WRITTEN EVIDENE SUBMITTED BY WALK FREE

(FLS0064)

ANNEX A

I.                      Summary

Despite introducing the Modern Slavery Act (UK MSA) in 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) now lags behind global efforts to combat forced labour in supply chains. While peer nations like France,1 Germany,2 and Norway3 have implemented mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (mHRDD)

legislation, and the European Union (EU) has adopted its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive4 (CSDDD), the UK's regulatory framework remains largely unchanged. The UK also stands apart from its major trading partners in lacking an import ban on products made with forced labour, which both the United States5 and EU6 have implemented.

This regulatory gap is particularly concerning given the UK's significant exposure to forced labour risks through its global supply chains. The 2023 Global Slavery Index reveals that the UK imports over US$26 billion worth of goods from just five high-risk sectors: electronics, garments, palm oil,

solar panels, and textiles.7 With nearly two-thirds of all forced labour cases linked to global supply chains, 8 the UK's position as a major G20 economy means it has both the responsibility and

capability to drive meaningful change. The UK's purchasing practices and business operations have substantial influence over working conditions in lower-income countries, making strong regulatory action not just desirable but essential for advancing human rights in global commerce.

1 Loi n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d'ordre. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000034290626/. [12 February 2025].

2 Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains 2021, Germany. Available from:

https://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Internationales/act-corporate-due-diligence-obligations-supply- chains.pdf? blob=publicationFile&v=3 [13 February 2025].

3 Norwegian Transparency Act, 2022. Norway. Available from:

https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/c33c3faf340441faa7388331a735f9d9/transparency-act-english- translation.pdf [13 February 2025].

4 European Union 2024, Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 February 2024 on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937. Official Journal of the European Union, L 454/1. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj [13 February 2025].

5 Tariff Act of 1930, s. 307 (US); Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, Public Law 117-28, 2021 (US).

6 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, 2024, Brussels. Available from: https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3015/oj/eng. [11 February 2024].

7 Walk Free 2023, Global Slavery Index. Available from: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/.[12 February 2025]. Available from: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/.[12 February 2025].

8 International Labour Organization (ILO), Walk Free, and International Organization for Migration (IOM) 2022, Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage. Available from:

https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global-estimates-of-modern-slavery-2022/. [10 February

II.                   Responses to Committee questions

Legislative Framework

1.  Are the obligations created by the Modern Slavery Act 2015 effective in preventing goods with international supply chains linked to forced labour being sold on the UK market? If not, what changes are needed to prevent goods linked to forced labour from being sold in the UK market?

The UK MSA was groundbreaking when introduced in 2015 and aimed to combat human trafficking, forced labour, and other forms of exploitation. Now, a decade since the law came into force, it is evident that the UK MSA has not kept pace with the evolving global frameworks. Several limitations undermine its effectiveness in preventing the sale of goods linked to forced labour in the UK market, including:

• The minimum requirements are light touch– companies are only required to describe what actions they have taken regarding modern slavery in their supply chains, with nothing

pertaining to the quality and effectiveness of the measures taken. This descriptive approach means that companies can technically comply with the law while taking minimal (if any) substantive action.

• Lack of effective enforcement mechanisms - with no penalties for non-compliance, the ability of the UK MSA to act as a deterrent against business malpractice is significantly reduced.
• Gaps in broader legal framework - there is no explicit ban on selling goods made with forced labour to supplement the UK MSA nor are companies required to map their supply chains or verify labour conditions. This means goods made with forced labour can easily be imported and sold on the UK market.

Since 2016, the cross-sectoral analysis of company compliance with the UK MSA through our Beyond Compliance project reveals deeply concerning patterns in corporate reporting standards:9

• Only 41% of companies assessed10 provide any supply chain transparency

9 Walk Free and Wikirate 2025, Beyond Compliance Data Dashboard, Wikirate. Available from: https://beyondcompliance.wikirate.org/dashboard/all-sectors. [12 February 2025].

10 Total of 1,819 UK MSA statements assessed across the following sectors: electronics, financial, food and beverage, garment, hospitality, renewable energy.

• Just 38% identify potential supply chain risks
• Only 54% of companies report having risk management procedures
• Only 43% disclose having remediation policies for modern slavery incidents

These statistics highlight the inadequacy of business efforts to meaningfully address forced labour risks, suggesting that the current legislative framework is failing to drive the necessary changes in business practices and supply chain management.

The UK government has yet to fully deliver on the commitments it made in 2020 following its consultation on the transparency in supply chains provisions of the UK MSA.11 These commitments included mandating specific reporting areas for Section 54 statements, publishing new guidance, establishing a single reporting deadline, and considering enforcement options—none of which have been fully implemented. In its 2024 response to the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act Committee, the government reiterated several of these measures as part of its goal to make the UK MSA "world-leading again”.12 Stakeholders have also requested official guidance tailored to

particular cohorts, such as investors, and specific guidance on high-risk sectors in domestic and international supply chains.13 This would bring greater clarity to a broad swathe of relevant actors.

