Should Australia be Embracing the Modern Slavery Model of Regulation?

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Landau ◽  
Shelley Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Effective Means ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Worker Exploitation ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

Australia is following in the footsteps of the UK and US and embracing the discourse and regulatory technologies associated with modern slavery regulation. This paper offers a critical perspective on this development. It begins with a brief account of the concept's rise to prominence, and discusses the political economy in which it is embedded. It then explores some of the advantages, as well as the pitfalls, associated with the frame, and its associated regulatory approaches, techniques and discourse. The authors raise three broad sets of concerns. The first goes to the danger of exclusively focusing on criminal justice responses to penalise and deter those who practice modern slavery while neglecting other approaches that may help address the causes of the phenomenon. The second set of concerns goes to the tendency to exaggerate the transformative potential of one of the dominant regulatory responses in this area: the mandatory corporate supply chain reporting provision. The third set of concerns relate to the implications of addressing issues of worker exploitation and mistreatment through a modern slavery and human trafficking approach rather than through other well established and newer regulatory means. To support the third argument, the authors compare the modern slavery approach with two alternate approaches: labour regulation and human rights due diligence. The authors emphasise the need for vigilance to ensure that the embracement of a modern slavery frame does not shift attention (and resources) away from more thorough and effective means of securing greater corporate accountability for labour standards in supply chains.

scholarly journals Oxfam GB Statement on Modern Slavery for the financial year 2019/20

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Brill ◽  
Beck Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Public Statement ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires organizations with a turnover of over £36m to make a public statement on the steps they are taking to identify and prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. Oxfam GB advocated for this legislation to be enacted. In this, our fifth statement, we share our progress against the three-year objectives set last year, which focus on corporate responsibility governance, human rights due diligence and inclusion of our country programmes. Due to the particularly devastating impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, we have added a section to highlight our initial response in March 2020, which fell under this reporting period.

‘The Bullock Report and European Experience’: What We Can Still Learn about Worker Directors from Hugh Clegg

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-212
Author(s):  
Michael Gold
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Main Theme ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Governance Reform ◽  
European Experience ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Worker Exploitation

Hugh Clegg’s paper, ‘The Bullock Report and European Experience’, written in 1977, analyses the role of worker directors appointed to the boards of UK companies, a move which formed part of the then Labour government’s Social Contract with the trade unions designed to stem the country’s long-term industrial decline. My commentary argues that three aspects of the paper are likely to strike the contemporary reader most forcibly. Initially it seems alien as it describes a world of collectivist industrial relations that was erased by the Conservative government elected in 1979. Yet on closer reading its main theme - reforming corporate accountability - emerges as all too familiar, as worker exploitation and other corporate scandals have continued largely unchecked to the present. And we may reflect that more recent research into policy transfer has improved our contemporary understanding of the barriers to corporate governance reform since the 1970s. Clegg correctly cautioned against attempting to import institutions from countries such as Germany into the UK, a view that has since been refined by analysis of the contrasts between co-ordinated and liberal market economies. Reforming corporate governance requires tailor-made policies, not those transferred merely on grounds of success in their original host countries.

Defeating ‘modern slavery’, reducing exploitation? The organisational and regulatory challenge

2019 ◽  
pp. 75-96
Author(s):  
Alex Balch
Keyword(s):  
Labour Market ◽  
Short History ◽  
Labour Government ◽  
The Third ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Market Enforcement ◽  
Regulatory Challenge

This chapter first charts the short history from the early anti-trafficking strategy put in place by the Labour government in 2007 through the changes and reorganisations of the subsequent 10 years, including the launch of the modern slavery strategy in 2015 under then Home Secretary May. While focusing on the impacts felt by workers in the UK, it also takes into account the position adopted by the UK in relation to international frameworks. The second section then focuses on the importance and potential impact of the creation of the most recent governance and enforcement structures — for example, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the evolution of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). As of May 2017, the GLA was rebranded as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and has new powers to investigate serious exploitation across the whole UK labour market. The third section asks how we can best assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the modern slavery agenda.

The corporate responsibility to respect human rights: a status review

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Methven O'Brien ◽  
Sumithra Dhanarajan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Civil Society Organisations ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss a wide range of significant developments that have emerged in the wake of the UNs endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) in June 2011. In particular, the paper offers a preliminary assessment of how the GPs’ corporate responsibility to respect human rights has been interpreted and to what extent it has been operationalised through government action, business behaviour and the praxis of other social actors. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of a number of key developments related to Pillar 2 of the GPs – concerned with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. More specifically, the paper considers a range of elements relating to corporate human rights due diligence, including: establishing a corporate human rights policy; the undertaking of human rights impact assessment; integrating findings of impact assessment, and; corporate human rights reporting. Findings – Based on the assessment of recent developments and initiatives, the paper suggests that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, as expressed in Pillar 2 of the GPs, embodies the culmination of significant progress in the sphere of corporate accountability. In doing so, the paper documents a plethora of innovations in regulation and praxis, led by actors in government and the corporate sector, civil society organisations, labour unions and others, in the areas of human rights due diligence, impact assessment and reporting. Yet overall, change is slow and partial and the results achieved are still unsatisfactory. Severe business-related human rights abuses remain endemic in many industry sectors and in many countries. Research limitations/implications – The implementation of the GPs is at a key stage of development, with a multitude of initiatives and actors attempting to develop and influence new forms of corporate governance. This paper provides an overview and assessment of these key developments. Originality/value – This paper provides an important assessment and synthesis of key developments related to corporate responsibility for human rights.

