Corporate liability for modern slavery

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.

Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction?

Germany and Norway are the two latest states to adopt laws mandating human rights due diligence by companies. Germany adopted a Law on Supply Chain Due Diligence (German Law) on 10 June 2021. 1 The same day, the Norwegian parliament passed a Transparency Act (Norwegian Act) requiring human rights and decent work due diligence. 2 Like the French Loi de Vigilance and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law, these laws provide further momentum for mandatory measures to promote corporate respect for human rights, including future regulations in the European Union (EU). While the aims are similar, the German and Norwegian laws contain certain important differences when it comes to the substance and scope of the due diligence requirement. In this context, adherence to international standards remains the way forward to ensure compliance with divergent requirements in different jurisdictions.

Navigating complexity of child abuse through intuition and evidence-based guidelines: a mix-methods study among child and youth healthcare practitioners

Background: Dutch child and youth health care (CYHC) practitioners monitor and assess the well-being of children. One of their main concerns is identifying cases of child abuse, which is an arduous and sensitive task. In these contexts, CYHC-practitioners use both evidence-based guidelines aimed at increasing the quality of care through rationalised decision-making, and intuition. These two practices are seen as being at odds with each other, yet empirical research has shown that both are necessary in healthcare. This study aims to unravel how intuition is perceived and used by Dutch CYHC-practitioners when identifying and working with cases of child abuse, and how this relates to their evidence-based guidelines.Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design: in-depth semi-structured interviews with CYHC-physicians focused on perceptions on intuition, which were followed by a survey amongst CYHC-practitioners on the recognition and use of the concept.Results: The majority of CYHC-practitioners recognise and use intuition in their daily work, stating that it is necessary in their profession. CYHC-practitioners use intuition to 1) sense that something is ‘off’, 2) differentiate between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, 3) assess risks, 4) weigh secondary information and 5) communicate with parents. At the same time, they warn of its dangers, as it may lead to ‘tunnel vision’ and false accusations. Conclusion: Intuition is experienced as an integral part of the work of CYHC-practitioners. It is understood as particularly useful in cases of child abuse, which are inherently complex, as signs and evidence of abuse are often hidden, subtle and unique in each case. CYHC-practitioners use intuition to manage and navigate this complexity. There is an opportunity for guidelines to support reflection and intuition as a ‘good care’ practice.

Navigating complexity of child abuse through intuition and evidence-based guidelines: a mix-methods study among child and youth healthcare practitioners

Background: Dutch child and youth health care (CYHC) practitioners monitor and assess the well-being of children. One of their main concerns is identifying cases of child abuse, which is an arduous and sensitive task. In these contexts, CYHC-practitioners use both evidence-based guidelines aimed at increasing the quality of care through rationalised decision-making, and intuition. These two practices are seen as being at odds with each other, yet empirical research has shown that both are necessary in healthcare. This study aims to unravel how intuition is perceived and used by Dutch CYHC-practitioners when identifying and working with cases of child abuse, and how this relates to their evidence-based guidelines. Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design: in-depth semi-structured interviews with CYHC-physicians focused on perceptions on intuition, which were followed by a survey amongst CYHC-practitioners on the recognition and use of the concept. Results: The majority of CYHC-practitioners recognise and use intuition in their daily work, stating that it is necessary in their profession. CYHC-practitioners use intuition to 1) sense that something is ‘off’, 2) differentiate between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, 3) assess risks, 4) weigh secondary information and 5) communicate with parents. At the same time, they warn of its dangers, as it may lead to ‘tunnel vision’ and false accusations. Conclusion: Intuition is experienced as an integral part of the work of CYHC-practitioners. It is understood as particularly useful in cases of child abuse, which are inherently complex, as signs and evidence of abuse are often hidden, subtle and unique in each case. CYHC-practitioners use intuition to manage and navigate this complexity. There is an opportunity for guidelines to support reflection and intuition as a ‘good care’ practice.

Navigating complexity through intuition and evidence-based guidelines: a mix-methods study among child and youth healthcare professionals

Background: Dutch child and youth health care (CYHC) professionals monitor and assess the well-being of children. One of their main concerns is identifying cases of child abuse, which is an arduous and sensitive task. In these contexts, CYHC-professionals use both evidence-based guidelines aimed at increasing the quality of care through rationalised decision-making, and intuition. These two practices are seen as being at odds with each other, yet empirical research has shown that both are needed in healthcare. This study aims to unravel how intuition is perceived and used by Dutch CYHC-professionals when identifying and working with cases of child abuse, and how this relates to their evidence-based guidelines.Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design: in-depth semi-structured interviews with CYHC-practitioners focused on perceptions on intuition, which were followed by a survey amongst CYHC-professionals on the recognition and use of the concept.Results: The majority of CYHC-professionals recognise and use intuition in their daily work, stating that it is necessary in their profession. CYHC-professionals use intuition to: 1) sense that something is off, 2) differentiate between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, 3) assess risks, 4) weigh secondary information and 5) communicate with parents. At the same time, they warn for its dangers as it may lead to ‘tunnel vision’ and false accusations. Conclusion: Intuition is experienced as an integral part of the work of CYHC-professionals. It is stated to be particularly useful in the case of child abuse, which is inherently complex as signs and evidence of abuse are hidden, subtle and unique in each case. CYHC- professionals use intuition to manage and navigate this complexity. There is an opportunity for guidelines to support reflection and intuition as a ‘good care’ practice.