WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION'S HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTE

(FLS0008)

1. Introduction

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015), once widely praised upon its introduction, no longer withstands scrutiny in light of the persistent global prevalence of forced labour and modern slavery. For the 10th anniversary of the Act, the United Kingdom must adopt a more assertive and comprehensive legislative approach to ensure that products linked to these abuses are barred from entering the domestic market. Strengthening these measures is essential not only to uphold the UK's international commitments but also to prevent and protect taxpayers from being complicit in human rights violations.

2. Background

Modern slavery is prevalent across multiple industries, including cotton, timber, electronics, minerals, and food. These global supply chains are often intricate and opaque, enabling private companies to reap substantial profits while remaining to use (cheap and lucrative for them) forced labour. The European Parliament reports that ‘86% of all forced labour cases occur in the private sector, affecting 17.3 million people[1]’—a staggering figure that highlights the urgency of this issue. A BBC investigation recently exposed the complexity of these supply chains, tracking tomatoes from Xinjiang to Italy before they ultimately reached UK supermarkets.  Similarly, a 2023 investigation by Reporter Brasil uncovered direct links between modern slavery and Starbucks,[2] as well as the meat and timber industries,[3] revealing a deeply entrenched global network of exploitation.

However, unethical supply chains in supermarkets are only one aspect of the problem. Consumer purchasing habits are rapidly evolving, with online shopping transforming the retail landscape. To effectively combat modern slavery, legislation must keep pace with these changes, ensuring that both traditional and digital supply chains are held to the highest ethical standards.

The rise of the internet has fundamentally transformed commerce, drastically reshaping the retail landscape since the MSA 2015 was introduced. By 2024, online shopping had become a dominant force in the UK, with 27% of total retail sales conducted online in December, according to the Office for National Statistics.[4] This trend was even more pronounced during the 2024 Boxing Day sales, when 65% of purchases were made online, underscoring the growing reliance on digital shopping platforms.[5] Additionally, a study by Public Desire found that Britons spend 8.8% of their annual income on online shopping—the highest proportion globally.[6]

Major e-commerce platforms such as Shein, Temu, and Amazon have capitalised on this shift, and they have faced intense scrutiny over allegations of labour rights violations and modern slavery within their supply chains. Shein, the online fast-fashion retailer, saw substantial growth in the UK, with revenue climbing to £1.55 billion in its latest fiscal year, up from £1.12 billion in the previous 16-month period. Its pre-tax profits doubled to £24.4 million, while tax contributions increased from £2.34 million to £5.7 million[7]. Temu’s UK financial figures are less transparent, as the company does not publicly disclose specific earnings. However, it has rapidly gained traction, with 43% of UK online shoppers having made a purchase on the platform.[8] Amazon, a dominant force in global e-commerce, also does not provide country-specific financial data, though it reported a global net income of $33.36 billion in 2022.[9]

With e-commerce gaining widespread popularity in the UK, this trend is set to continue. However, the rapid expansion of online retail raises serious concerns about supply chain transparency, ethical sourcing, and the enforcement of labour rights in a digital-first economy.

The business models of Amazon and Temu create significant challenges for supply chain transparency, necessitating a multifaceted legislative approach. Both companies rely heavily on smaller suppliers, but their distinct operational structures present unique obstacles to accountability.

Temu operates by allowing China-based vendors to sell and ship products directly to consumers, eliminating intermediaries and reducing costs. While this model enables lower prices, it has also introduced serious transparency concerns. To improve delivery times and cut costs, Temu is shifting to a ‘semi-managed' model, requiring merchants to handle shipping, warehousing, and delivery expenses. This transition transfers financial burdens onto suppliers, raising concerns over increased risks, reduced oversight, and potential supply chain reporting issues.[10]

Amazon’s marketplace model, on the other hand, allows a vast network of third-party sellers, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to list products on its platform. While this model provides sellers with access to a large customer base, it also introduces challenges in quality control and regulatory compliance. The sheer volume and diversity of suppliers make consistent enforcement of ethical standards difficult, further complicating efforts to ensure transparency and prevent labour rights violations.[11]

All internet businesses face similar issues, and crucially for modern slavery concerns, the biggest problem is supply chain transparency. Ensuring ethical practices and labour conditions across numerous small businesses is complex. Companies must work diligently to monitor and enforce standards to prevent issues such as labour violations and currently, there is no proof of this occurring and this is especially true for Shein, Temu and Amazon. However, Amazon has complied with the MSA 2015 by publishing a detailed Modern Slavery Statement, outlining its commitment to ethical labour practices.[12] Whilst the Amazon document is seemingly very comprehensive, it lacks data and does not cover its third-party sellers. Shein and Temu have both faced criticism for failing to meet the Act’s transparency requirements and as of yet have nothing published.

