Reshoring and modern slavery in the supply chain:case study evidence and action research in the textiles and fashion industry

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate how horizontal collaboration aids organisations in responding to modern slavery legislation and in gaining a socially sustainable competitive advantage.Design/methodology/approachAction research has been conducted in the textiles and fashion industry and a relational perspective adopted to interpret five collaborative initiatives taken to tackle modern slavery (e.g. joint training and supplier audits). The primary engagement has been with a multi-billion pound turnover company and its collaborations with 35 brands/retailers. A non-government organisation and a trade body have also participated.FindingsSuccessful horizontal collaboration is dependent on both relational capital and effective (formal and informal) governance mechanisms. In collaborating, firms have generated relational rents and reduced costs creating a socially sustainable competitive advantage, as suggested by the relational perspective. Yet, limits to horizontal collaboration also exist.Research limitations/implicationsThe focus is on one industry only, hence there is scope to extend the study to other industries or forms of collaboration taking place across industries.Practical implicationsSuccessful horizontal collaborative relationships rely on actors having a similar mindset and being able to decouple the commercial and sustainability agendas, especially when direct competitors are involved. Further, working with non-business actors can facilitate collaboration and provide knowledge and resources important for overcoming the uncertainty that is manifest when responding to new legislation.Social implicationsSocial sustainability improvements aim to enhance ethical trade and benefit vulnerable workers.Originality/valuePrior literature has focussed on vertical collaboration with few prior studies of horizontal collaboration, particularly in a socially sustainable supply chain context. Moreover, there has been limited research into modern slavery from a supply chain perspective. Both successful and unsuccessful initiatives are studied, providing insights into (in)effective collaboration.

Hidden in plain sight

In recent years interest in the issues of slavery and human trafficking has converged with the emergence of the concept of ‘modern slavery’. This thesis seeks to address the complex phenomenon of ‘modern slavery’ and analyse the effect it has on legislative responses to slavery and human trafficking, with a particular focus on the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It begins by locating the problem historically through its foundations in slavery and human trafficking and explores the incomplete nature of the abolition of the practices. These observations provide the context for analysis of the existing international anti-slavery and trafficking legal frameworks, the emergence of the concept of ‘modern slavery’ and the subsequent blurring of the legal boundaries between the practices. The complexity of the concept of ‘modern slavery’ is reflected in the variety of practices included within its scope and the lack of consensus among stakeholders concerning the meaning of the term. This thesis examines the phenomenon of ‘modern slavery’ and the conflation of human trafficking and slavery underneath the umbrella of ‘modern slavery’. It demonstrates that the shortcomings of the existing models of ‘modern slavery’ are themselves evident in the legal and policy responses to slavery and human trafficking. The overall effect of the uncritical use of the concept is a negative impact on potential victims of human trafficking and slavery, but also other exploitative practices. These observations are supported by doctrinal analysis of i) historical anti-slavery and trafficking movements ii) international frameworks and definitions of slavery and trafficking iii) existing academic literature examining the concept of ‘modern slavery’ and iiii) The Modern Slavery Act 2015. This thesis extends the existing literature by investigating how different conceptualisations of slavery impact the efficacy of anti-slavery legislation, specifically the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The thesis explores the disconnect between different sections of the literature of slavery and trafficking. The thesis argues in conclusion that the development of the concept of ‘modern slavery’ and the subsequent collapse of the legal boundaries between human trafficking and slavery has a potential threefold effect, which limits the utility of current anti-slavery/trafficking legal and policy responses.

The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires organizations with a turnover of over £36m to make a public statement on steps they are taking to identify and prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. Oxfam GB advocated for this policy development, and this statement relates to steps taken in relation to our own operations and supply chains. In this, our fourth statement, we share updated information about our due diligence processes, our assessment of the risk of Oxfam GB contributing to modern slavery through its operations and supply chains and the new commitments we have made to address some of these risks.

