The Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires businesses with UK operations and an annual turnover of more than £36m to publish a supply-chain transparency report. The measure was implemented in the hopes it would encourage business to identify and remove sources of forced labour and human trafficking from their supply chains.185 However, under current measures there is no financial or
criminal recourse for companies that identify instances of trafficking or exploitative labour, or that fail to comply with the audit requirement at all, leading some to criticize the measure as ‘toothless’ and not fit for purpose.186 A National
Audit Office study into the statements found that their quality varied greatly, and that there was no central list available confirming the number and identity of the organisations required to provide them.187
Under the current legislation, it is hoped that the pressures of negative media attention and public opinion will be enough to encourage businesses to take appropriate measures to eradicate forced labour from their supply chains.188 But,
within the first year of the provision’s enactment, of the approximately 12,000 over the £36m threshold, only 75 organisations were found to have made the necessary assessments (as of March 2016); and of those 75, only 22 were compliant with the law stating that the reports must be available on the company's website, viewable by the public, and signed off by a company director.189 The measures have also come in for criticism as transparency
185 HM Government, “Slavery and Human Trafficking in Supply Chains: Guidance for Businesses,”
Home Office, 2017,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/649906/Transparency_in_Supply_Chains_A_Practical_Guide_2017.pdf.
186 Tim Wright, “Modern Slavery and Trafficking – Why Supply Chain Transparency Matters,”
Sourcing Speak, 2018, https://www.sourcingspeak.com/modern-slavery-trafficking-supply-chain-
transparency-matters/.
187 National Audit Office, “Reducing Modern Slavery.”
188 Lindsay Fortado, “Duty Comes into Force for Boards to Scrutinise Supply Chains,” Financial
Times, 2015, https://www.ft.com/content/4d170526-7d84-11e5-a1fe-
567b37f80b64?siteedition=uk.
189 Lindsay Fortado, “Lacklustre Compliance on Anti-Slavery Law,” Financial Times, 2016,
70
statements are not currently stored or made available through a central government repository.
In 2016 a Private Members Bill was pushing to address these concerns. The Bill aimed to address these concerns by mandating that all commercial organisations and public bodies include modern slavery statements in their annual accounts, whilst also requiring that operators who have not provided such statements are excluded from procurement processes.190 Unfortunately, the bill was not moved
and has since been dropped by its sponsoring MP.
Due to the potential complexity of international supply chains, the challenge of eradicating extreme forms of labour exploitation from them is no easy feat. However, this does not mean there has not been progress in the area. The Gangmasters & Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) has taken a lead in this field, taking a sectoral approach to compliance, beginning with the construction industry and the introduction of a joint protocol in 2019.191
The protocol, which now has more than one hundred signatories from across the construction industry, commits organisations to work in partnership to protect vulnerable workers against all forms of labour exploitation. It encourages organisations to share information to help prevent the exploitation of workers and commits them to raise awareness of issues within their wider supply chains. Work is now being conducted by the GLAA to launch similar initiatives with both the textiles and hospitality industries.192
Despite these steps, in an independent review, published by Frank Field MP, Maria Miller MP and Baroness Butler-Sloss in May 2019, it was identified that much work
190 UK Parliment, “Modern Slavery (Transparency in Supply Chains) Bill [HL] 2016-17,” 2016,
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/modernslaverytransparencyinsupplychains.html.
191 Gangmasters & Labour Abuse Authority, “Construction Protocol,” 2019,
https://www.gla.gov.uk/i-am-a/i-use-workers/construction-protocol/.
192 Gangmasters & Labour Abuse Authority, “Apparel and General Merchandise Public Private
Protocol,” 2019, https://www.gla.gov.uk/i-am-a/i-use-workers/apparel-and-general- merchandise-public-private-protocol/.
71
was still to be done.193 The report made it clear that that a lack of clarity, guidance
and subsequent enforcement of modern slavery supply-chain compliance was hindering the quality of those statements that did exist and meant that many were still missing entirely.
Current recommendations have suggested that the government take further steps to encourage compliance by removing the ability for businesses to comply by simply stating that they had taken no steps to address modern slavery. Recommendations further include making a number of reporting area mandatory, and the establishment of a central government repository from where the independent anti-slavery commissioner could monitor compliance, whilst also advocating for stronger sanctions be made available through a new compliance body to punish organisations with lacklustre or missing statements.194
This absence of true compliance with the supply chain transparency requirements of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 from businesses alludes to wider issues in sufficiently engaging the businesses with the anti-slavery agenda. While grass- roots efforts – in some cases facilitated through partnership work – can help raise awareness of issues, encourage responsible consumption and raise awareness of indicators, large and medium enterprise has a big role to play in the global fight on modern slavery through sustainable sourcing and production.195 While it is
beyond the scope of this thesis to provide recommendations on how to achieve this, it is clear that there is work still to be done to ensure thorough and diligent supply-chain auditing. This is area where partnership working with organisations
193 Frank Field, Maria Miller, and Baroness Butler-Sloss, “Independent Review Of The Modern
Slavery Act 2015,” Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2019, https://www.business- humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Independent_review_of_the_Modern_Slavery_A ct_-_final_report.pdf.
194 Frank Field, Maria Miller, and Baroness Butler-Sloss, “Independent Review Of The Modern
Slavery Act 2015,” Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2019, https://www.business- humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Independent_review_of_the_Modern_Slavery_A ct_-_final_report.pdf.
195 Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims, and Zoe Trodd, “Modern Slavery Challenges to Supply Chain
Management,” Supply Chain Management 20, no. 5 (2015): 485–94, https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2015-0046.
72
such as the GLAA, and others in the anti-slavery movement, provides scope for deeper business engagement on this agenda.
3.4
SUMMARY
Key Findings:
The UK’s commitment to the anti-slavery agenda is underpinned by the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015.
The Act contains provisions to assist prosecution – by consolidating existing legislation and establishes minimum requirements for victim support.
Despite these measures, there are criticisms over various aspects of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, particularly around the limited amount of support it offers to victims, particularly those with precarious migration status.
Piloted measures to improve the speed and efficiency at which decisions at which decisions around potential victims are made by the home office, results have been negligible.
The number of referrals to the NRM has continued to rise since the Modern Slavery Act’s introduction, indicating increased attention on this agenda by key actors.
This chapter has summarised and unpacked the key elements of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the National Referral Mechanism and UK Modern Slavery Strategy, discussing some of the key challenges that continue to inhibit national efforts to prevent and investigate slavery related crime, and offer protections to identified victims. The review has shown that while the UK’s modern slavery strategy adequately frames the issue, it fails to elaborate upon ways in which
73
victim support, criminal investigation, prosecution and prevention efforts can be measured or evaluated – despite calling for improvements in all these areas. Nationally, steady increases are being seen in the numbers of potential victims being identified, however criticisms of the mechanism designed to support them – the NRM, and the provisions contained within it are widespread. The referral process itself continues to be questioned for its impartiality as numbers and success rates for victims from outside the EU remain low, despite recognition that these individuals represent some of the most at-risk.
The NRM itself in many cases does not offer adequate provisions to support and rehabilitate victims, despite a number of revisions which have extended the period of support available. However, recent revisions to the period of ongoing support available to victims who are conclusively identified as victims are promising and show at least some willingness to adapt support mechanisms to better fit the requirements of victims.
74