While many countries have some form of domestic challenges with modern slavery, there is a high volume of products coming from China. There is a significant body of evidence to confirm that since 2016, the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has subjected Uyghurs and members of other predominantly Muslim ethnic minority groups in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) to mass incarceration where they would face forced indoctrination, persecution, and other forms of mistreatment. The treatment of the communities has been recognised as genocide and crimes against humanity.[13] The US State Department produced a country report on China in 2023 which states that:

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government; enforced disappearances by the government; torture by the government; involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices; harsh and life-threatening prison and detention conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention by the government including, since 2017, of more than one million Uyghurs and members of other predominantly Muslim minority groups in extrajudicial internment camps, prisons, and an additional unknown number subjected to daytime-only “re-education” training[14]

From the camps, they would be transferred to forced-labour institutions across the region.

In 2020, a coalition of more than 180 human rights groups highlighted that many of the world’s leading clothing brands continue to source cotton and yarn produced through a vast state-sponsored system of detention and forced labour involving up to 1.8m Uyghur and other Turkic and Muslim people in prison camps, factories, farms and internment camps.[15] In October 2023, 51 UN member countries issued a joint declaration condemning China's crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and calling for an end to systematic human rights abuses in Xinjiang.[16]

The Uyghur Tribunal, an independent ‘people's tribunal’ based in the United Kingdom, was established to examine evidence regarding alleged human rights abuses against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, China. Chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, the tribunal conducted hearings from June to December 2021. On 9 December 2021, the tribunal concluded that China has committed genocide against the Uyghurs, citing evidence of forced sterilisations and crimes against humanity.[17]

The tribunal's findings are significant, as they provide a detailed account of the abuses, including forced labour, sexual violence, and the destruction of Uyghur cultural and religious sites. These findings have been referenced in discussions within the UK Parliament and have influenced international discourse on the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.[18]

While the tribunal's conclusions are not legally binding, they have contributed to a broader understanding of the situation and have been cited by various governments and organisations in their assessments of China's actions in Xinjiang. The tribunal's work underscores the importance of independent investigations in addressing allegations of serious human rights violations.

In 2021, the House of Commons also declared that a genocide is taking place against Uyghurs in north-west China,[19] and yet still despite all of the above the UK has failed to act decisively to stop these goods from entering the UK.

3. International Approaches

This submission discusses some international approaches and legislation on this issue, and how the UK can learn from these approaches to enact its legislation.

Extensive international efforts, outlined below, have taken various approaches. However, a common thread among them is the emphasis on enhanced due diligence and reporting.

3.1. Canada

The Canadian approach in the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (Bill S-211)[20] reflects a growing commitment to tackling forced labour. This legislation came into force in 2024. The Act applies to entities with significant operations in Canada and requires them to annually report on measures to prevent forced and child labour in their supply chains. It has stringent reporting obligations; companies must identify forced labour risks and outline steps taken to address them. These reports must be filed with the federal government and made publicly available. There are significant consequences for incorrect or false reporting. Entities that fail to comply with the Act's reporting requirements, or knowingly provide false or misleading information, can face fines of up to CAD 250,000. This penalty applies not only to the entities themselves but also to their directors, officers, agents, or representatives who are involved in the violation. Additionally, the Act mandates that annual reports must be approved by the entity's governing body and made publicly accessible. Non-compliance, including failure to publish the report or obstructing investigations, constitutes an offence under the Act. This financial disincentive strengthens accountability and ensures that the requirements are taken seriously.  The Act also requires the federal government to prepare its own annual report, demonstrating leadership in ethical procurement and transparency.[21]  The introduction of penalties could serve as a model for other countries, including the UK, to enforce mandatory reporting. By holding both corporations and government entities accountable, Canada’s approach could encourage the widespread adoption of ethical supply chain practices.