Beyond implementing these commitments and providing guidance, the UK government should enact new due diligence obligations that go beyond reporting, develop and enforce effective enforcement mechanisms, and provide increased resources to implement and monitor its response to exploitation in business operations and supply chains. The UK government can refer to established and emerging international standards as guides for improvements to the UK MSA. For example, France, Norway and Germany have all passed domestic laws based on core aspects of the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) to better incorporate business and human rights protections, including the requirement for businesses above a certain size to conduct mandatory human rights due diligence in their operations and supply chains.14 The 2017 Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law in

11 UK Home Office 2020, Transparency in supply chains consultation: Government response Available from:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f69c90ed3bf7f723e21c152/Government_response_to_transparency_in_ supply_chains_consultation_21_09_20.pdf [12 February 2025].

12 UK Home Office, 2024. Government response to House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, Report of Session 2024-25 The Modern Slavery Act 2015: Becoming World-Leading Again. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675b160b348e10a16975a419/E03257966_-

_CP_1216_Gov_resp_world_leading_again_Web_Accessible.pdf [12 February 2025].

13 For example, farming, hospitality, construction, manufacturing, electronics, renewables, and care sector.

14 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre 2025, Mandatory due diligence. Available from: https://www.business- humanrights.org/en/big-issues/governing-business-human-rights/mandatory-due-diligence/ [12 February 2025].

France is the longest standing of such laws, and an empirical study of its impact demonstrated a positive shift in behaviour in relation to both reporting and corporate human rights practices.15

2.  How effective is other UK domestic legislation in preventing goods with international supply chains linked to forced labour entering the UK market? Are there any gaps? If so, what legislative improvements could be made?

The UK’s Public Procurement Act 2023 (Procurement Act)16 represents an important shift in the government’s approach to tackling forced labour through procurement policy and we welcome regulation in this space.

The expansion of the legislation’s exclusion criteria to apply to suppliers’ subcontractors, onward suppliers, and other “associated persons”, recognises that forced labour risks increase as supply chains deepen yet suppliers and activities beyond Tier 1 often escape scrutiny. This amendment, together with the creation of a centrally managed debarment list, are welcome additions to the UK’s legal framework combating modern slavery as these measures will motivate suppliers to actively scrutinise and manage their supply chains, while also enhancing transparency and information sharing.

While we will not know the impact of the Procurement Act until after its commencement in late February 2025, one key limitation is its reliance on criminal convictions as a basis for mandatory exclusion grounds in section 57.17 This does not reflect the reality that modern slavery crimes are often hidden within global supply chains, and where there are prosecutions, they rarely result in successful convictions. Allowing decision-makers to consider interim orders granted under section 21 of the UK MSA as potential discretionary exclusion grounds is a welcome addition, as those orders are made in advance of convictions being handed down.18 However, we urge the UK government to further consult with survivor, frontline, and legal experts to ascertain what other grounds may exist in practice which are not reliant on legal proceedings, to ensure the debarment regime comprehensively responds to modern slavery risks.

15 Shift 2019, Reporting et droits de l'homme en France. Available at: https://shiftproject.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/12/HR-reporting-FRLANGv2-1.pdf. [10 February 2025].

16 Procurement Act 2023 (United Kingdom).

17 As above, Schedule 6 [23-25].

18 As above, Schedule 7[1]; Modern Slavery Act 2015 (United Kingdom), sec. 21.

Further, we encourage a stronger focus on prevention by embedding the supplementary guidance on tackling modern slavery in government supply chains19 under the Procurement Act’s learning modules.20 This type of guidance enhances consistent decision-making across different public bodies and establishes clear expectations for suppliers about the standards they need to meet.

3.  Recent case law against the National Crime Agency suggests that British authorities and courts can have a role in addressing instances of forced labour in supply chains occurring outside the UK. What impact is this development likely to have on the way that companies consider the risk of forced labour and human rights in their supply chains, for example which suppliers they choose?

World Uyghur Congress, R (on the application of) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715 (National Crime Agency) has established an important precedent regarding the UK’s jurisdiction over forced labour in international supply chains, particularly for companies operating in or sourcing from high-risk regions.21 This could trigger changes to corporate risk assessment and due diligence practices, as companies may look to enhance their supply chain auditing, mapping, and transparency processes to demonstrate proactive compliance efforts. Given this shift in the legal landscape, companies must be more cautious about sourcing from high-risk regions.

While this may have similar impacts on businesses as the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFPLA),22 it should not be seen as a substitute for direct import controls. The

National Crime Agency development operates by working through proceeds of crime legislation and will be enforced reactively. Import controls are stronger prevention methods as they stop

products made with forced labour at the border before they enter the market. Additionally, import controls provide clearer compliance requirements for businesses, and better align with international approaches. Given the risk of future legislation overturning case law due to the

principle of parliamentary sovereignty,23 we recommend the UK government enact and enforce a

19 UK Government, 2024. PPN 02/23 - Tackling Modern Slavery in Government Supply Chains – Guidance. Available from: [13 February 2025].

20 UK Government, 2024. Transforming Public Procurement Learning Manual. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66b24baf0808eaf43b50de08/CCS0524204542- 001_Transforming_public_procurement_Combined 3_.pdf [13 February 2025].

21 World Uyghur Congress, R (on the application of) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715.

22 Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, Public Law 117-28, 2021 (US).