PurposeThis paper aims to critically examine the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. to determine the level of effectiveness of the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies and provide recommendations on how the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis took the form of a desk study, which analysed various documents and reports such as the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Transparency in Supply Chains) Regulations 2015, the UK Guidance issued under Section 54(9) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the 2018 Global Slavery Index, funded by Forrest’s Walk Free Foundation, the Anglo American Plc. Modern Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Marks and Spencer Modern Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Financial Action Task Force Guidance on the Risk Based Approach to Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High Level Principles and Procedures) 2007, the Financial Action Task Force International Standards On Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation (The FATF Recommendations) 2012, the Australia Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1) (as amended), the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada Guidance on the risk-based approach to combatting money laundering and terrorist financing 2017 and the Central Bank of Nigeria (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism in Banks and Other Financial Institutions in Nigeria) Regulations, 2013.FindingsThis paper determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Anglo American Plc. are not effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains reason being that Anglo American Plc. does not use diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper, however, determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Marks and Spencer Group Plc. are effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains because Marks and Spencer adopts diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper also determined that both Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. adopt diverse methods for the monitoring of their corrective action plans which are designed to mitigate the modern slavery risk(s) associated with high-risk suppliers. For example, Anglo American Plc. monitors anti-modern slavery compliance with the use of both internal Anglo American teams and third-party auditors to ensure that the identified issues are adequately addressed.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper focuses on Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Modern Slavery Statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc for the year 2017/18.Originality/valueSeveral articles have been published on this topic. Among them, is an article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd titled “Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Issue: 5, pp.485-494 and an article by Stephen John New titled “Modern slavery and the supply chain: the limits of corporate social responsibility?”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Issue: 6, pp.697-707. The article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd drew attention to the challenges modern slavery poses to supply chain management. Although the article briefly talked about the risk-based approach to monitoring supply chains for slavery, it did not discuss about the due diligence measures that UK firms are required to apply during risk identification and risk assessment, and the risk mitigation measures that will address the risk(s) that have been identified. The article by Stephen John New examines legal attempts to encourage supply chain transparency and the use of corporate social responsibility methods. Though the article mentions the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, more attention was paid to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act [S.B. 657], State of California, 2010), enacted in 2011 and in effect from 2012. The article analysed the California Act without critically discussing the risk assessment procedures for UK companies. In addition to discussing the different stages of the risk assessment/risk management process, this paper will examine the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. This paper will provide recommendations on how the risk assessment/risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened. This is the only paper to adopt this kind of approach. The analysis/recommendations in this paper will help UK companies to design effective due diligence procedures for their supply chain.

PurposeThe globalisation of supply chains has contributed to modern slavery by degrading labour standards and work practices. The inherent difficulties involved in monitoring extremely fragmented production processes also render workers in and from developing countries vulnerable to labour exploitation. This research adopts a benchmark methodology that will help examine the inherent modern slavery challenges.Design/methodology/approachThis study examines how the benchmark model, including governance, risk assessment, purchasing practice, recruitment and remedy of victims, addresses supply chain modern slavery challenges. The proposed hypotheses are tested based on the reoccurring issues of modern slavery in global supply chains.FindingsEstimations suggest that modern slavery is a growing and increasingly prominent international problem, indicating that it is the second largest and fastest growing criminal enterprise worldwide except for narcotics trafficking. These social issues in global supply chains have drawn attention to the importance of verifying, monitoring and mapping supply chains, especially in lengthy and complex supply chains. However, the advent of digital technologies and benchmarking methodologies has become one of the existing key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring the effectiveness of modern slavery initiatives in supply chains.Originality/valueThis review provides an understanding of the current situation of global supply chains concerning the growing social issue of modern slavery. However, this includes various individual specialities relating to global supply chains, modern slavery, socially sustainable supply chain management (SCM), logistic social responsibility, corporate social responsibility and digitalisation. Furthermore, the review provided important implications for researchers examining the activities on benchmarking the effectiveness of the existing initiatives to prevent modern slavery in the supply chains.