3.2. United States 

The United States has legislated a ban on products tainted in modern day slavery in the form of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA).[22] This act was enacted in December 2021 to prevent goods made with forced labour in China’s Xinjiang region from entering the US market. The central principle of this legislation is the rebuttable presumption of forced labour: all goods partly or wholly sourced from Xinjiang are presumed to be made with forced labour and are banned from US imports. It is the responsibility of the companies to provide clear evidence that their supply chains are free of forced labour to override this presumption. This law targets all imports linked to Xinjiang, including those involving Uyghur forced labour outside of the region. It applies to both direct imports and indirect supply chains (e.g., raw materials from Xinjiang used in other countries). To enforce this US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detains shipments suspected of violating UFLPA. Importers must submit detailed supply chain documentation to prove forced labour was not used. There is a focus on high-risk sectors such as cotton, tomatoes, and polysilicon (used in solar panels) due to known links to forced labour. 

In February 2025, the US government, under President Trump, suspended the de minimis exemption for Chinese imports, which had allowed goods under $800 (£641) to enter duty-free.[23] The move targeted Chinese e-commerce firms like Shein and Temu, which used the exemption to avoid import fees.The United States Postal Service (USPS) and Customs are now implementing a tariff collection system, while private carriers like FedEx continue shipments despite compliance challenges. The abrupt policy shift disrupted global logistics, impacting millions of daily parcels and leading China to file a WTO dispute.[24]

3.3. Australia

Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018 (MSA 2018)[25] has a robust mandatory reporting framework, requiring companies and entities with an annual consolidated revenue of AUD 100 million (~£52 million) to publish annual Modern Slavery Statements. These statements must outline actions taken to assess and address modern slavery risks within operations and supply chains. A key feature of the Australian MSA is its centralised public registry, which is freely accessible online and run by the government. This enhances transparency, allowing consumers, investors, and stakeholders to scrutinise companies’ efforts. Additionally, the Act mandates specific reporting criteria, requiring businesses to disclose supply chain structures, identified risks, and mitigation efforts, ensuring they cannot provide vague or superficial responses.

In comparison, the UK’s MSA 2015 also has mandatory reporting but lacks clear guidelines and enforcement mechanisms. While it applies to businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more, companies are only required to publish statements on their own websites, without a central registry, leading to inconsistencies in transparency and accessibility. Unlike Australia, the UK does not have set reporting criteria, giving businesses flexibility but often resulting in inadequate disclosures. Neither country imposes financial penalties for non-compliance, though Australia employs a naming and shaming approach to encourage adherence. However, the Australian system has been criticised for lacking stronger enforcement measures, with calls to introduce penalties for inadequate reporting.[26]

Overall, Australia’s mandatory reporting is more structured and transparent due to its centralised registry, detailed reporting requirements, and indirect enforcement through public scrutiny. In contrast, the UK’s system is broader in scope but weaker in accountability. Proposed UK reforms may help strengthen its framework, making it more aligned with Australia’s model.

3.4. Germany

The Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG)[27] enacted in 2023, introduces robust due diligence obligations. Companies with more than 3,000 employees (expanded to 1,000 employees in 2024) must conduct risk assessments and implement preventive measures for human rights abuses and environmental risks. The Act applies not only to direct suppliers but also to indirect suppliers if risks become evident. There are strong enforcement mechanisms, which include facing fines of up to 2% of annual turnover for violations, also crucially non-compliant businesses can be excluded from public procurement contracts. Annual reports must be published and submitted to a regulatory body for review. Germany’s approach integrates due diligence with enforceable penalties, creating a strong incentive for compliance. It demonstrates the benefits of coupling robust reporting with financial and reputational risks.

3.5. France

The Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law (2017)[28] imposes due diligence obligations on large companies. Businesses with more than 5,000 employees (or 10,000 globally) must establish vigilance plans. These plans must identify risks, establish mitigation actions, and monitor compliance throughout their supply chains. The legal accountability in this law is that victims of forced labour or other human rights violations can bring legal claims against companies that fail to meet their obligations. While the law empowers victims, enforcement mechanisms are weaker compared to Germany’s approach. The law emphasises corporate responsibility and provides a pathway for legal redress, though enforcement gaps remain.