23 University College London, n.d. “The Constitution Unit”, UCL. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/. [12 February 2025]; n.d., “Parliament's authority,” UK Parliament. Available from:

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/. [12 February 2025].

statutory import ban.

4.  What international legal obligations does the UK have in relation to forced labour in supply chains? Is the UK’s current domestic approach compliant with those obligations?

The UK has made several commitments to international conventions to further business and human rights practices and safeguard against forced labour in supply chains.24 For example, the government has ratified core UN and International Labour Organization (ILO) treaties that oblige members to combat forced labour, including:

• ILO Forced Labour Convention No. 29 (1930)
• ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (1957)
• UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol, 2000)
• ILO Protocol to the Forced Labour Convention (2014)

While many of these international human rights obligations have been transposed into domestic law,25 certain gaps remain. For example, while the UK MSA includes defense provisions for

trafficking victims, it lacks explicit statutory protection to fully implement the non-punishment

principle. The current framework relies heavily on prosecutorial discretion and requires victims to prove a direct connection between their trafficking and any offenses committed. This approach

leaves some victims vulnerable to prosecution for actions committed under coercion, particularly when their victim status is not identified early in the criminal justice process.26 The UK has also yet to ratify the ILO Domestic Workers Convention (2011), which would establish crucial labour protections for one of the most vulnerable worker groups.

As a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the UK is also required to implement the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprise on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guidelines). This framework, and together with the ILO Protocol to the Forced

24Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office 2024, 2023 UK Annual Report on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights for Businesses Operating in Complex or Fragile Environments. Available from:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/663b48d24d8bb7378fb6c376/2023_voluntary_princibles_initiative_annu al_report.pdf. [12 February 2025].

25 As above.

26 Jovanovic, M. & Niezna, M., 2023, Non-Punishment of Victims/Survivors of Human Trafficking in Practice: A Case Study of the United Kingdom https://rm.coe.int/non-punishment-of-victims-survivors-of-human-

trafficking-in-practice-a/1680ac86f4 [14 February 2025].

Labour Convention (2014), calls for states and businesses to, among other aspects, carry out risk- based due diligence to identify, prevent, and address human rights risks such as forced labour in supply chains,27 but as yet the UK has failed to enact mandatory human rights due diligence requirements. Further, the UNGPs are the authoritative international standard for addressing business-related human rights risks. While the UNGPs are a non-binding treaty, they provide an overarching framework to assist the UK in their response, including tackling forced labour in supply chains.

5.  What, if any, obligations does international law place on corporations when it comes to forced labour in their supply chains? Are these obligations effective?

The UNGPs and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct are authoritative international standards for addressing business-related human rights risks. The OECD Guidelines reflect the UNGPs, calling on businesses to respect human rights, and to ensure access to effective remedy for impacted workers. Both frameworks set out a blueprint to achieve this, however as they are non-binding obligations for businesses, they demonstrate limited effectiveness in improving corporate accountability for human rights abuses.28 For the required shifts in business practices to occur, reforms that bring the UNGPs into domestic legal frameworks are needed.

Across Europe, there is a shift to more robust and rigorous due diligence obligations as shown by the passing of the European Commission’s CSDDD in 2024, which countries will soon transpose into national laws. In 2024, the European Commission also adopted regulations prohibiting

products in the EU market that are made using forced labour, which will apply three years after the date of entry into force.29 The UK must follow suit or else risk becoming a safe haven for goods

made with forced labour, including those soon to be rejected entry to the EU markets due to the bloc’s comprehensive due diligence regime.

27 OECD 2023, Recommendation of the Council on the Role of Government in Promoting Responsible Business Conduct.

Available from: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0486 [12 February 2025]

28 World Benchmarking Alliance 2024, 90% of world’s 2,000 most influential companies failing to ensure human rights,

decent work and ethical conduct. Available from: https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/news/social-benchmark- press-release-2024/ [12 February 2025].

29 The European Parliament, 2024. Regulation on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/193. Available from: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-67-2024- INIT/en/pdf [12 February 2025].

6.  Where should the responsibility lie for preventing products linked to forced labour from entering the British market? E.g. government, regulation, business, consumers, others?

The complexity of eradicating modern slavery in global supply chains requires collaboration among government, regulators, business, investors and consumers. Both business and government must take responsibility for ensuring these goods do not enter the UK market. We urge the UK government to supplement reporting requirements with robust laws that require companies to proactively identify, prevent and address forced labour risks, as well as mechanisms to prevent imports of goods that are linked to forced labour.

Government

As noted in responses to Questions 4 and 5 above, the UK government must pass legislation requiring businesses to conduct human rights due diligence on operations and supply chains that transit or end in the UK. This will ensure businesses examine their supply chains in sufficient detail to effectively identify, prevent, and address modern slavery risks.

