada, 7(1), 262-292.

Santos, Y. L. (2016). Escravidão urbana como cenário? Um exame crítico sobre a historiografia da escravidão urbana no Rio de Janeiro e Havana. Revista Landa, 5(1), 500-531.

Silva, A. R. (2014). Slavery Service Accounting Practices in Brazil: A Bibliographic and Document Analysis. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 25(spe.), 346-354.

Silva, A. R., Vasconcelos, A., & Lira, T. A. (2021). Inscrições contábeis para o exercício do poder organizacional: O caso do fundo de emancipação de escravos no Brasil. RAE-Revista De Administração De Empresas, 61(1), 1-14.

Souza, J. (2017). A elite do atraso: da escravidão à Lava Jato. Lisboa, Portugal: Leya.

Stoler, A. L. (2017). Introduction: The dark logic of invasive others. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 84(1), 3-5.

Voss, H., Davis, M., Sumner, M., Waite, L., Ras, I. A., Singhal, D. I. V. Y. A., … Jog, D. (2019). International supply chains: compliance and engagement with the Modern Slavery Act. Journal of the British Academy, 7(s1), 61-76.

Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—An argument. CR: The new centennial review, 3(3), 257-337.

BARC Community Resists Attacks on Critical Research and Knowledge Creation


#SaveUEL @saveUEL  

#NoOneIsRedundant @leicesterucu


Members and friends of Building the Anti-Racist Classroom write this statement to explicitly resist a web of systematic and structural violence being enacted upon the integrity of UK Higher Education and the present-future of research and knowledge creation in the UK and beyond. We write to express solidarity with our colleagues at the University of East LondonGoldsmiths, University of London, and University of Leicester, who are suffering from drastic planned cuts to departments in which critical academics, some of whom are union branch leaders of colour, are being targeted. Actions taken by these institutions reflect an intensifying hostile environment for critical thought, including feminist, anti-racist, and decolonial scholarship.  

We denounce the set of moves now being made destabilise, derail, or defuse scholarship that critiques the extractivist, colonial and white supremacist logics of neoliberal and surveillance capitalism. We reject the UK government’s reactionary steps to chip away at both: 1) the legitimacy of critical race theory and 2) the humanity and right to self-determination of poor, disabled, and trans people, especially women and femmes of colour, and all people subject to gender-based violence, through damaging public policy, discourse, and funding withdrawal. Finally, we find it outrageous that amid calls to protect freedom of speech, we are seeing the further consolidation of power to control the creation of knowledge through higher education with the formation of the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency, the design of which makes it opaque and inscrutable

We critique the way metropolitan universities, rather than meaningfully advancing diverse sets of knowledges, consistently seek to silence dissent that challenges and interrupts ‘business as usual’. We identify that this activity is taking place in the context of multiple interconnected international catastrophes, including the parallel pandemics of COVID19 and white supremacist racism, conservative backlash and jingoism behind neo-imperial Anglo-American foreign policy, and the race to a data-driven future dominated by hypercapitalistic giant technology corporations. We bear witness to the economic violence caused by the eregious corruption of the Conservative government who have used public funds without due process, wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at a time of desperation for so many.

We recognise that it is the intergenerational power and traction of our solidarity and movements over decades that has made liberatory knowledge and practice thinkable, speakable, and livable. We see these ideas performatively appear as rhetoric across international journal statements, conference themes, and university marketing materials, and mark the cruel irony of these appearing at a time when people of colour are dying, losing jobs, targeted with misinformation because of the failings of a well-designed system of health inequality.  

Taking a global view, we call for solidarity from our colleagues in higher education for those acting tirelessly to bring about democracy, justice, and positive social transformation not only in the UK but internationally, such as in: Haiti, Palestine, Myanmar, Brazil, Syria, Hong Kong, India, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Philippines, Chi’chil Bildagoteel on Turtle Island, and other regions that are advancing the Movement For Black Lives, including in refugee camps and migration pathways worldwide. We recognise the commonalities and connections between these internationally distributed uprisings of the people against the powerful. We care about and offer solidarity to Black, Indigenous, people of colour and allies worldwide who continue to speak out, organise, mobilise and risk their lives to oppose the atrocities and horrors of the present, as they dare to imagine a different, more humane and equitable future for all.

We invite readers of this statement to take a moment to reflect on the above, consider and propose some next steps for the BARC community, and/or co-sign this statement. We will share these ideas anonymously via our Twitter in order to begin conversations with our community. In the meantime, please follow and engage with these hashtags and accounts on Twitter and continue to advocate for and support colleagues whose livelihoods and work are under attack:


#SaveUEL @saveUEL  

#NoOneIsRedundant @leicesterucu #ULSB16

BARC Collective 

  • Angela Martinez Dy, Loughborough University London, UK
  • Sadhvi Dar, Queen Mary, University of London, UK 
  • Deborah Brewis, University of Bath, UK
  • Helena Liu, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Friends of BARC 

Thank you also to the members of our community who contributed feedback on this statement.