The UK’s – and the world’s – ‘green industrial revolution’ is intrinsically tied to the artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This largely informal sector produces approximately 12–21% of the world’s cobalt each year – a vital component in the manufacture of electric vehicle batteries powering the global transition to a low carbon economy and employing as many as 200,000 cobalt miners in DRC as well as supporting hundreds of thousands more people in related livelihood activities. Yet many artisanal cobalt miners suffer dangerous working conditions, human rights abuses, and abuses relating to child labour. Addressing these issues of modern slavery in ASM is therefore vital to the achievement of all 17 of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG1 No Poverty, SDG13 Climate Action, and crucially, SDG8 Decent Work Economic Growth which includes Target 8.7 to ‘end modern slavery’ – the first international framework specifically using the term modern slavery. However, with ASM largely absent from modern slavery policy formation, there are significant gaps in how the concept is applied and addressed in ASM and overlaps with existing responsible mineral sourcing legislation and initiatives. The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to enhance understanding of how the term modern slavery is applied to ASM activities, examine the accompanying modern slavery legislation regarding ASM, including the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act, and explore how communities and companies perceive, report, and address such issues in their mineral supply chains. Based on an in-depth review of the literature and drawing on the findings of practical research and training workshops held in the UK and DRC (January–March 2020), four recommendations are made to better address modern slavery in DRC-UK cobalt supply chains. To maximise the development potential of DRC’s ASM cobalt industry, the chapter argues that aside from the moral responsibility, there is a need to clearly demonstrate the market-driven ‘business imperatives’ for companies to engage directly in ASM formalisation initiatives that unlock shared value and move beyond compliance with modern slavery and responsible mineral sourcing and reporting requirements.

Addressing Rage: The Fast Fashion Revolt

This paper investigates modern slavery detection and remediation. Action research has been conducted in the textiles and fashion industry, with the primary engagement involving a multi-billion pound (GBP) turnover company and their modern slavery investigation at a high-risk supplier in South East Asia. This paper responds to calls from the literature to investigate the modern slavery detection process and provides empirical evidence involving collaboration with a large multinational NGO and another of the audited supplier’s customers. Findings are presented from a first-hand account of the detection process and suggest that a targeted audit is more likely to identify key indicators of modern slavery. This type of audit includes investigating the end-to-end recruitment process by using a parallel structure of management and worker interviews and documentation review. Evidence is also provided of the company’s remediation process, which includes partnering with a local NGO to empower workers and collaboratively develop suppliers.

This article investigates the role of the Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018 as a reporting mechanism aimed at preventing the use of forced labour in global supply chains. In the fashion industry, modern slavery legislation pursues the ambitions of activist movements that have long campaigned for increased knowledge about supply chain practices to improve the labour conditions of garment workers, especially for those in the Global South. In recent years, such campaigns against the entrenched opacity of the global fashion system have given rise to a transparency industry built on practices of auditing and supply chain management, including in relation to modern slavery legislation. This article analyses 10 modern slavery statements submitted to the online Modern Slavery Register by fashion brands operating in Australia in the 2019–2020 reporting period to explore how the Modern Slavery Act 2018 participates in colonial relations of power. It focuses on three aspects of the statements: factory reporting and third-party auditing, corporate grievance mechanisms, and risks associated with COVID-19. Finally, the article argues that while improved transparency can generate positive outcomes for workers, the reporting required by modern slavery legislation is often more concerned with providing assurances about labour standards to consumers and stakeholders in the Global North than with the needs or experiences of workers in the Global South.