The UK government should consider implementing forced labour import bans that afford relevant agencies the power to withhold products produced with forced labour, as evidence suggests import bans can improve corporate behaviour in the short-term.30 Longitudinal studies are required to examine the longer-term impact of import bans on corporate behaviour. Since the closure of a

loophole in 2016, the US Tariff Act (1930) allows US Customs and Border Protection agents to issue Withhold Release Orders (WRO) to stop products made with forced labour from entering the US market.31 Notably, WROs can be modified if the importer can demonstrate they took action to

address forced labour risks and provided effective remedies. Similar import bans have since been adopted by other countries, including Canada and Mexico, and by the European Union. While

evidence on the impact of such measures on improving worker conditions is mixed to date,32 it is likely that the effectiveness of forced labour import bans will be greater when more countries

30 Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre 2021, Policy brief: Effectiveness of forced labour import bans. Available at: https://modern-slavery.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/downloads/ImportBans_briefing- updated-final.pdf?dm=1639503511. [10 February 2025].

31 U.S. Customs and Border Protection 2025, Forced Labor. Available from: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/forced-labor [12 February 2025].

32 Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre 2021, Policy brief: Effectiveness of forced labour import bans, p. 7. Available at: https://modern-slavery.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/downloads/ImportBans_briefing- updated-final.pdf?dm=1639503511. [10 February 2025].

implement similar measures, incentivising more businesses to improve practices to regain and maintain access to markets around the world.

In principle, both mandatory human rights due diligence laws and forced labour import ban laws complement one another and can work in tandem. Where mandatory human rights due diligence laws are intended to improve business practices to proactively identify, prevent, and address human rights risks in operations supply chains, forced labour import ban laws are a more reactive mechanism that impose restrictions on a particular business, product, or geographic region until the harm is eliminated and remediated.33

Investors

Investors may be exposed to human rights abuses through their shareholdings, direct operations, and supply chains. Through this exposure, investors have a responsibility to respect human rights and ensure that such abuses are identified, prevented and addressed.34 Further, investors have significant leverage to influence business behaviour toward effectively managing human rights risks and addressing abuses. Examples of this leverage include engaging investee companies to improve practices and accountability, and escalating this engagement where required.

In addition to the human rights impacts, modern slavery is a financially material issue for investors. There are growing legal, reputational and financial risks for both business and investors if modern slavery risks are not managed effectively.35 Businesses that effectively identify and respond to human rights risks and abuses are seen to be more competitive, less volatile and risky, and are ultimately more attractive long-term investments.

There are a number of collaborative investor initiatives that aim to raise awareness and engage companies to address modern slavery risks:

33 Gonzalez De Aguinaga, S 2024, Effectiveness of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in addressing modern slavery in business value chains. Modern Slavery & Human Rights Policy & Evidence Centre. Available from: https://modern-slavery.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/downloads/Updated-HRDD-

briefing.pdf?dm=1711554244 [12 February 2025].

34 Responsible Investment Association Australasia, Investor Statement in support of Human Rights. Available from: https://responsibleinvestment.org/hr-investor-statement/ [12 February 2025].

35 First Sentier MUFG Sustainable Investment Institute, Walk Free 2024, Modern Slavery & Remediation – An Investor’s Guide, pp.3. Available from: https://cdn.walkfree.org/content/uploads/2024/10/22155952/Walk-Free-SII-Modern-Slavery- and-Remediation-Investor-Guide.pdf. [12 February 2025].

• Churches, Charities and Land Authorities Find it Fix it Prevent it: comprising 65 investors with GBP15 trillion in assets under management.36
• Rathbones Votes Against Slavery: comprising 122 investors with GBP9.6 trillion in assets under management.37
• Investors Against Slavery and Trafficking Asia Pacific: comprising 51 investors (including UK- based investors) with AUD12 trillion in assets under management. 38

Large businesses

Businesses must also respect human rights by identifying, preventing, and addressing human

rights risks in their operations and supply chains, but in practice, our research shows that unless businesses are required to identify risks in their supply chains, human rights abuses such as forced labour can go undetected. Given the complexity and global nature of many supply chains, businesses struggle to single-handedly conduct risk analysis and due diligence throughout their supply chains.

Businesses are increasingly engaging in collaborative initiatives, focused on sharing knowledge and developing practical tools to identify and address human rights such as modern slavery and forced labour in supply chains. One such example is the Australian-based Human Rights Resources and

Energy Collaborative (HRREC), comprising over 30 member companies. The UK government has a crucial role to play in encouraging the growth of business collaboratives to address human rights abuses, such as by clarifying pre-competition laws.

Small to medium-sized businesses

Governments should also consider extending the scope of legal obligations to include smaller businesses. Often, modern slavery and forced labour occurs deeper in a business’s supply chain, involving smaller businesses that supply raw materials and components.

There are prominent cases involving small to medium sized companies in the UK where modern slavery has been identified. For example, one recent trafficking case involved a McDonalds

36CCLA 2024, Quarterly Bulletin 30 June 2024. Available from: https://www.ccla.co.uk/documents/caif-catholic- investment-fund-quarterly-bulletin-30-june-2024/download?inline [12 February 2025].

37Rathbones 2022, Rathbones targets modern slavery for third year with biggest collaborative engagement yet. Available

from:   https://www.rathbones.com/knowledge-and-insight/responsible-investment/rathbones-targets-modern-slavery-             

third-year-biggest-collaborative-engagement [12 February 2025].