3.6. EU Legislation

Europe-wide legislation comprises of two parts, the first being the EU Forced Labour Regulation (FLR).[29] This was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 19 November 2024, and it entered into force on 13 December 2024. The regulation will apply 36 months after it enters into force, so it will be effective from 14 December 2027, arming businesses with enough time to be fully compliant. The FLR prohibits the placing and making available of products made with forced labour on the EU market, as well as exporting such products from the EU. This applies to all products, including their components, regardless of geographic origin or industry. Unlike other forced labour laws that target specific geographic regions, the FLR applies globally, making it more comprehensive. It goes beyond sector- or product-specific regulations, such as the EU Deforestation Regulation[30] (which covers products such as cattle, cocoa, and coffee), the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation[31] (focused on tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold), and the EU Batteries Regulation[32] (which ensures responsible sourcing of cobalt, lithium, and nickel). The ban extends across the entire product lifecycle, from raw material extraction to final production, covering both imported and domestically manufactured goods.

To assist in enforcing the regulation, the European Commission will maintain a database with regularly updated information on high-risk regions and products. Critics argue that the FLR fails to protect vulnerable workers domestically, particularly undocumented migrants. Those in exploitative conditions may fear reporting forced labour due to the risk of deportation, leaving them vulnerable to employer retaliation. The FLR also only removes goods from the market once forced labour has been proven, rather than acting on suspicion of its presence, however, this could prove costly for state mechanisms.

Furthermore, in June 2024, the European Union adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).[33]It was proposed by the European Commission and later adopted through negotiations with the European Parliament and Council of the European Union as part of the EU’s broader sustainability and human rights framework. The CSDDD entered into force on 25 July 2024. The directive aims to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour by requiring companies to identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their operations and across their global value chains. Member States have a transposition period to adopt national laws aligning with the directive. Companies will need to comply according to a staggered timeline, with larger companies expected to comply sooner than smaller ones. Mandatory risk-based due diligence requires companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and address human rights violations caused by their activities. The directive mandates that due diligence policies be developed in consultation with employees and stakeholders. Companies must establish an accessible complaint mechanism, monitor their due diligence efforts, and publish an annual statement on their compliance. EU member states must appoint supervisory authorities with investigative powers to monitor compliance and respond to concerns raised by third parties. By applying across the EU, the CSDDD harmonises laws and practices across member states. Aligning with international human rights standards, it strengthens protections for workers and communities. Critics argue that compliance with the CSDDD is financially burdensome for businesses, potentially discouraging investment. The increased cost of compliance may lead foreign companies to shift investments outside the EU, impacting economic growth.[34]

It is important to note that the FLR will not be applicable until December 2027, which may affect the immediacy of its impact. Additionally, while the CSDDD has entered into force, companies are granted a transition period to achieve compliance, with deadlines varying based on company size and turnover. Both the FLR and CSDDD complement national laws, but they also introduce stricter EU-wide standards. For companies operating in multiple EU countries, these regulations create harmonised compliance rules, reducing fragmentation. Crucially for the UK, British businesses exporting to the EU will face more stringent requirements than under the UK’s MSA 2015. Germany and France will have a smoother transition to complying with EU regulations due to the laws they already have in place that require increased due diligence. 

Overall, the FLR’s product ban is a new approach not covered by EU member states national due diligence laws, meaning companies must also monitor supply chains for banned goods, not just prevent forced labour internally. European Companies already exporting to the US must ensure their supply chains are free of forced labour, especially from Xinjiang. However, the EU’s FLR is broader but places the burden of proof on regulators, whereas the UFLPA assumes forced labour unless proven otherwise placing the responsibility on the businesses.

There is further change on the horizon. Currently, retailers benefit from paying no tax on parcels worth less than €150 (£124), a policy which can give firms sending small shipments an unfair advantage as previously mentioned in the US section above. According to the European Commission, 4.6 billion low-value items worth below €22 were imported into the EU in 2024, 91% of which came from China - double that of the previous year. The EU announced that it would increase customs checks on goods shipped directly by e-commerce retailers. It also said it would coordinate a joint investigation by the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network into Shein based on suspicions that the company infringes EU consumer protection rules.[35]

3.7. United Kingdom

Since the enactment of the MSA in 2015, the UK has implemented several measures to address modern slavery within supply chains. In September 2018, the UK, alongside the US, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, established principles to combat modern slavery in global supply chains. This initiative aimed to leverage collective purchasing power to prevent forced labour and promote ethical practices.[36]

On the fifth anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act in March 2020, the UK government published its first modern slavery statement. This document outlined actions taken to prevent modern slavery across approximately £50 billions of annual government spending. It also set a precedent for individual ministerial departments to release their own statements from 2020/21 onwards.[37]