PURPOSE – This paper critically examines the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc., to determine the level of effectiveness of the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies, and to provide recommendations on how the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH – The analysis took the form of a desk study, which analyzed various documents and reports such as the UK Slavery Act 2015, the UK Slavery Act 2015 (Transparency in Supply Chains) Regulations 2015, the UK Guidance issued under section 54(9) of the Slavery Act 2015, the 2018 Global Slavery Index, funded by Forrest’s Walk Free Foundation, the Anglo American Plc. Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Marks and Spencer Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Financial Action Task Force Guidance on the Risk Based Approach to Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High Level Principles and Procedures) 2007; the Financial Action Task Force International Standards On Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation, (The FATF Recommendations) 2012; the Australia Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1) (as amended); the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada Guidance on the risk-based approach to combatting money laundering and terrorist financing 2017; and the Central Bank of Nigeria (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism in Banks and Other Financial Institutions in Nigeria) Regulations, 2013. FINDINGS – This paper determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Anglo American Plc. are not effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains reason being that Anglo American Plc. does not employ diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper however determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Marks and Spencer Group Plc. are effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains since Marks and Spencer adopts diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper also determined that both Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. adopt diverse methods for the monitoring of their corrective action plans which are designed to mitigate the modern slavery risk(s) associated with high-risk suppliers. For example, Anglo American Plc. monitors anti-modern slavery compliance with the use of both internal Anglo American teams and third-party auditors to ensure that the identified issues are adequately addressed. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS – This paper focuses on Section 54 of the UK Slavery Act 2015, and the Slavery Statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc for the year 2017/18. ORIGINALITY/VALUE – Several articles have been published on this topic. Among them, is an article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd titled Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Issue: 5, pp.485-494 and an article by Stephen John New titled Modern slavery and the supply chain: the limits of corporate social responsibility?, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Issue: 6, pp.697-707. The Article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd drew attention to the challenges modern slavery poses to supply chain management. Although the Article briefly talked about the risk-based approach to monitoring supply chains for slavery, it did not discuss about the due diligence measures that UK firms are required to apply during risk identification and risk assessment, and the risk mitigation measures that will address the risk(s) that have been identified. The Article by Stephen John New examines legal attempts to encourage supply chain transparency and the use of corporate social responsibility (CSR) methods. Though the Article mentions the UK Slavery Act 2015, more attention was paid to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act [S.B. 657], State of California, 2010), enacted in 2011 and in effect from 2012. The Article analysed the California Act without critically discussing the risk assessment procedures for UK Companies. In addition to discussing the different stages of the risk assessment/risk management process, this Article will examine the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. This Article will provide recommendations on how the risk assessment/risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened. This is the only article to adopt this kind of approach. The analysis/recommendations in this Article will help UK Companies to design effective due diligence procedures for their supply chain.

Modern slavery and the accounting profession

‘Modern slavery’ describes various forms of severe relational labour exploitation. In the realm of global value chains and global factories that are led by multinational enterprises, modern slavery encompasses practices such as forced labour and debt bondage. Multinational enterprises organise and orchestrate global value chains into global factories that are highly adaptive to market pressures and changes in the external environment. We employ the global factory framework to conceptualise when and how global value chains become more vulnerable to modern slavery. We argue that combinations of the three global value chain characteristics: complexity, appropriation arrangements, and obligation cascadence, jointly form an environment in which modern slavery can evolve and take root. The degree to which forms of modern slavery become visible and recognisable depends on the particular combination of these characteristics. External factors can moderate the relationship between these factors (e.g. involvement of non-governmental organisations) or exaggerate their effect (e.g. a pandemic).

Purpose Drawing on statements made under the transparency in supply chains provision of the UK Modern Slavery Act, this paper aims to examine how firms are responding to modern slavery risks in their supply chains. Design/methodology/approach Using an institutional theory lens, a content analysis of modern slavery statements by financial times stock exchange (FTSE) firms is carried out. The analysis focusses on sources of modern slavery institutional pressure and changes that firms have made in their structures, policies and practices in response to modern slavery risks. Findings Three sources of institutional pressure are inferred from modern slavery statements: international human rights accords (coercive), multi-stakeholder initiatives (mimetic) and professional standards (normative). Changes made by firms in direct response to modern slavery include adopting new policies, strengthening contract terms, establishing working/steering groups and creating new key performance indicators. FTSE 100 firms have been more proactive than FTSE 250 firms in making these changes, as have firms in higher risk industries. Research limitations/implications The analysis covers FTSE firms only. Responses to modern slavery risks by non-FTSE firms deserve attention. Practical implications The UK Modern Slavery Act relies on non-government organisations and consumers to hold firms to account over modern slavery. Policymakers should be aware that while this strategy might work with high profile firms, it is less applicable to firms that operate below the public radar. Originality/value The paper shows that institutional theory has validity for explaining corporate responses to modern slavery risks.