38Investors Against Slavery and Trafficking Asia Pacific 2024, Annual Report 2023-2024. Available from:

https://cdn.iastapac.org/content/uploads/2024/11/12001957/IAST-APAC-annual-report-2024.pdf. [12 February 2025].

franchise (Caxton) and two bread factories that allegedly supplied large UK supermarket chains highlights that scrutiny should not be determined by the size of the company.39 For the majority of the time the abuses occurred, the private companies that owned McDonalds Caxton and the two bread factories were not in-scope of section 54 of the UK MSA.

Enforcement

7.  In the UK, there are three public bodies which may potentially have a role in addressing goods linked to forced labour: the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, National Crime Agency, and Border Force.

a.  What role does each body play in detecting and preventing goods produced using forced labour being available on the UK market?

The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC) serves as an advisor to the UK government, monitoring the national response to modern slavery and recommending improvements. This includes advocating for stronger measures to prevent goods produced with forced labour from entering the UK market and engaging with civil society, law enforcement, local government, devolved administrations, health authorities, regulators, businesses, and international partners.40 In its most recent strategic plan, the IASC has highlighted strengthening of the UK’s policy response to forced labour both domestically and globally, including advocating for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation and working with businesses to improve compliance with the UK MSA as priorities.41 While the IASC plays a critical role in shaping policy, it does not have enforcement powers.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) focuses on serious and organised crime, including human trafficking and forced labour networks. As the UK’s lead agency in modern slavery investigations, the NCA targets criminal groups involved in forced labour, working closely with law enforcement partners worldwide. 42 While its operations may include cases linked to exploitative labour practices, the NCA

39Boggan, S 2025, ‘How a McDonald’s and a bread factory ended up employing slaves’, The Sunday Times. Available from: https://www.thetimes.com/article/8bfb8ef6-ffef-4624-921d-

9ba21b9c25c1?shareToken=604a5abbaae3a4b0c91eb2198492c09e [12 February 2025].

40 Modern Slavery Act 2015 (United Kingdom), Part 4.

41 IASC Strategic plan 2024-2026. Available at: https://antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/media/s0gjtqbx/e03284260_iasc- strategic-plan-24-26_web-accessible_v2.pdf. [7 February 2025].

42 National Crime Agency, n.d., “Modern slavery and human trafficking - National Crime Agency”. Available at:

https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/modern-slavery-and-human-trafficking.  [7  February

2025].

does not directly monitor supply chains or prevent products made with forced labour from entering the UK market.

The enforcement of imported goods linked to forced labour falls under Border Force and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Border Force is responsible for customs enforcement and import regulations, including identifying potential indicators of modern slavery and the UK border.43 It works with other UK agencies, such as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA), HMRC, and NCA, to share intelligence.44 Border Force officers are trained to identify potential indicators of modern slavery and forced labour during their border control and customs inspection duties. As expanded on below in Part B, while Border Force have the legal authority to detain suspicious goods, the UK currently lacks the legal framework to systematically prevent the import of goods linked to forced labour. 45

b.  Do these bodies have sufficient powers? If not, what other powers should they have?

The IASC's role is limited to advisory functions, and it lacks enforcement powers.46 The IASC should have enhanced coordination powers to support and facilitate joint investigations between relevant law enforcement agencies, while maintaining its strategic independent oversight role. The Commissioner should also have strengthened monitoring powers regarding supply chain transparency, including the ability to formally assess business compliance with the UK MSA and make binding recommendations for public procurement practices, complementing the GLAA's existing investigative authority over forced labour violations. As an independent role, IASC is impartial and non-political, making it well-suited to engage with both businesses and government agencies.

Border Force currently lacks the legal authority to seize or block the import of goods linked to forced labour, as the UK have not yet introduced a forced labour import ban, similar to the US or Canada. If such legislation was enacted, Border Force would require expanded enforcement powers, as well as

43 Border Force 2020, “Who we are”, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/border- force/about#who-we-are. [7 February 2025].

44 MI5 n.d., “Partnerships”, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/about-us/partnerships. [7 February 2025].

45 National Crime Agency, n.d., “Modern slavery and human trafficking - National Crime Agency”. Available at:

https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/modern-slavery-and-human-trafficking.  [7  February             

2025].

46 IASC n.d., “About Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner”. Available at:

https://www.antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/about/ [7 February 2025].

improved access to intelligence and supply chain data. Collaboration with whistleblowers, civil society, and survivor networks would strengthen its ability to identify goods linked to forced labour aligning with successful U.S. enforcement models. 47

The NCA does not currently investigate and prevent the import of goods made with forced labour, as this responsibility does not fall under its mandate. The NCA’s failure to investigate imports linked to the Uyghur forced labour case highlights the urgent need to clarify the NCA’s mandate to act,48 particularly in relation to Border Force.