In September 2020, the government announced plans to enhance the Modern Slavery Act's transparency provisions. Key proposals included mandating specific topics for modern slavery statements, extending reporting requirements to public bodies with budgets of £36 million or more, and creating a digital registry for modern slavery statements to facilitate public access and accountability.[38]

In 2021, Lord Alton of Liverpool introduced a Private Members’ Bill in the House of Lords to amend the MSA. This Bill was to:

prohibit the falsification of slavery and human trafficking statements; to establish minimum standards of transparency in supply chains in relation to modern slavery and human trafficking; to prohibit companies using supply chains which fail to demonstrate minimum standards of transparency; and for connected purposes.[39]

The Bill proposed financial penalties of 4% of turnover along with incarceration for noncompliance. It also demands more regulation, taking the onus off the consumer to police companies' business practices. However, this Private Members’ Bill was never given Parliamentary time to proceed.

In February 2025, the House of Lords Passed an amendment on the Great British Energy Bill on the use of slave labour in supply chains providing solar panels and other forms of green energy by a majority of 50. The amendment states ‘(6) Financial assistance under this section must not be provided if there exists credible evidence of modern slavery in the energy supply chain of any company designated Great British Energy.’[40]

Despite these initiatives, challenges persist. UK legislation is far behind our EU and trans-Atlantic neighbours. Not only in the private space, but the majority of public bodies also currently have no reporting obligations. This needs to change not only for the UK to fulfil its human rights obligations, but to enable UK businesses to be able to comply with other countries' legislation so they can trade.

4. The Needed Responses

4.1. A Ban on Products from Xinjiang

To combat the problem of modern slavery, the UK needs to take a multifaceted approach.  This starts with a ban on products and product components from the Xinjiang region. A ban would act as the backbone of the UK’s forced labour prevention framework, tying together mandatory reporting, due diligence, penalties, and government leadership. It would ensure that transparency and accountability measures are not merely aspirational but directly enforceable, creating a market environment where forced labour cannot thrive. Out of the US and EU model of a ban, the US approach is preferable, as it places the burden of proof and financial liabilities on businesses rather than the authorities.

4.2. Mandatory Reporting with Public Access

In addition to this, there should be mandatory reporting with public access, there should be a registry for Modern Slavery Statements, this aligns with the government's September 2020 commitment. Currently, the UK Voluntary Modern Slavery Register allows businesses to voluntarily demonstrate a higher level of commitment to tackling modern slavery beyond the requirements of the MSA 2015. Companies can opt into the register to showcase enhanced transparency by providing detailed information about their due diligence processes, supply chain monitoring, and efforts to prevent and address modern slavery. However, the register has limitations, including limited enforcement since participation is optional and there is no penalty for non-registration. Additionally, there is minimal oversight of the information submitted, which may allow companies to join the register without fully meeting higher standards. To strengthen the register, mandatory participation could be introduced for businesses subject to the MSA 2015, expanding its reach and ensuring more comprehensive reporting. Independent verification of the information, penalties for non-participation, and regular updates could improve its credibility and effectiveness. Offering incentives, such as recognition for companies exceeding expectations, could encourage more businesses to participate, further enhancing accountability and transparency in tackling modern slavery. A ban could leverage this registry to identify high-risk companies or sectors and focus enforcement efforts on non-compliant entities. Companies that fail to file statements or disclose links to forced labour could face enhanced scrutiny or further import bans.

4.3. Financial Penalties for Non-Compliance

Section 54 of the MSA 2015 currently lacks penalties, relying solely on civil society and reputational damage to enforce compliance. To strengthen this, enforcement mechanisms such as fines and director disqualifications should be introduced. Taking inspiration from the Charity Commission's approach, where missed deadlines raise concerns and lead to potential consequences, the Modern Slavery Register could flag failures to report on time, subjecting companies to both reputational and legal repercussions. Furthermore, Lord Alton's Private Members’ Bill, which proposes financial penalties and director disqualifications for falsifying or failing to report modern slavery actions, should be revisited. Companies found in violation could also face legal action under expanded mandatory due diligence obligations, akin to France’s Duty of Vigilance Law, requiring businesses to proactively assess and mitigate risks within their operations and supply chains.

4.4. Extend Section 54 To Public Sector Entities

There is a clear need for more government leadership on this issue; public procurement is highlighted as a high-risk area with inadequate safeguards. Section 54 of the MSA 2015 requirements should be extended to public sector entities. This would enable the government to set an example for private companies. The government could also use data from the ban’s enforcement to prioritise ethical suppliers in procurement decisions.