Slavery and Unfree Labour:The Politics of Naming, Framing, and Blaming Judy Fudge (bio) Annie Bunting and Joel Quirk, eds., Contemporary Slavery: Popular Rhetoric and Political Practice Vancouver: UBC Press, 2017 Julia O'Connell Davidson, Modern Slavery: The Margins of Freedom Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015 David Van Arsdale, The Poverty of Work: Selling Servant, Slave and Temporary Labor on the Free Market Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2016 According to the 2017 Global Slavery Index, "On any given day in 2016, an estimated 40.3 million people were victims of modern slavery."1 Produced by the Walk Free Foundation and International Labour Organization (ilo), in partnership with the International Organization for Migration, the Global Slavery Index provides a country-by-country map of the estimated prevalence of modern slavery combined with information about the steps each government has taken to combat it. Acknowledging that definitions vary, the Global Slavery Index uses the term "modern slavery" to refer to situations where one person has taken away another person's freedom - their freedom to control their body, their freedom to choose to refuse certain work or to stop working - so that they can be exploited. Freedom is taken away by threats, violence, coercion, abuse of power and deception. The net result is that a person cannot refuse or leave the situation.2 Coined to harness the moral outrage now directed at the transatlantic slave [End Page 227] trade, "modern slavery" is a portmanteau that covers a range of practices, including the chattel slavery of the transatlantic slave trade, forced labour, human trafficking for labour exploitation or prostitution, and forced marriage, all of which are outlawed in international, transnational, and national human rights and criminal law instruments.3 The chief of staff of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, George Ramos, claimed that in 2015 the number of modern slaves in the world was "nearly four times the total number of Africans sold in the Americas during the four centuries of the transatlantic slave trade."4 In contrast to the United Kingdom and Australia, where there is a robust political debate about modern slavery and strong bipartisan support for legislation to tackle it,5 in Canada the political resonance has been much fainter, confined to an incongruous combination of socially conservative politicians in the West, mainly in British Columbia, and migrant rights activists.6 Part of the reason Canada was given a mediocre score (a bb) by the Global Slavery Index for its response to modern slavery was its failure to make slavery a stand-alone crime.7 However, there is some indication that modern slavery discourse may be gaining ground in Canada. Canadian companies with revenue of at least £36 million in the United Kingdom are required under the UK's Modern Slavery Act, 2015 to publish a statement of the steps they take to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in their supply chains or in any part of their business.8 Moreover, "modern slavery" is used in news headlines to characterize young women trafficked into prostitution and the exploitation of "foreign workers" who are not paid their wages.9 [End Page 228] Although the term "modern slavery" has permeated neither Canadian political debate nor academic discussion,10 there is significant literature on unfree labour, mainly with respect to temporary migration.11 Unlike modern slavery, which functions as both a political rhetoric and a legally defined crime, unfree labour is an analytic category. Sociologists, political economists, and sociolegal scholars have developed the concept of unfree labour to refer to relations of production where direct political/legal compulsion is used to acquire and exploit labour power, as in the case of migrant workers who, because of immigration controls, are not free to circulate in the labour markets of the host countries in which they are working.12 This understanding of unfree labour has its origins in Marx's central idea that the working class was formed as peasants were detached from the land.13 This often-violent dispossession resulted in a double sense of freedom; workers were free of the land, in the sense that they no longer had customary rights to work...