Border Force and the NCA play a specific role in preventing forced labour goods from entering the UK market. However, instances often go undetected leaving gaps in supply chain accountability and worker protections.49 This led to calls for a Single Enforcement Body (SEB) to streamline efforts, deliver enforcement results and improve intelligence sharing. SEB is said to tackle noncompliance within supply chains, strengthen oversight and create clearer routes for victim support.50 The government has proposed the Fair Work Agency (FWA) as the new SEB to oversee labour abuses, including aspects of the UK MSA.51 However, we have concerns about whether it is the best fit for this role. The agency’s primary focus will be on employment rights enforcement (as established through the Employment Rights Bill), which differs from the complex nature of modern slavery. Unlike specialised bodies such as the GLAA, the FWA may lack the necessary investigative powers, expertise, and resources to tackle forced labour effectively. There is also a risk that modern slavery enforcement could be deprioritised under the FWA’s broader mandate. A more specialised approach is needed to ensure effective enforcement, with clear mandates for each public body.

c.   How could these agencies work together most effectively?

47 The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Setting the scene for an effective forced labour ban in the EU, pp.13. Available from: https://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/document/SETTING THE SCENE FOR AN EFFECTIVE FORCED LABOUR BAN IN THE EU_accessible.pdf. [13 February 2025].

48 As above.

49A Single Enforcement Body: What an effective Single Enforcement Body looks like, 2023 Focus on Labour Exploitation. Available at: https://labourexploitation.org/app/uploads/2023/12/FLEX-Single-Enforcement-Body-Briefing-2023.pdf. [12 February 2025]

50 GOV UK 2021, "Good work plan: Establishing a new single enforcement body for employment rights", GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/good-work-plan-establishing-a-new-single-enforcement-body-for- employment-rights. [12 February 2025]

51 UK Home Office, 2024. Government response to House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, Report of             

Session 2024-25 The Modern Slavery Act 2015: Becoming World-Leading Again. Available from:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675b160b348e10a16975a419/E03257966_-

_CP_1216_Gov_resp_world_leading_again_Web_Accessible.pdf. [12 February 2025].

Public bodies could improve interagency collaboration by establishing a dedicated Forced Labour Enforcement Task Force, modelled after the US Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), which oversees enforcement of the UFLPA. 52 A UK task force could enhance intelligence-sharing, clarify agency responsibilities, streamline enforcement efforts, and improve cross-agency coordination to prevent goods made from forced labour from entering the UK market. Findings from this task force should be used to inform IASC-led advocacy and policy recommendations, ensuring that enforcement strategies align with international best practices and UK legal obligations.

Corporate activity

8.  Are any sectors serving the UK market at particular risk of forced labour in their international supply chains?

Walk Free’s Global Slavery Index 2023 (GSI) found that the UK imported US$26.1 billion worth of products at risk of being made using forced labour in 2021. The sectors with the highest value of at- risk products are electronics, garments, fish, textiles and timber. The electronics industry is particularly susceptible to forced labour in the extraction of raw materials and the manufacturing of components.

9.  Should companies of all sizes be required to manage the risk of forced labour in their supply chains? How could such an obligation be delivered in a manner which is proportionate to a company’s exposure to forced labour risks, number of employees, and annual turnover?

52 FLETF: Homeland security U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Available at: https://www.dhs.gov/forced-labor-             

enforcement-task-force. [7 February 2025].

53 Walk Free 2023, Modern slavery in United Kingdom 2023, Minderoo Foundation. Available at:

https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/united-kingdom/. [7 February 2025].

Companies of every size can face significant forced labour risks in their operations and supply chains. The recent human trafficking case involving workers at McDonald's in Cambridgeshire demonstrates how traffickers can exploit gaps in oversight and take advantage of the lower level of scrutiny applied to small businesses, even when they operate as franchises of major global brands.54

While small businesses may lack the resources required to conduct comprehensive supplier due diligence, they must stay aligned and engaged in broader supply chain initiatives and identify appropriate ways to minimise harmful practices. This is essential for smaller suppliers to stay

competitive and commercially viable as big business increasingly expect improved practices in this area.55 Practical ways to support small businesses to implement better practices include:

• Providing access to shared resources and tools for supplier risk assessments
• Offering industry-specific guidance on identifying forced labour indicators
• Delivering training on effective supplier engagement and monitoring
• Developing templates for supplier codes of conduct and contracts
• Connecting them to industry initiatives to increase collective leverage

We recommend a proportionate approach focused on risk exposure rather than company size alone. Businesses that are more likely to encounter forced labour – like direct importers,

franchises, or those working in sectors known for exploitation – need stronger checks and support. Further, support systems and oversight could be scaled according to these risk factors, ensuring that even smaller enterprises have the tools and resources needed to prevent forced labour in their operations.

10.  What could be done to improve corporations’ ability to identify forced labour risks in supply chains, and select suppliers that meet government’s expectations?

Corporations would benefit from improved access to resources, data, and expertise to strengthen their risk identification capabilities. The UK government could:

• Deploy modern slavery experts to develop model supplier questionnaire and evaluation tools for adoption by corporations

54 Milner, L, 2024, ‘Gang jailed over shocking McDonald’s slavery case,’ BBC, 5 October. Available from:             

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99v7vzzr8vo. [12 February 2025]

55 Dun & Bradstreet, 2004, Supplier due diligence: Best practices for small and medium enterprises. Available from:

https://dnb.com.eg/supplier-due-diligence-best-practices-for-small-and-medium-enterprises/. [12 February 2025].