4.5. Encourage Businesses to Display Fair Trade and Ethical Certifications

The government should adopt a fair-trade certification scheme to allow organisations that are fully compliant, regardless of turnover, to showcase their efforts against modern slavery to consumers. By combining fair trade certifications with modern slavery reporting, businesses can enhance ethical practices, improve transparency in their supply chains, and provide consumers with the ability to make informed choices. This approach would not only recognise companies committed to ethical labour practices but also create a more comprehensive framework for tackling modern slavery across industries

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Combating modern slavery demands a comprehensive and adaptable approach that keeps pace with the rapidly evolving global economy. The UK must strengthen its legislation to match the more rigorous international standards already in place. It is essential to establish firm legal and regulatory measures that make it unequivocally clear that profiting from forced labour will not be tolerated. By taking decisive action, the UK can reclaim its position as a global leader in the fight against modern slavery and reinforce its commitment to ethical trade and human rights.

Recommendations:

• Implement an import ban on goods produced through modern slavery, preventing them from entering the UK market.
• Strengthen enforcement mechanisms by introducing financial penalties, ensuring meaningful consequences for companies that fail to meet transparency and due diligence requirements.
• Enhance monitoring systems to equip government agencies and civil society with actionable data on high-risk imports, improving oversight and accountability.
• Lead by example in public procurement, ensuring that government contracts adhere to the highest ethical standards and do not contribute to forced labour.
• Create a fair-trade certification so businesses can show compliance to consumers in a more accessible way and also help to educate the general public about the issue.

Reference list

Amazon. Modern Slavery Statement. (2024). [online] Amazon. Available at: https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/modern-slavery-statement.pdf [Accessed 11 Feb. 2025].

Australian Government (2018). Modern Slavery Act 2018. [online] www.legislation.gov.au. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00153/latest/text [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

BBC News, Uyghurs: MPs state genocide is taking place in China. (2021). BBC News. [online] 23 Apr. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56843368.

Bills.parliament.uk. (2025). Great British Energy Bill - Lords’ votes in Parliament - UK Parliament. [online]Available at: https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Division/3204 [Accessed 12 Feb. 2025].

Bills.parliament.uk. (2021). Modern Slavery (Amendment) Bill [HL] - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament. [online] Available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2892.

Black, H. (2024). Boxing Day sales: average shopper likely to spend £236. [online] Thetimes.com. Available at: https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/average-shopper-is-expected-to-spend-236-in-the-boxing-day-sales-5xf7hj8xc [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Bradsher, K., Swanson, A. and Holman, J. (2025). USPS Reverses Decision to Halt Parcel Service From China. The New York Times. [online] 5 Feb. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/business/usps-china-de-minimis.html.

Branch, L.S. (2024). Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act. [online] laws.justice.gc.ca. Available at: https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-10.6/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Brasil, Reporter. (2023). Behind Starbucks Coffee Brazil’s seasonal harvest labourers report routine of low wages, cold food and even slave labour on farms that supply the world’s most famous coffee shop chain. [online] Reporter Brasil. Available at: https://reporterbrasil.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/monitor_starbucks_coffee_slave_labor_ENG.pdf [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2025). Brazil: Repórter Brasil’s report "Cattle Route: Modern Slavery and the British Market"is launched; it includes comments from JBS, Marfrig and Minerva - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. [online] Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Available at: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/brazil-rep%C3%B3rter-brasils-report-cattle-route-modern-slavery-and-the-british-marketis-launched-it-includes-comments-from-jbs-marfrig-and-minerva/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2017). France’s Duty of Vigilance Law. [online] Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Available at: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/big-issues/corporate-legal-accountability/frances-duty-of-vigilance-law/.

Charbonneau, L. (2023). UN Member Countries Condemn China’s Crimes Against Humanity | Human Rights Watch. [online] Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/23/un-member-countries-condemn-chinas-crimes-against-humanity.

Council of the European Union, E.P. (2024). Regulation - EU - 2024/3015 - EN - EUR-Lex. [online] EUR-lex. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3015/oj/eng [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Curtis, J. and Robinson, T. (2025). The Uyghur Tribunal. [online] House of Commons Library. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0009 [Accessed 11 Feb. 2025].

Ellson, A. (2025). Britons do more shopping online than anyone else. [online] Thetimes.com. Available at: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/britons-shopping-online-internet-americans-france-pdh9tv5kb.

