Modern Slavery Disclosure Regulation and Global Supply Chains: Insights from Stakeholder Narratives on the UK Modern Slavery Act

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to problematise a particular social transparency and disclosure regulation in the UK, that transcend national boundaries in order to control (modern) slavery in supply chains operating in the developing world. Drawing on notions from the regulatory and sociology literature, i.e. transparency and normativity, and by interviewing anti-slavery activists and experts, this study explores the limitations of the disclosure and transparency requirements of the UK Modern Slavery Act and, more specifically, how anti-slavery activists experience and interpret the new regulations and the regulators’ implementation of the regulation. This research found limited confidence among anti-slavery activists regarding the Act’s call for transparency in relation to the elimination of slavery from global supply chains. The research also found that the limits of the transparency provisions within the Act appear to hinder the attainment of normativity. This study provides new and unique insights into the critical role that social activists play in exposing the lack of corporate transparency and failures of responsibility to protect workers within global supply chains.

Quality of voluntary modern slavery disclosures: top Australian listed companies

“…Given this foundation, further research is needed into the relative importance of first, second and third party assurance and the role of accountants and others as the providers of such assurance, a role encouraged by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development in relation to the quality of all sustainability reporting (Krasodomska et al , 2021). In particular, the role of non-accountants in social audit merits further research attention (Islam and van Staden, 2021). In addition, the links between assurance and validation of the quality of reported modern slavery information in the eyes of stakeholders need empirical examination (Christ and Burritt, 2021).…”

Change in Rhetoric but not in Action? Framing of the Ethical Issue of Modern Slavery in a UK Sector at High Risk of Labor Exploitation

“…Dissatisfaction with the normativity of existing regulation and fear of public moral judgment gave rise to the emergence of the “decent work” frame, which aimed to disrupt dominant accepted norms in the field and the prevailing moral order. This contribution has implications for the literature on the discursive construction of moral legitimacy (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006 ; Scherer et al, 2013 ) which identifies strategies and mechanisms through which single organizations justify their conformance to societal moral expectations (Reuber & Morgan-Thomas, 2019 ; Štumberger & Golob, 2016 ) and recent studies that have exposed the moral justifications used by specific groups of actors in discourse and narratives of modern slavery (Christ & Burritt, 2018 ; Islam & Van Staden, 2021 ; Meehan & Pinnington, 2021 ; Vestergaard & Uldam, 2021 ; Wray-Bliss & Michelson, 2021 ). By focusing on the debate of a controversial issue characterized by moral multiplexity (Reinecke et al, 2017 ), we shed light on the interplay of frames underpinned by competing moral justifications and its effects on field-level change.…”

“…We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with UK construction field actors. Our sampling size and selection approach were purposive (similar to Islam & Van Standen, 2021 ). This meant that the strategy of data collection was driven by reaching data saturation (the point at which subsequent interviews do not provide any additional insights).…”

“…Narrowing the focus to anti-slavery activists, Islam and Van Staden ( 2021 ) capture how their narratives reflect their experience and perceptions on whether the UK MSA has attained normativity, that is, the point at which regulation is regarded as ethically desirable and can exert sufficient moral power to control business behavior. While the study shows anti-slavery activists’ skepticism in the Act’s ability to eliminate slavery, it also reveals how the frame promoted by these actors exposes the lack of corporate transparency as well as the failure to assume responsibility to safeguard workers within global supply chains.…”

“…Beyond corporate reporting, increasing interest has emerged on the strategic use of modern slavery frames, through the study of discourse and narratives. These studies have focused on understanding how specific groups of business and non-business actors tap ethical and moral argumentative devices (e.g., Christ & Burritt, 2018 ; Islam & Van Staden, 2021 ; Meehan & Pinnington, 2021 ; Vestergaard & Uldam, 2021 ; Wray-Bliss & Michelson, 2021 ) to shape the modern slavery debate. What has yet to be examined is how modern slavery frames of interacting actors, have evolved and account for the emergence of a common framework of action, that is, “field settlement” (Furnari, 2018 ; Litrico & David, 2017 ) to tackle modern slavery.…”