• Facilitate training on modern slavery, including guidance on identifying risk indicators and implementing effective monitoring systems
• Alert businesses about high-risk regions and documented cases of forced labour
• Issue regular updates about corporate accountability cases for education and risk management purposes
• Support industry-wide initiatives that enable companies to freely share learnings, best

practices, supplier assessment results, and grievance mechanism or worker voice models.

This collaborative approach helps to create more robust and efficient due diligence processes across supply chains56

11.  Where forced labour is a risk, what level of investigation/due diligence is it reasonable to expect from companies and public sector buyers before deciding whether to contract with suppliers?

Companies and buyers should conduct comprehensive risk assessments of prospective suppliers to understand potential exploitation risks across their operations, supply chains, and business relationships. This assessment should examine key factors including geographic location, nature of the industry or sector, typical workforce composition (such as migrant workers or temporary

labour), and the sourcing of raw materials used in production.57 Additional considerations should include the supplier's recruitment practices, use of recruitment agents, and existing labour rights protections. Companies should also assess how they might cause, contribute to, or be directly linked to potential labour exploitation through their business relationships and activities in line with the UNGPs.

12.  How can a level playing field be achieved, where companies who operate supply chains free from forced labour are not at financial disadvantage?

Levelling the playing field for ethical supply chains can be achieved by two powerful business incentives: operational predictability and supplier stability. Based on our experience and engagement with businesses, when regulatory frameworks become standardised and consistent, companies are better able to plan, allocate resources, and embed ways of working. This includes

56 Christiano P, 2023, Top 20 supply chain best practices to implement in 2025, Expert Beacon. Available from:             

https://expertbeacon.com/supply-chain-best-practices/. [12 February 2025]

57 McAdoo J 2024, Supplier risk assessments: Evaluate & manage vendor risks, iValua. Available from:

https://www.ivalua.com/blog/supplier-risk-assessment. [12 February 2025].

budgeting appropriately for compliance, hiring specialised staff, and implementing necessary monitoring systems. The UK government can support this through implementing mandatory human rights due diligence, while also providing incentives such as tax benefits or preferential treatment in public procurement for companies that maintain ethical supply chains.

Supplier stability is an equally compelling business case. Suppliers who rely on forced labour or worker exploitation typically exhibit other high-risk behaviours – informal business practices, legal non-compliance, and quality control issues. In contrast, suppliers with strong labour practices tend to demonstrate:

• Better worker retention and skills
• More reliable production schedules
• Higher product quality and consistency
• Lower risk of supply chain disruptions
• Reduced risk of reputational damage or legal issues58

Ultimately, investing in long-term relationships with ethical suppliers provides better value than seeking short-term cost advantages through suppliers with poor practices. This is particularly true when considering the hidden costs of supplier instability, quality issues, potential compliance violations, and the cost of remediation of human rights impacts and accompanying reputational damage.59

13.  How effective are the UN Guiding Principles at encouraging corporations’ consideration of the human rights impacts of business decisions? Please provide examples or evidence.

While many companies have adopted human rights policies that explicitly reference the UNGPs, the quality and depth of implementation varies. Our Beyond Compliance project60 reveals a “policy- practice gap” where there is widespread adoption of due diligence tools, but superficial

implementation. Across industries, disclosure rates of risk assessment tools, whistleblowing mechanisms, and remediation policies are generally high. However, delving deeper into these

58 Better Work 2024, The impact of better work Bangladesh: A decade‘s legacy . Available from:

https://betterwork.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Impact-of-Better-Work-Bangladesh_2014-2024.pdf . [12 February 2025].

59 Procuring*, 2024 Ethical procurement: Why corporate social responsibility (CSR) matters more than ever in 2024.

Available  from:  https://www.procuringgroup.com/knowledge-hub/ethical-procurement-why-corporate-social-             

responsibility-csr-matters-more-than-ever-in-2024. [12 February 2025]

60 Walk Free and Wikirate (2025) Beyond Compliance: data dashboard. Available from:

https://beyondcompliance.wikirate.org/dashboard/all-sectors [12 February 2025].

practices exposes significant shortcomings and questions the effectiveness of these due diligence efforts. For example, far fewer companies identify concrete modern slavery risks than those that have risk assessment tools, suggesting that companies may be conducting superficial

assessments that fail to uncover the reality of widespread issues in a high-risk industry.61 Similarly, while most companies assessed reported having remediation processes, they largely focused corrective action plans and contract termination, with few providing worker-centric remediation.

This suggests companies are primarily viewing human rights risks through the lens of business and reputational damage rather than through the perspective of potential harm to workers - an

approach that fundamentally misaligns with the worker-centric focus intended by the UNGPs.

The UNGPs have been effective in shaping legislation and regulations that then create binding obligations for companies. Examples include France's Duty of Vigilance Law, Germany's Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, and Norway's Transparency Act, all of which draw directly from UNGP

frameworks. This suggests that the UNGPs greatest impact may be indirect, by establishing global standards that are then incorporated into national legislation.

Consumer behaviour

14.  If it becomes known that a company is using or at high risk of exposure to forced labour, what impact does this have on consumer attitudes or profits? Are consumers incentivised to avoid buying products that are likely to be linked to forced labour?

