Modern slavery in supply chains: insights through strategic ambiguity

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess whether firms' transparency in supply chain (TISC) statements indicate that substantive action is being taken on modern slavery in UK government supply chains.Design/methodology/approachThe authors analyse 66 of the UK government's strategic suppliers' TISC statements and 20 key documents related to the policy intent of the UK Parliament, 2015 (2015) TISC requirements. Qualitative document analysis identifies what suppliers say they are doing and what they are not saying to provide novel insights into how firms employ ambiguity to avoid timely action on modern slavery in their supply chains A set of propositions are developed.FindingsThe authors elaborate the concepts of time and change in socially sustainable supply chains and illustrate how firms use ambiguity in TISC statements as a highly strategic form of action to defend the status quo, reduce accountability and delay action for modern slavery within supply chains. The authors identify three ambiguous techniques: defensive reassurance, transfer responsibility and scope reduction that deviate from the policy intention of collaborative action.Social implicationsThe results illustrates how ambiguity is preventing firms from taking collaborative action to tackle modern slavery in their supply chains. The lack of action as a result of ambiguity protects firms, rather than potential victims of modern slavery.Originality/valuePrior research focuses on technical compliance rather than the content of firms' TISC statements. This qualitative study provides novel insights into the policy-resistant effects of ambiguity and highlights the dynamic and instrumental role of modern slavery reporting. Theoretically, we identify accountability as an essential concept to address the causes of modern slavery in supply chains and for developing collaborative supply chain environments to tackle the issues.

Transparency in Supply Chains (TISC): Assessing and Improving the Quality of Modern Slavery Statements

“…These empirical studies find considerable variance in the depth of firms' modern slavery reports (Christ et al, 2019;Stevenson & Cole, 2018;Voss et al, 2019), but consistent indicators are apparent, of convergence around suboptimal reporting practices through tactics such as the use of third party audits and codes of conduct (Benstead et al, 2021;Cole & Aitken, 2019), supplier contract mechanisms (Monciardini et al, 2021), and stakeholder reassurance though association with esteemed organisations (Meehan & Pinnington, 2021) or professional bodies (Flynn & Walker, 2021). The paucity of evidence of genuinely substantive modern slavery reports (Birkey et al, 2018), indicates that emergent norms are, as Huq and Stevenson (2020) suggest, decoupled from envisaged policy standards.…”

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.…”

“…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. Finally, Meehan and Pinnington ( 2021 ) draw attention to framing ambiguity in the “transparency in supply chain” (TISC) statements of key suppliers to the UK government. They show that firms use framing ambiguity as a highly strategic mechanism to minimize accountability, delay responses to tackle modern slavery within supply chains, and to distance themselves from collaborative action.…”

“…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.…”

The institutional logic of the sustainable organisation: the case of a chocolate supply network

“…Sustainability activities that denote ties within the institutional field were obtained from secondary sources. Secondary data are commonly used in sustainability (Meehan and Pinnington, 2021). A total of 269 documents captured the diversity of organisational types and sustainability priorities.…”