Europa.eu. (2017). Regulation - 2017/821 - EN - EUR-Lex. [online] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/821/oj/eng.

Europa.eu. (2023a). Regulation - 2023/1115 - EN - EUR-Lex. [online] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj/eng.

Europa.eu. (2023b). Regulation - 2023/1542 - EN - EUR-Lex. [online] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj/eng.

Europa.eu. (2024). Regulation - EU - 2024/3015 - EN - EUR-Lex. [online] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3015/oj/eng.

European Commission (2024). Corporate sustainability due diligence. [online] European Commission. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/sustainability-due-diligence-responsible-business/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en.

Everhardt, C., Campos, S. and Bauer, C. (2023). The German Supply Chain Act – a focus on the new due diligence... [online] www.roedl.com. Available at: https://www.roedl.com/insights/supply-chain-act-due-diligence-obligations [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Financial Times. (2018). Financial Times. [online] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/5a562326-df49-433d-8e8b-d015a55c46bb.

GOV.UK. (2018). UK agrees principles for tackling modern slavery in supply chains. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-agrees-principles-for-tackling-modern-slavery-in-supply-chains.

GOV.UK. (2020a). Government announces new action to prevent modern slavery in its supply chains. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-action-to-prevent-modern-slavery-in-its-supply-chains.

GOV.UK. (2020b). New tough measures to tackle modern slavery in supply chains. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-tough-measures-to-tackle-modern-slavery-in-supply-chains.

Kelly, A. (2020). ‘Virtually entire’ fashion industry complicit in Uighur forced labour, say rights groups. The Guardian. [online] 23 Jul. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jul/23/virtually-entire-fashion-industry-complicit-in-uighur-forced-labour-say-rights-groups-china [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Newdigitaldev (2023). Amazon is starting to face stiff competition from China’s Temu and Shein in the UK - New Digital Age. [online] New Digital Age. Available at: https://newdigitalage.co/ecommerce-age/amazon-uk-mobile-user-decline-2023-temu-shein-vinted-ebay-gws [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Onita, L. (2024). Shein’s UK arm surpasses £1.5bn revenue mark. [online] @FinancialTimes. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/3da7c6cf-0e13-446b-bdaa-927cb7dcdd93 [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

ONS (2024). Internet Sales as a Percentage of Total Retail Sales (ratio) (%) - Office for National Statistics. [online] Ons.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j4mc/drsi.

Ramos Munoz, D. (2025). The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): Everything, Everywhere, All at Once? [online] Ox.ac.uk. Available at: https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oblb/blog-post/2025/02/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive-csddd-everything-everywhere [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Rudin, M. (2024). ‘Italian’ purees likely to contain Chinese forced-labour tomatoes. BBC News. [online] 1 Dec. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crezlw4y152o [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Scottish Business. (2024). 60% of Brits have shopped at Temu, Shein, or other Chinese marketplaces in the past year - Scottish Business News. [online] Scottish Business News. Available at: https://scottishbusiness.news/60-of-brits-have-shopped-at-temu-shein-or-other-chinese-marketplaces-in-the-past-year [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Silva, J. da (2025a). Trump tariffs: US Postal Service halts China and Hong Kong parcels. BBC News. [online] 5 Feb. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w83x38zvwo [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

United States Department of State. (2023). China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet). [online] United States Department of State. Available at: https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/china/.

United States Department of State. (2025). Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Fact Sheet - United States Department of State. [online] Available at: https://www.state.gov/office-to-monitor-and-combat-trafficking-in-persons/releases/2025/01/uyghur-forced-labor-prevention-act-uflpa-fact-sheet.

UYGHUR TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT. (2021). Available at: https://uyghurtribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Uyghur-Tribunal-Summary-Judgment-9th-Dec-21.pdf.

Walk Free. (2024). Australia needs stronger modern slavery laws to protect workers and businesses. [online] Available at: https://www.walkfree.org/news/2024/australia-needs-stronger-modern-slavery-laws-to-protect-workers-and-businesses/ [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

www.parl.ca. (n.d.). S-211 (44-1) - LEGISinfo - Parliament of Canada. [online] Available at: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-211 [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025].

Zak Stambor (2025). Amazon pushes vendors to stop selling on Temu. [online] EMARKETER. Available at: https://www.emarketer.com/content/amazon-pushes-vendors-stop-selling-temu [Accessed 10 Feb. 2025]

(Feb 2025)