Certain sectors, particularly fashion,62 electronics,63 and cocoa,64 have faced media scrutiny and

61 As above.

62 The Guardian, 2023. ‘Substantial volume’ of clothing tied to Uyghur forced labour entering EU, says study. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/substantial-volume-of-clothing-tied-to-uyghur-forced-labour-entering- eu-says-study-china [12 February 2025]; The Guardian, 2021. Top fashion brands face legal challenge over garment

workers’ rights in Asia. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jul/09/top-fashion-brands-face-legal- challenge-over-garment-workers-rights-in-asia [12 February 2025].

63 BBC News, 2024. Brazil shuts BYD factory site over 'slavery' conditions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xj9jp57r2o [12 February 2025]; The Guardian, 2021. Child labour, toxic leaks: the price we could pay for a greener future. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/03/child-labour-toxic-leaks- the-price-we-could-pay-for-a-greener-future [12 February 2025].

64 The Guardian, 2023. John Oliver on child labor in the chocolate industry: ‘It is worse than you may realize’

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/oct/30/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-chocolate-industry-child-labor.             

[12 February 2025]; The Guardian, 2021. Mars, Nestlé and Hershey to face child slavery lawsuit in US.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/12/mars-nestle-and-hershey-to-face-landmark-child-

slavery-lawsuit-in-us [12 February 2025].

consumer pressure regarding forced labour in their supply chains. This has led to some positive changes - for instance, increased supply chain transparency in the fashion industry following the Rana Plaza disaster,65 and uptake of the Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems (CLMRS) in the cocoa industry.66 However, anecdotal evidence shows that companies can be resilient in the face of human rights scandals, perhaps due to brand loyalty. For example, while Boohoo's share price dropped significantly following 2020 allegations of exploitative labour

practices, consumer sales in 2022 remained high at £1.7 billion, and the company continues to be a market leader.67

Overall, placing the burden on consumers to identify and avoid products linked to forced labour is problematic as consumers lack access to reliable supply chain information and are not necessarily informed about evolving modern slavery risks. A recent survey by KPMG found that only 33 per cent of respondents cited social responsibility as important to their purchasing decisions.68 Others find that price premiums are a leading barrier deterring consumers from buying responsible products.69 Consumer pressure alone is not sufficient to drive long-term systemic changes in corporate

behaviour. Share price volatility and investor behaviour are more powerful levers for change, especially when combined with relevant supply chain legislation.

15.  To what extent do existing transparency measures translate to accurate awareness of risk in customers?

Current transparency measures have significant limitations in increasing customer awareness of forced labour risks in supply chains. Disclosures made pursuant to the UK MSA often provide generic information that fails to give customers meaningful insight into actual risks. Our Beyond Compliance project found that only 20 per cent of statements assessed meet the basic minimum

65 Fashion United, 2024. Eleven years after Rana Plaza, where is the fashion industry in terms of transparency?. https://fashionunited.uk/news/business/eleven-years-after-rana-plaza-where-is-the-fashion-industry-in-terms-of- transparency/2024042475266. [12 February 2025].

66 International Cocoa Initiative, n.d. Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems.

https://www.cocoainitiative.org/our-work/operational-support/child-labour-monitoring-and-remediation-systems . [12

February 2025].

67 Panorama 2023, Fast fashion: Boohoo breaks promises on ethical overhaul, BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67218916. [10 February 2025].

68 KPMG 2023, Earth Day 2023 on the horizon: Consumers continue to prioritize sustainability. Available at:             

https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2023/earth-day-2023-on-horizon.pdf. [10 February 2025].

69 The Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2020. Doing well by doing right?

https://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/document/Rapport_DoingWell_tilg%C3%A6ngelig.pdf [12 February 2025].

requirements of the legislation, with many providing vague or superficial information that offers little practical value to customers trying to make informed decisions.70

The complexity of global supply chains also presents a challenge. They involve multiple tiers of suppliers across different countries, making it difficult for customers to process and understand the information even when companies provide detailed disclosures. It cannot be expected that all consumers will have the expertise or resources to understand technical supply chain terminology, identify which risks are most important for companies to be prioritising, or effectively compare

different companies' disclosures. Additionally, there is often a gap between disclosures and action. Companies may report having comprehensive policies while lacking meaningful implementation, conduct risk assessments that do not translate to effective management or identification of

incidents, or focus remediation efforts on business continuity rather than worker welfare. Relying on consumer interpretation of risk and subsequent purchasing behaviour as primary drivers of change in addressing forced labour is not an effective approach.

Procurement

16.  Does public procurement attract a higher risk of exposure to forced labour? If so, why is this the case?

Public procurement can carry a higher risk of exposure to forced labour due to the large and complex nature of government supply chains.71 When governments purchase goods and services from global supply chains they often engage with sectors or regions that are considered high-risk for forced labour, which increases potential exposure. The fragmented structure of these supply chains further complicates the situation, making oversight and due diligence more challenging. Additionally, public procurement often prioritises cost-effectiveness, which incentivises the purchase of cheaper goods and services that may have been produced under exploitative conditions, further heightening the risk of forced labour in these supply chains.