scholarly journals The domestic politics of corporate accountability legislation: struggles over the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 709-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve LeBaron ◽  
Andreas Rühmkorf
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chains ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Global Supply Chains ◽  
Transnational Governance ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Regulatory Processes ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Labour Standards

AbstractOver the last decade, the norm of corporate accountability for labour standards in global supply chains has become increasingly prominent within the transnational governance arena. As global governance initiatives to spur due diligence for labour standards and combat exploitation in global supply chains—especially its most severe forms frequently described as modern slavery—have proliferated, societal coalitions have pressured states to pass domestic legislation to the same effect. In this article, we examine the regulatory processes that spurred the passage of one piece of anti-slavery legislation, the UK’s 2015 Modern Slavery Act. Our findings corroborate a number of established expectations regarding business opposition towards new legislation to raise public labour standards, but also provide a clearer picture of the mechanisms through which industry actors impact policymaking processes. Paradoxically, such mechanisms include business actors’ championing of weak regulatory initiatives, CSR activity and partnering with civil society organizations. Understanding industry actors’ use of these strategies improves our understanding of how transnational norms of corporate accountability and anti-slavery are being contested and shaped at domestic scales.

Modern slavery and transparency in supply chains: the role of business

2019 ◽  
pp. 187-218
Author(s):  
Colleen Theron
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Mandatory Reporting ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Voluntary Reporting ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
The Uk

This chapter explores how business is implicated by modern slavery, and the salient requirements of the UK Modern Slavery Act (MSA) transparency in supply chain provision, in the context of growing mandatory reporting requirements for business to report transparently on their supply chain impacts. It also examines how business has responded to the MSA. It concludes with some practical steps that business can take to address the risk of modern slavery in its supply chains. Among these are ensuring that top management is supportive of tackling modern slavery in the organisation and supply chains; understanding how these obligations fit within any wider mandatory or voluntary reporting undertaken by the business; putting policies in place; establishing robust due-diligence processes; mapping the supply and value chain of the business.

scholarly journals Strategic Litigation as a Tool to Combat Modern Slavery

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-65
Author(s):  
James Sinclair
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Labour Exploitation ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Corporate Change ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Commercial Landscape ◽  
Strategic Litigation

The legal, political and commercial landscape surrounding modern slavery has developed significantly since 2008. However, the relative weakness of enforcement mechanisms within legislation designed to combat labour exploitation has meant that there have been few meaningful changes to abusive commercial practices. This article explores whether corporate accountability litigation could fill the enforcement void. It looks at the prospects for such litigation in the UK and concludes that there are significant challenges to be overcome. For litigation to be a successful lever of corporate change, it will require jurisprudential developments, extensive resourcing and dedicated, persistent professionals.

Using the risk-based approach to curb modern slavery in the supply chain

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-322
Author(s):  
Ehi Eric Esoimeme
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Uk

Purpose This 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/approach The 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. 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 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/implications This 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/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 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.

Corporate liability for modern slavery

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kadriye Bakirci ◽  
Graham Ritchie
Keyword(s):  
Due Diligence ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Dutch Child ◽  
Global Movement ◽  
To Come ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Corporate Liability

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of evolving developments in international, regional and EU law including the UK and Turkish jurisdictions for the liability of corporate businesses for modern forms of exploitative labour practices described as the modern forms of slavery. Design/methodology/approach In the first part, this paper outlines international, regional and EU instruments, UK and Turkish jurisdictions in relation to modern forms of slavery. The second part reviews legal frameworks for corporate liability for modern forms of slavery. Findings Slavery, slavery-like practices or some other exploitative practices are prohibited by numerous international law instruments starting from 1904. Apart from old forms of defined exploitative practices, multiple relevant current exploitative practices, called contemporary or modern forms of slavery exist all over the world. Under various international or regional conventions signatory States have been held responsible for exploitative practices by the international or regional courts or supervisory bodies, yet businesses were largely overlooked as a participating partner in the global movement to eradicate modern forms of slavery. For many years, multi-national businesses have engaged with various voluntary international corporate social responsibility initiatives in response to demands to operate in a socially responsible manner. There is a growing global recognition of the role corporate businesses can and should play in tackling crime and exploitative practices. A number of initiatives at the international and EU level and the introduction of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, (2010 – effective from 2012), the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the French Act on Due Diligence of Corporations and Main Contractors 2017 (loi sur le devoir de vigilance), the Australian Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018, the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Act 2019, (which is due to come into effect in mid-2022), reflect this recognition. Originality/value This paper argues that it is important for companies to use available tools, participate in joint initiatives and advocate for binding international and regional instruments and effective national legislation and action – all aimed at ending business involvement in modern forms of slavery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document